That's evil.
Charge what it costs to provide each service.
If and when it costs more to provide IPv4 service (and only then), then charge
more for it.
I imagine in a few years the tradeoff: IPv6 has less connectivity (IPv4 clients
can't reach you), but IPv4 is more expensive (pay for the
On 4/28/13 3:46 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
-- for example: large Cable providers getting together and agreeing to
implement a 100ms RTT latency penalty for IPv4
we do not see intentionally damaging our customers as a big sales
feature. but we think all our competitors should do so.
This business
On 4/29/13, Jakob Heitz jakob.he...@ericsson.com wrote:
That's evil.
Charge what it costs to provide each service.
If and when it costs more to provide IPv4 service (and only then), then
charge more for it.
Which of the below do you suggest is evil? Offering an IPv6 only
service and charging
On Apr 28, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/28/13, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I don't see turning IPv4 off as a short-term goal for anyone.
OTOH, I do see the cost of maintaining residential IPv4 service escalating
over about the next 5-7 years.
Yes...
On 4/29/2013 3:19 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Depends. Unless there is sufficient mass of residential subscribers
willing to pay the premium for CGN (unlikely in my estimation), it'll
make the most sense for residential providers to simply turn off IPv4
services and tell laggard web sites like
On Apr 29, 2013, at 7:28 AM, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
On 4/29/2013 3:19 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Depends. Unless there is sufficient mass of residential subscribers willing
to pay the premium for CGN (unlikely in my estimation), it'll make the most
sense for residential
On 4/29/2013 11:11 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Best of luck with that strategy. I think this ignores the growing IPv4
demand that will be coming from your business customers and assumes
that your residential customers are all that you have to stack onto
these addresses.
The residential currently
On Apr 29, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
On 4/29/2013 11:11 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Best of luck with that strategy. I think this ignores the growing IPv4
demand that will be coming from your business customers and assumes that
your residential customers are all
On 4/29/2013 12:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
What does the CGN cost you per subscriber (equipment, additional staff, etc.?)
In my case, very little. Equipment was covered by bandwidth usage which
mandated upgrading to higher end routers that support more than I need.
It looks like my trios
On 04/29/2013 11:00 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
If the existing cards handle CGN without additional licensing, then the only
real cost is personal, my sanity, and the company need/will not factor that in.
One thing to consider is what the new support load will be from issues dealing
with CGN
Greetings NANOG community,
We have great news to report! The redeveloped NANOG website is now ready to
go live.
Thanks to the input from the community, as well as all the volunteers that
assisted from concept to completion and every step in between.
One of the primary goals of the redesign was
On 4/29/13 1:03 AM, Jérôme Nicolle jer...@ceriz.fr wrote:
Le 24/04/2013 07:46, Tore Anderson a écrit :
Trying to reclaim and redistribute unused space would be a tremendous
waste of effort.
It is necessary to keep an acceptable churn and still allocate small
blocks to newcomers, merely to
On Apr 29, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
On 4/29/13 1:03 AM, Jérôme Nicolle jer...@ceriz.fr wrote:
It is necessary to keep an acceptable churn and still allocate small
blocks to newcomers, merely to deploy CGNs.
Not doing so would end up in courts for entry barrier
Hi, Can someone from telia.net ops contact me offlist please.
thank you,
Beavis.
$ traceroute www.cnn.com
traceroute to www.cnn.com (157.166.249.11), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 190.106.69.113 (190.106.69.113) 16.792 ms 17.686 ms 18.049 ms
2 186.32.189.69 (186.32.189.69) 103.475 ms
FYI for folks that are interested:
http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-launches-ipv6-for-business-customers
John
=
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
w)
http://www.comcast6.net
Other AC members and I are in the process of crafting a proposal to address
this issue.
Please stay tuned. I hope to have something ready to post to PPML in the next
few weeks.
Owen
On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:19 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
On Apr 29, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Lee Howard
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Brzozowski, John
john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
FYI for folks that are interested:
http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-launches-ipv6-for-business-customers
hurray! how long until VZ puts out a PR note for Fios Business customers?
Thanks for all the hard work getting IPv6 deployed! I signed my company
up for the trials. Can't wait to test it out :).
I agree, I wish Verizon would wake up and announce something. It's
pretty sad that their IPv6 support page still says 3Q12 and they've yet
to say any more about their
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013, Derek Ivey wrote:
Thanks for all the hard work getting IPv6 deployed! I signed my company up
for the trials. Can't wait to test it out :).
I agree, I wish Verizon would wake up and announce something. It's pretty sad
that their IPv6 support page still says 3Q12 and
From: Derek Ivey [mailto:de...@derekivey.com]
Thanks for all the hard work getting IPv6 deployed! I signed
my company up for the trials. Can't wait to test it out :).
I agree, I wish Verizon would wake up and announce something.
It's pretty sad that their IPv6 support page still says
On 2013-04-29 15:38, Brzozowski, John wrote:
FYI for folks that are interested:
http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-launches-ipv6-for-business-customers
I hope opening up IPv6 support to Comcast's higher-end customers is an
indicator Comcast really is close to enabling IPv6
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Darren Pilgrim na...@bitfreak.org wrote:
On 2013-04-29 15:38, Brzozowski, John wrote:
FYI for folks that are interested:
http://corporate.comcast.com/**comcast-voices/comcast-**
You're the first person to suggest that kind of configuration, so thanks.
We ended up purchasing an 8-wave DWDM from our transport vendor, as it
solved the problem and gives us a path to future growth.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Jérôme Nicolle [mailto:jer...@ceriz.fr]
Sent: Monday,
On 2013-04-29 21:26, Christopher Morrow wrote:
we have always been at war with your cisco-ians...
No worries, the good folks at Hurricane Electric helped me dig a tunnel
to freedom long ago. :)
On 4/29/13, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
On Apr 29, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
On 4/29/13 1:03 AM, Jérôme Nicolle jer...@ceriz.fr wrote:
specified (based on being singly-homed or multi-homed.) These same
criteria now apply to receipt of an address block via
25 matches
Mail list logo
