[174010] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Akamai charges for IPv6 support?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ca By)
Mon Aug 18 13:30:08 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1408180907590.21663@namshub.die.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:29:58 -0700
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Aaron Hopkins <lists@die.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Aaron Hopkins <lists@die.net> wrote:
> Is it normal to bill for IPv6 service as a separate product? I was
> surprised to hear from from my Akamai rep they they do:
>
>> Hi Aaron, We can add the IPV6 service to the contract at an additional
>> cost of $XXX/month. Please let me know if you would like to go ahead with
>> the service and I can create the contract and send it for your review.
>
>
> I've been working on adding IPv6 support to my current project on my own
> time, and am now ready to enable it. But as soon as there is a recurring
> cost associated with IPv6 support, I need to be able to justify it. And I'm
> afraid that I can't currently explain a benefit of enabling IPv6 for our
> users. I'll likely end up not doing so while we're still an Akamai
> customer.
>
> It's Akamai's network, so it's their choice. But big players adding
> friction to enabling IPv6 certainly doesn't seem in everyone's best
> interests in the long-term.
>
> -- Aaron
Cloudflare has a particularly progressive approach to IPv6 and SSL /
TLS, you may want to look at them.
http://blog.cloudflare.com/eliminating-the-last-reasons-to-not-enable-ipv6
