IPv6 news

Thu Oct 13 20:16:07 UTC 2005

On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 08:25:05PM -0400, K. Scott Bethke wrote:
> That is not entirely the fault of the hosting companies..  Note that  
> verio, he.net, towardex, and many other progressive hosting companies  
> have been dual stack for a long time.  Perhaps the services that are  
> not able to do dual stack will vote with their wallets and either  
> move to a company who can help them with this or at least buy better  
> engineers.  Something has to sort of make them do it though, I can't  
> see united.com just coming up with this idea on their own.

I can't speak for the others but he.net doesn't seem to interested in
customers making use of their "dual stack" network.  We looked into
getting IPv6 space from them to go with our IPv4 assignments for a
couple of racks of servers in one of their datacenters.  They wanted to
double the monthly fee for data and drop a second v6 only port to our
racks, not my idea of a "dual stack network".  Needless to say, we do
not have native IPv6, a few of our customers that desired it are using
HE's free tunnel broker service though.

Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20051013/1b157001/attachment.sig>