As I said before: Host Virtual (vr.org <http://vr.org/>) Softlayer (softlayer.com <http://softlayer.com/>) Linode (Linode.com <http://linode.com/>)
All have full dual-stack support. I’m sure there are others. Owen > On May 31, 2015, at 2:49 PM, George, Wes <wesley.geo...@twcable.com> wrote: > > > On 5/31/15, 3:11 PM, "Owen DeLong" <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >> if they said “We have a plan, and it will take X amount of time”, I would >> respect that. >> >> If they said “We have a plan and we’re not sure how long it will take”, I >> would continue to poke >> them about sooner is better than later and having a target date helps >> people to plan. >> >> “We don’t think IPv6 matters and we aren’t announcing any plans to get it >> implemented or any >> date by which it will be available”, on the other hand, being what they >> have actually repeatedly >> said to me until very recently, not so much. >> >> Now, they’re saying (essentially) “We think IPv6 might matter, but we >> aren’t announcing >> any plans to get it implemented or any date by which it will be >> available” . To me, this >> is still a problematic situation for their customers. > > At the risk of feeding the troll... > > This isn't just an AWS problem. > > "All Compute Engine networks use the IPv4 protocol. Compute Engine > currently does not support IPv6. However, Google is a major advocate of > IPv6 and it is an important future direction." > https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/networking > > > "The foundational work to enable IPv6 in the Azure environment is well > underway. However, we are unable to share a date when IPv6 support will be > generally available at this time." > > http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/faq/ > > > This is only marginally better, as it acknowledges that it's important, > but still has no actual committed timeline and doesn't even reference any > available ELB hacks. > > Anyone else want to either name and shame, or highlight cloud providers > that actually *support* IPv6 as an alternative to these so that one might > be able to vote with one's wallet? > > > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable > proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to > copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for > the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not > the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any > dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the > contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be > unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender > immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail > and any printout.
