[146791] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dynamic (changing) IPv6 prefix delegation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Nov 22 11:56:01 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <5367.1321979808@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 08:53:04 -0800
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Nov 22, 2011, at 8:36 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> 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.
>>=20
>> How do you make more money by refusing to meet customer requests?
>>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> 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?
>=20
I didn't say they wouldn't make money... I said they wouldn't make =
"MORE" money.
Owen
