![nanog logo](/images/nanog-logo.png)
nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
From: David Sinn <dsinn () dsinn com>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 14:17:09 -0700
So this is all well and good while some measure of V6 is tunneled, but one should be wondering what these games of chicken mean to V6 when it is native. Given that most organizations won't meet the qualifications to be multi-homed, stunts like this will have a greater impact then this one is having today. Doesn't exactly leave a warm fuzzy that the current direction for IPv6 services is sane....
David On Oct 5, 2005, at 12:08 PM, eric-list-nanog () catastrophe net wrote:
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 06:01:15 -0400, Richard A Steenbergen proclaimed...I guess the earlier reports of (3)'s lack of testicular fortitude may havebeen exagerated after all. :)Luckily, many of us have ipv6 tunnels that managed to help us get aroundthis. See, ipv6 has a purpose, afterall! :-)
Current thread:
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering, (continued)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering David Barak (Oct 06)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Daniel Golding (Oct 06)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 06)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Richard A Steenbergen (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Christopher Woodfield (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Jon Lewis (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering Christopher Woodfield (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering David Sinn (Oct 05)
- Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering James (Oct 05)
- (de)peering bmanning (Oct 05)
- Re: (de)peering Pekka Savola (Oct 05)
- Re: (de)peering Robert E . Seastrom (Oct 06)
- RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering John Curran (Oct 05)
- RE: Cogent/Level 3 depeering william(at)elan.net (Oct 05)