Re: IPv6

["Nick Olsen" <nick () flhsi com>]

Ah, I'm always quick to jump to the TWT !=TWC point. As many people I talk 
to get that wrong.
But yes, Great data point. Seems like most of the bigger upstreams support 
IPv6.

Nick Olsen
Network Operations
(855) FLSPEED  x106

----------------------------------------

From: "Jon Auer" <jda () tapodi net>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 5:36 PM
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: IPv6

Good to know about TWT, and yes, I know that TWT != TWC...

Figured it was a good datapoint considering the concurrent discussion
of providers charging for v6...

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Nick Olsen <nick () flhsi com> wrote:
> TW Telecom, Not Time Warner Cable. And TW Telecom already told me it was 
a simple change order with a NRC of 25.00
> Haven't talked to cogent about it yet.
>
> Nick Olsen
> Network Operations
> (855) FLSPEED  x106
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Jon Auer" <jda () tapodi net>
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 5:19 PM
> To: nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: IPv6
>
> Technically it was a non-event.
> Layer 8 wise, they refused to turn up IPv6 without a renewal or new 
order.
> Time Warner Cable is demanding a new order and additional costs to 
support V6.
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Nick Olsen <nick () flhsi com> wrote:
> > Curious as to who is running IPv6 with TW Telecom or Cogent.
> > I'm wanting to turn up native IPv6 with them, And wanted to hear
> > thoughts/experiences.
> > I assume it should be a "non-event". We've already got a prefix from 
arin
> > that we are going to announce.
> >
> > Nick Olsen
> > Network Operations
> > (855) FLSPEED  x106