Re: Cogent - Google - HE Fun

[Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us>]

s/IPv6/Cogent/  :)

No one who is serious about IPv6 is single-homed to Cogent. Arguably, no 
one who is serious about "The Internet" is single-homed on either protocol.

Thus your conclusion seems to be more like wishful thinking. :)

Doug


On 03/13/2016 11:20 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> I come to the opposite conclusion - that this situation can persist with apparently no business impact to either party 
> shows that IPv6 is still unnecessary.
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>
> (Sent from my iPhone)
>
> > On Mar 13, 2016, at 7:31 AM, Dennis Burgess <dmburgess () linktechs net> wrote:
> >
> > In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices will delay IPv6 adoption.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Damien Burke [mailto:damien () supremebytes com]
> > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM
> > To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>; Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>; Dennis Burgess <dmburgess () linktechs net>
> > Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog () nanog org>
> > Subject: RE: Cogent - Google - HE Fun
> >
> > Just received an updated statement from cogent support:
> >
> > "We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates with Google as it is up to their discretion as to 
> > how they announce routes to us v4 or v6.
> >
> > Once again, apologies for any inconvenience."
> >
> > And:
> >
> > "The SLA does not cover route transit beyond our network. We cannot route to IPs that are not announced to us by the IP 
> > owner, directly or through a network peer."