IPv6 news

Sat Oct 15 03:28:27 UTC 2005

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 
-------------- 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/20051014/ec9fa87e/attachment.sig>