<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/03/2013 10:45 p.m., Mark Newton
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:A4772FC3-AD1F-41FB-AAD3-503483756785@atdot.dotat.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't get it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Why are you people continuing to reward providers of
IPv4-only transit by giving them money?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Tunnels were a 2008 thing. Unless you're talking about
consumer broadband (which remains restrictive), there have been
so many options for dual-stack transit for so long that there's
very little excuse to not have at least ONE upstream link
running it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Probably at least one of your upstreams actually <i>does</i>
support it, but you haven't asked them to turn it on.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Aren't you building IPv6 into your purchasing decisions
anyway?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> - mark</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Sadly, transit choice isn't up to me, otherwise we'd be using
v6-capable transit providers. When we went shopping for transit,
Internode was 5 times the price of the company we went with. And no,
I've asked our upstreams. They don't have it. <br>
<br>
I've made sure our network hardware can do v6. I'm just waiting on
our upstreams. However, we do need more bandwidth, so I'm trying to
talk my bosses into a new provider (who just happens to be able to
do v6...)<br>
<br>
Matt.<br>
</body>
</html>