AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO

Ricky Beam jfbeam at gmail.com
Tue Dec 3 01:50:28 UTC 2013


On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:07:40 -0500, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> Whenever they split or combine a CMTS or head-end...

Shouldn't matter unless they're moving things across DHCP servers. (which  
is likely from what I've heard about TWC, and seen from my own modems. In  
fact, the addresses in my office changed last week; we aren't paying for  
statics.)

> I actually tend to doubt it. All of the people I've talked to from the  
> major operators have said that the charges in IPv4 were not a revenue  
> source, they were an effort to discourage the consumption of the  
> addresses and/or the use of static addresses and to try and recover the  
> costs of dealing with them in cases where customers were willing to pay.

Yeah, we all say that. *grin* But I went and looked at the numbers... it  
was several times my yearly salary, per month @ a business ISP. I would  
assume with residential, people are more cost sensitive and won't pay for  
address space they won't use. (but I know first hand that's not entirely  
true.)



More information about the NANOG mailing list