G [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Roy
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 4:52 PM
To: nanog
Subject: IPV6 availability
Anyone know what the IPV6 availability is on Cable One or Charter
networks?
Last I heard from Charter was that they were in beta. Its been in that
state for years
4 | Cell: 314.452-4386
>Systems Engineer III, DAS DNS group
>Charter Communications
>12405 Powerscourt Drive, St. Louis, MO 63131
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Roy
>Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 4:52 P
, MO 63131
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Roy
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 4:52 PM
To: nanog
Subject: IPV6 availability
Anyone know what the IPV6 availability is on Cable One or Charter networks?
Last I heard from Charter was that
Anyone know what the IPV6 availability is on Cable One or Charter networks?
Last I heard from Charter was that they were in beta. Its been in that
state for years.
I can't find anything on Cable One
I turned up ipv6 on a 10gig in the Boston market with XO today. They'll
definitely do it, but it might take a bit of pushing on an account manager.
I've also turned up ipv6 with Level(3), and have noted the same incompleteness
of the routing table.
It will be a shame if the majority of complai
23, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Ryan Rawdon wrote:
> > I've heard some mixed reports of XO's IPv6 availability - some that they
> have full deployment/availability, but others like the answer back from our
> XO reseller that XO does not offer IPv6 on circuits under 45mbit/s.
> >
&g
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Ryan Rawdon wrote:
> I've heard some mixed reports of XO's IPv6 availability - some that they have
> full deployment/availability, but others like the answer back from our XO
> reseller that XO does not offer IPv6 on circuits under 45mbit
We have 45 Mbps from XO in our downtown Chicago location in the financial
district. We have asked for IPv6 every month for a while, and keep hearing
"maybe soon" and not much else. Unfortunately, if we can't get it in that very
competitive and dense market location, I doubt they offer it anywher
I've heard some mixed reports of XO's IPv6 availability - some that they have
full deployment/availability, but others like the answer back from our XO
reseller that XO does not offer IPv6 on circuits under 45mbit/s.
What is the experience of NANOG on this matter, particular
> > Is anyone at Level3 who is familiar with IPv6, or anyone who is a Level3
> > IPv6 customer lurking here? We are a Level3 BGP customer and our
> > contacts are giving us a deer-in-the-headlights stare when we want to
> > bring up our /32, claiming that they don't do IPv6 at all. Not native,
Level 3 provides best effort IPv6 support with no SLA to current
Internet customers. As mentioned IPv6 is currently being provided
via tunnels to the customer's existing router.
There is a simple service agreement addendum and form to fill
out for relevant config bits.
Sorry you get such a res
On Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:37:57AM -0700, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> Is anyone at Level3 who is familiar with IPv6, or anyone who is a Level3
> IPv6 customer lurking here? We are a Level3 BGP customer and our
> contacts are giving us a deer-in-the-headlights stare when we want to
> bring up our /32,
Is anyone at Level3 who is familiar with IPv6, or anyone who is a Level3
IPv6 customer lurking here? We are a Level3 BGP customer and our
contacts are giving us a deer-in-the-headlights stare when we want to
bring up our /32, claiming that they don't do IPv6 at all. Not native,
not tunneled,
On 12/10/2007, at 9:43 AM, Tony Hain wrote:
Nathan Ward wrote:
On 6/10/2007, at 3:18 AM, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
Given the above, I think there is no myth.. !
That's because the 'v6 network' is broken enough that putting
records on sites that need to be well reachable is a bad idea.
F
Tony Hain wrote:
Nathan Ward wrote:
That's because the 'v6 network' is broken enough that putting
records on sites that need to be well reachable is a bad idea.
So why didn't you put up a 6to4 router and put records in that pointed
to the 6to4 prefix for those servers?
That would
Nathan Ward wrote:
> On 6/10/2007, at 3:18 AM, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
> >
> > Given the above, I think there is no myth.. !
>
> That's because the 'v6 network' is broken enough that putting
> records on sites that need to be well reachable is a bad idea.
>
> For example, due mainly to Vista
Nathan Ward wrote:
On 6/10/2007, at 3:18 AM, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
Given the above, I think there is no myth.. !
That's because the 'v6 network' is broken enough that putting
records on sites that need to be well reachable is a bad idea.
For example, due mainly to Vista's 6to4 tunne
On 6/10/2007, at 3:18 AM, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
Given the above, I think there is no myth.. !
That's because the 'v6 network' is broken enough that putting
records on sites that need to be well reachable is a bad idea.
For example, due mainly to Vista's 6to4 tunnelling stuff (based o
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 00:18:34 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's one way to debunk the myth that IPv6 is really hard to find.
I just realized that IPv6 web sites are not being indexed by
Google. That would make IPv6 content really hard to find.
What can we do about that? Any Google people
19 matches
Mail list logo
