[167161] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ricky Beam)
Mon Dec 2 20:50:44 2013
To: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:50:28 -0500
From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1B1D549D-F9A6-4928-874C-2718AD6E929A@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG List <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:07:40 -0500, Owen DeLong <owen@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.)
