Is it normal to bill for IPv6 service as a separate product? I was surprised to hear from from my Akamai rep they they do:
Hi Aaron, We can add the IPV6 service to the contract at an additional cost of $XXX/month. Please let me know if you would like to go ahead with the service and I can create the contract and send it for your review.
I've been working on adding IPv6 support to my current project on my own time, and am now ready to enable it. But as soon as there is a recurring cost associated with IPv6 support, I need to be able to justify it. And I'm afraid that I can't currently explain a benefit of enabling IPv6 for our users. I'll likely end up not doing so while we're still an Akamai customer. It's Akamai's network, so it's their choice. But big players adding friction to enabling IPv6 certainly doesn't seem in everyone's best interests in the long-term. -- Aaron
What did they say when you asked them(Akamai)? I would imagine ipv6 to be included in price not an additional fee. -----Original Message----- From: "Aaron Hopkins" <lists@die.net> Sent: 8/18/2014 9:38 AM To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Akamai charges for IPv6 support? Is it normal to bill for IPv6 service as a separate product? I was surprised to hear from from my Akamai rep they they do:
Hi Aaron, We can add the IPV6 service to the contract at an additional cost of $XXX/month. Please let me know if you would like to go ahead with the service and I can create the contract and send it for your review.
I've been working on adding IPv6 support to my current project on my own time, and am now ready to enable it. But as soon as there is a recurring cost associated with IPv6 support, I need to be able to justify it. And I'm afraid that I can't currently explain a benefit of enabling IPv6 for our users. I'll likely end up not doing so while we're still an Akamai customer. It's Akamai's network, so it's their choice. But big players adding friction to enabling IPv6 certainly doesn't seem in everyone's best interests in the long-term. -- Aaron
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
What did they say when you asked them(Akamai)?
I quoted their response in my mail; sorry if that wasn't clear. They offered to enable IPv6 service for a non-trivial monthly recurring fee, which they offered to send me a revised contract to include.
I would imagine ipv6 to be included in price not an additional fee.
I was surprised to find that wasn't the case. -- Aaron
I meant to ask. Did you ask akamai why they would be charging for ipv6? Is there any logical reason other than just wanting to make little more money, that makes them have to charge for ipv6? -----Original Message----- From: "Aaron Hopkins" <lists@die.net> Sent: 8/18/2014 9:53 AM To: "Mehmet Akcin" <mehmet@akcin.net> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: RE: Akamai charges for IPv6 support? On Mon, 18 Aug 2014, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
What did they say when you asked them(Akamai)?
I quoted their response in my mail; sorry if that wasn't clear. They offered to enable IPv6 service for a non-trivial monthly recurring fee, which they offered to send me a revised contract to include.
I would imagine ipv6 to be included in price not an additional fee.
I was surprised to find that wasn't the case. -- Aaron
Just thinking aloud, they may justify it based on the fact that many ISPs they have colocated servers with do not support IPv6 yet, so they end up having to send that traffic through more costly routes. That argument is a bit hollow though - they should be taking a leadership role in adoption, rather than putting up roadblocks. At 12:56 PM 18/08/2014, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
I meant to ask. Did you ask akamai why they would be charging for ipv6? Is there any logical reason other than just wanting to make little more money, that makes them have to charge for ipv6?
-----Original Message----- From: "Aaron Hopkins" <lists@die.net> Sent: â8/â18/â2014 9:53 AM To: "Mehmet Akcin" <mehmet@akcin.net> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: RE: Akamai charges for IPv6 support?
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
What did they say when you asked them(Akamai)?
I quoted their response in my mail; sorry if that wasn't clear. They offered to enable IPv6 service for a non-trivial monthly recurring fee, which they offered to send me a revised contract to include.
I would imagine ipv6 to be included in price not an additional fee.
I was surprised to find that wasn't the case.
-- Aaron
--- Clayton Zekelman Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi) 3363 Tecumseh Rd. E Windsor, Ontario N8W 1H4 tel. 519-985-8410 fax. 519-985-8409
Luckily, there are a lot better CDNs out there with better features and pricing :) On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Aaron Hopkins <lists@die.net> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
What did they say when you asked them(Akamai)?
I quoted their response in my mail; sorry if that wasn't clear. They offered to enable IPv6 service for a non-trivial monthly recurring fee, which they offered to send me a revised contract to include.
I would imagine ipv6 to be included in price not an additional fee.
I was surprised to find that wasn't the case.
-- Aaron
-- Brent Jones brent@brentrjones.com
El 8/18/2014 12:23 PM, Aaron Hopkins escribió:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
What did they say when you asked them(Akamai)?
I quoted their response in my mail; sorry if that wasn't clear. They offered to enable IPv6 service for a non-trivial monthly recurring fee, which they offered to send me a revised contract to include.
it's so sad to hear this in August 2014
I would imagine ipv6 to be included in price not an additional fee.
