[146788] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dynamic (changing) IPv6 prefix delegation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Nov 22 11:38:52 2011
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 22 Nov 2011 08:19:25 PST."
<8484B33A-061C-494F-9DEB-4F8C1F1E4204@delong.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:36:48 -0500
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1321979808_3162P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 08:19:25 PST, Owen DeLong said:
> On Nov 22, 2011, at 7:38 AM, Joel Maslak wrote:
> > Exactly. ISPs are in business to make as much money as they can - go figure.
>
> How do you make more money by refusing to meet customer requests?
>
> I could understand how it MIGHT make more money to force customers that
> want static to purchase business class, but, if you then refuse to offer
> them business class service, that doesn't sound like more money, it just
> sounds like angry customers.
A number of providers seem to be doing just fine with that business model over
on the IPv4 side of the fence. And since they're usually a near-monopoly in
their service area, angry customers aren't likely to actually vote with their
wallets. Why is there any expectation that it will be any different in the
IPv6 world?
--==_Exmh_1321979808_3162P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFOy8+gcC3lWbTT17ARAkr+AJ9NrVo1fJ/jZPFCrw56bw+8syqj0wCgj4rC
nrR2TcrS6xrA3YQT+XvLLGw=
=OY0Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1321979808_3162P--
