nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Confusion
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:03:28 +0100 (CET)
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Justin Shore wrote:
Adoption of IPv6 would be better in my opinion if vendors didn't force us to pay a premium to use IPv6. It's hard enough to convince management that there is a need to implement IPv6. It's even harder when you tell them how much it costs. And when they ask what they're getting for their dollars, they are none to pleased to hear that the bulk of it is going to a damn license.
Well, at least some BUs decided that IPv6 should now be included in IPBASE which lowers the cost of getting basic IPv6 routing up and running.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Confusion, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Adrian Chadd (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 17)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion David Conrad (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Kevin Oberman (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion David Conrad (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Stephen Sprunk (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Jeff S Wheeler (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion David Freedman (Feb 19)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Dave Pooser (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Justin Shore (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 18)
- Re: IPv6 Confusion Michael Thomas (Feb 18)
- RE: IPv6 Confusion Tony Hain (Feb 18)