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