[131690] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 =?UTF-8?B?4oCUIFVuaXF1ZSBsb2NhbCBhZGRyZXNzZXM=?=
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeroen van Aart)
Mon Nov 1 18:27:04 2010
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:26:42 -0700
From: Jeroen van Aart <jeroen@mompl.net>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <1287719514.10216.121.camel@karl>
X-Assp-Envelope-From: jeroen@mompl.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Karl Auer wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 18:48 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Uh, no... You're misreading it.
>
> Yes - I read the ISP bit, not the end user bit.
>
>> It cost me $625 (or possibly less) one-time when I first got it.
>
> That was with the waivers in force. It will soon cost a one-time US
> $1250. We could argue till the cows come home about what proportion of
> the population would consider that "prohibitive" but I'm guessing that
> even in the USA that's a heck of an entry fee, and that the vast
> majority of non-corporate end users will not be willing to pay it. Which
> is the actual point, rather than quibbling about the precise price.
That seems to be quite an argument against trying to get IPv6 GUA, or am
I missing something? In my experience companies are often too cheap to
even buy things like a software license, if the free product suffices.
Often ignoring the hidden costs of dealing with a restricted free copy.
So I'd say, that in my case, providing an internal IPv6 network for
testing purposes, does not warrant getting GUAs. Even if it technically
speaking is a "good thing", it's not likely to happen.
Regards,
Jeroen
--
http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
