[85644] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 news
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Greb)
Fri Oct 14 23:32:08 2005
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:28:27 -0500
From: Michael Greb <michael@thegrebs.com>
To: Mike Leber <mleber@he.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0510141547120.23398-100000@ruby.he.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--KFztAG8eRSV9hGtP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 03:54:19PM -0700, Mike Leber wrote:
>=20
>=20
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > It is understandable that you charge extra for a v6-enabled port due to=
your=20
> > need to fund upgraded hardware. However, that doesn't explain why you =
don't=20
> > deliver v4 and v6 both over the same higher-priced port.
>=20
> We would be happy to do this for anybody that wants to pay for it.
>=20
> The earlier poster implied he didn't want to pay anything extra for IPv6.
You must have misread my post, I stated that we were told our bill would
be double and an additional IPv6 only drop would be needed in each
cabinet. Perhaps the sales person was wrong, but that is what we were
told and that is what I stated in my post. Due to the price being
double what it was, my employer decided it wasn't worthwhile. I imagine
that we would be willing to pay a premium for native v6 but not twice
what we are paying now.
> Mike.
Michael=20
--KFztAG8eRSV9hGtP
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDUHdb0Qbp4bPZvesRAiVPAJ9hs758tAP+S5E1zQWn2EicBJEjsQCgpY8i
/ThjyXoHzkAou63pXiR9e7c=
=wBkn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--KFztAG8eRSV9hGtP--
