<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7638.1">
<TITLE>RE: [AusNOG] AusNOG-Chat</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I don't. None of my customers want it. I've tried everything.<BR>
<BR>
I even offered one free v6 data to convince them - the first question from the sysadmin at that organization was whether I knew of any v6-only trackers. Offer withdrawn.<BR>
<BR>
Don't misconstrue me - it's not that I don't believe address exhaustion isn't an issue or even that I'm sticking my head in the sand, it's just that I'm having a hard time justifying to both my clients and to my bank balance a solution to a problem which doesn't exist yet.<BR>
<BR>
The moment it becomes pertinent we will implement, but as it stands, I'm better off putting the money I'd spend on a v6 implementation in the bank and earning interest on it until the problem needs solving, as at this stage, it adds no value to my business.<BR>
<BR>
If anything, v6 is a problem in itself for us. My network is very content laden (and we manage a lot of hosting customers), so there's a strong chance that we'll end up sending even more traffic via transit links for domestic customers with v6 tunnels terminating in the US.<BR>
<BR>
-C<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net on behalf of Karl Kloppenborg<BR>
Sent: Wed 5/19/2010 2:50 PM<BR>
To: Mark Newton<BR>
Cc: ausnog@ausnog.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] AusNOG-Chat<BR>
<BR>
**puts hand up**<BR>
<BR>
Cheers!<BR>
Karl Kloppenborg<BR>
<BR>
P 02 8014 4253 EXT:104 | M 0438475892 | www.karltec.net<BR>
<BR>
Please consider the environment before printing this email. Think before you print.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 19/05/2010, at 14:45, Mark Newton wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> Hands up who doesn't have an IPv6 PI prefix yet?<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>