nanog mailing list archives
Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
From: "Scott Weeks" <surfer () mauigateway com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:41:55 -0800
--- owen () delong com wrote: From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> I actually tend to doubt it. All of the people I've talked to from the major operators have said that the charges in IPv4 were not a revenue source, they were an effort to discourage the consumption of the addresses and/or the use of static addresses and to try and recover the costs of dealing with them in cases where customers were willing to pay. ------------------------------------------ Not jumping into the turd chunkin' contest, but this is not my experience. The suits definitely want the money for income stream; small as it may be. I'd like to hear from others if their experiences are different. scott
Current thread:
- Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO, (continued)
- Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO Owen DeLong (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO david raistrick (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO Owen DeLong (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO Rob Seastrom (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO Owen DeLong (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO Eric Oosting (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO Cutler James R (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO Rob Seastrom (Dec 03)
- Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO Randy Bush (Dec 02)