[174013] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Akamai charges for IPv6 support?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Noam Freedman)
Mon Aug 18 14:13:13 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Noam Freedman <noam+nanog@noam.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1408180907590.21663@namshub.die.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 14:10:04 -0400
To: Aaron Hopkins <lists@die.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Aaron,
I=92ll make sure someone follows up on your ticket. To help accelerate =
overall IPv6 adoption, we stopped charging for new conversions to IPv6 =
over a year ago. Probably just some misinformation in the sales force =
from the old policy...
Feel free to reach out directly to me if you end up needing more help.
Thanks,
- Noam
On Aug 18, 2014, at 12:38 PM, 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:
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> -- Aaron
