nanog mailing list archives
Re: legacy /8
From: sthaug () nethelp no
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 16:31:25 +0200 (CEST)
Do you have an actual example of a vendor, today, charging a higher license fee for IPv6 support?Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need a quite expensive "advanced" licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is included in the base licence. Our IPv6 topology is largely based on static routes because of this. There's no customers that are willing to pay extra for IPv6 support at the moment, hence we cannot justify the extra cost of the licences. It sucks. I hope Juniper will come to their senses soon.
It used to be considerably worse. As late as May 2009, Juniper charged $10.000 (list price) for an "IPv6 Support on JunOS" on license (for high end M/MX/T series), and the same amount for an E series IPv6 license. Fortunately Juniper seems to have come to their senses here, and these licenses are now $0. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug () nethelp no
Current thread:
- Re: legacy /8, (continued)
- Re: legacy /8 Michael Dillon (Apr 03)
- RE: legacy /8 Frank Bulk (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 David Conrad (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Zaid Ali (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Owen DeLong (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Zaid Ali (Apr 04)
- RE: legacy /8 George Bonser (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Randy Bush (Apr 03)
- Re: legacy /8 Michael Dillon (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Tore Anderson (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 sthaug (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Daniel Roesen (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Randy Bush (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 David Conrad (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Christopher Morrow (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Christopher Morrow (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 joel jaeggli (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Christopher Morrow (Apr 04)
- Re: legacy /8 Franck Martin (Apr 05)
- Re: legacy /8 Randy Bush (Apr 04)
- NAT444 vs IPv6 (was RE: legacy /8) Lee Howard (Apr 07)