[174006] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Akamai charges for IPv6 support?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Clayton Zekelman)
Mon Aug 18 13:12:40 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:08:19 -0400
To: Mehmet Akcin <mehmet@akcin.net>,Aaron Hopkins <lists@die.net>
From: Clayton Zekelman <clayton@MNSi.Net>
In-Reply-To: <53f23040.c77c420a.4d8e.ffffa012@mx.google.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Just thinking aloud, they may justify it based on=20
the fact that many ISPs they have colocated=20
servers with do not support IPv6 yet, so they end=20
up having to send that traffic through more costly routes.
That argument is a bit hollow though - they=20
should be taking a leadership role in adoption,=20
rather than putting up roadblocks.
At 12:56 PM 18/08/2014, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
>I meant to ask. Did you ask akamai why they=20
>would be charging for ipv6? Is there any logical=20
>reason other than just wanting to make little=20
>more money, that makes them have to charge for ipv6?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "Aaron Hopkins" <lists@die.net>
>Sent: =E2=80=8E8/=E2=80=8E18/=E2=80=8E2014 9:53 AM
>To: "Mehmet Akcin" <mehmet@akcin.net>
>Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
>Subject: RE: Akamai charges for IPv6 support?
>
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2014, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
>
> > What did they say when you asked them(Akamai)?
>
>I quoted their response in my mail; sorry if that wasn't clear. They
>offered to enable IPv6 service for a non-trivial monthly recurring fee,
>which they offered to send me a revised contract to include.
>
> > I would imagine ipv6 to be included in price not an additional fee.
>
>I was surprised to find that wasn't the case.
>
> -- Aaron
---
Clayton Zekelman
Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
3363 Tecumseh Rd. E
Windsor, Ontario
N8W 1H4
tel. 519-985-8410
fax. 519-985-8409 =20
