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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM > To: Mark Tinka <[email protected]>; Owen DeLong <[email protected]>; Dennis > Burgess <[email protected]> > Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <[email protected]> > 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." >
