[188256] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Kaufman)
Sun Mar 13 14:20:06 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
In-Reply-To: <B542CC3757123745918E6B7E4D2EEE93D846C9@zeus.lti.local>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 11:20:03 -0700
To: Dennis Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I come to the opposite conclusion - that this situation can persist with app=
arently no business impact to either party shows that IPv6 is still unnecess=
ary.
Matthew Kaufman
(Sent from my iPhone)
> On Mar 13, 2016, at 7:31 AM, Dennis Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net> wrot=
e:
>=20
> In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices will d=
elay IPv6 adoption. =20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Damien Burke [mailto:damien@supremebytes.com]=20
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM
> To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>; Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>; Denn=
is Burgess <dmburgess@linktechs.net>
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
> Subject: RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
>=20
> Just received an updated statement from cogent support:
>=20
> "We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates with G=
oogle as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes to us v=
4 or v6.=20
>=20
> Once again, apologies for any inconvenience."
>=20
> And:
>=20
> "The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot route t=
o IPs that are not announced to us by the IP owner, directly or through a ne=
twork peer."
>=20
