Why is your company treating IPv6 turn ups as a sales matter?

Robert E. Seastrom rs at seastrom.com
Fri Nov 19 03:08:13 CST 2010

"George, Wes E [NTK]" <Wesley.E.George at sprint.com> writes:

> > Sprint and Qwest, I know you're guilty.
> Bill, I know that you mean well and you're just trying to push IPv6
> deployment, and sometimes a little public shame goes a long way, but in the
> future, before you call my company out in public with tenuous assertions
> like this, please at least try to reach out to me privately to address your
> perceived issue with the way Sprint is handling IPv6 rollout? It's not like
> I'm hard to find, even if it's a blast message to NANOG that looks like
> "Will someone with IPv6 clue at Sprint contact me?"

I totally sympathize with the "please don't bash us in public"
sentiment, but "holler on NANOG" does not scale.  If the intent is to
be selling IPv6 to the great unwashed masses (a laudable goal if you
want to continue to grow post-v4-runout), it's got to be no more
difficult than getting IPv4.  Needs to be productized in such a way
that the default case is that you get both, and if you don't turn on
the v6, well, shame on you.


More information about the NANOG mailing list