nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 news
From: Michael Greb <michael () thegrebs com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:28:27 -0500
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 03:54:19PM -0700, Mike Leber wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Stephen Sprunk wrote:It is understandable that you charge extra for a v6-enabled port due to your need to fund upgraded hardware. However, that doesn't explain why you don't deliver v4 and v6 both over the same higher-priced port.We would be happy to do this for anybody that wants to pay for it. The earlier poster implied he didn't want to pay anything extra for IPv6.
You must have misread my post, I stated that we were told our bill would be double and an additional IPv6 only drop would be needed in each cabinet. Perhaps the sales person was wrong, but that is what we were told and that is what I stated in my post. Due to the price being double what it was, my employer decided it wasn't worthwhile. I imagine that we would be willing to pay a premium for native v6 but not twice what we are paying now.
Mike.
Michael
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 news, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael Greb (Oct 13)
- RE: IPv6 news K. Scott Bethke (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 news Mike Leber (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Sam Hayes Merritt, III (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Mike Leber (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Stephen Sprunk (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Mike Leber (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael Greb (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news David Conrad (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Steven M. Bellovin (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 news Randy Bush (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 news Brandon Ross (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 news Bjørn Mork (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Geoff Huston (Oct 14)