I was surprised to find that wasn't the case.
-- Aaron
I guess you expect infrastructure to build itself for free? Matthew Kaufman Sent from my iPad
On Aug 18, 2014, at 7:30 PM, Alejandro Acosta <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com> wrote:
El 8/18/2014 12:23 PM, Aaron Hopkins escribió:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
What did they say when you asked them(Akamai)?
I quoted their response in my mail; sorry if that wasn't clear. They offered to enable IPv6 service for a non-trivial monthly recurring fee, which they offered to send me a revised contract to include.
it's so sad to hear this in August 2014
I would imagine ipv6 to be included in price not an additional fee.
I was surprised to find that wasn't the case.
-- Aaron
In message <63BF75BE-4E53-4E17-A67A-6D5ADA633745@matthew.at>, Matthew Kaufman writes:
I guess you expect infrastructure to build itself for free?
Matthew Kaufman
No, I expect it to be part and parcel of the basic fees, as IPv4 is, which I'm happy to hear it is in this case. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014, Mark Andrews wrote:
No, I expect it to be part and parcel of the basic fees, as IPv4 is, which I'm happy to hear it is in this case.
Based on a response I saw in this thread earlier today, it sounds like IPv6 support is no longer a separate charge from Akamai. Perhaps that hasn't filtered out to the salescritters yet. jms
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Justin M. Streiner < streiner@cluebyfour.org> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014, Mark Andrews wrote:
No, I expect it to be part and parcel of the basic fees, as IPv4
is, which I'm happy to hear it is in this case.
Based on a response I saw in this thread earlier today, it sounds like IPv6 support is no longer a separate charge from Akamai. Perhaps that hasn't filtered out to the salescritters yet.
Or they did get the memo, but realised that no sale == no commission. Rubens
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
Or they did get the memo, but realised that no sale == no commission.
If they got the memo and chose to ignore it, then that gives me all the ammunition I need to hit them with the biggest cluebat I have, and squeeze them for a discount for the inconvenience. Trying to charge for something that is known to be a no-charge item is bad business, and will end badly for $salescritter when they get called out for it. jms
I thought that keeping up with the times is part of basic necessity of business. Eric Miller, CCNP Network Engineering Consultant (407) 257-5115 -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Kaufman Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 10:48 PM To: Alejandro Acosta Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Akamai charges for IPv6 support? I guess you expect infrastructure to build itself for free? Matthew Kaufman Sent from my iPad
On Aug 18, 2014, at 7:30 PM, Alejandro Acosta <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com> wrote:
El 8/18/2014 12:23 PM, Aaron Hopkins escribió:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
What did they say when you asked them(Akamai)?
I quoted their response in my mail; sorry if that wasn't clear. They offered to enable IPv6 service for a non-trivial monthly recurring fee, which they offered to send me a revised contract to include.
it's so sad to hear this in August 2014
I would imagine ipv6 to be included in price not an additional fee.
I was surprised to find that wasn't the case.
-- Aaron
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:32:38 -0000, "Eric C. Miller" said:
I thought that keeping up with the times is part of basic necessity of business.
Yes, but here in the US, a precedent got set when some communications companies got given really sweet deals to encourage them to deploy next-gen broadband, and the companies instead pocketed the money. We're kind of stuck with this sort of thing until Wall Street stops emphasizing quarterly profits over long-term strategic development.
Hi Aaron,
Is it normal to bill for IPv6 service as a separate product? I was surprised to hear from from my Akamai rep they they do:
Hi Aaron, We can add the IPV6 service to the contract at an additional cost of $XXX/month. Please let me know if you would like to go ahead with the service and I can create the contract and send it for your review.
Sad to hear they are still doing this. I though they had learned by now :( Cheers, Sander
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Aaron Hopkins <lists@die.net> wrote:
Is it normal to bill for IPv6 service as a separate product? I was surprised to hear from from my Akamai rep they they do:
Hi Aaron, We can add the IPV6 service to the contract at an additional
cost of $XXX/month. Please let me know if you would like to go ahead with the service and I can create the contract and send it for your review.
I've been working on adding IPv6 support to my current project on my own time, and am now ready to enable it. But as soon as there is a recurring cost associated with IPv6 support, I need to be able to justify it. And I'm afraid that I can't currently explain a benefit of enabling IPv6 for our users. I'll likely end up not doing so while we're still an Akamai customer.
It's Akamai's network, so it's their choice. But big players adding friction to enabling IPv6 certainly doesn't seem in everyone's best interests in the long-term.
Is there a chargemoreforipv6.die.die.die newsgroup around ? Rubens
Is there an equivalent discount for not using IPv4 anymore? :) John John Souvestre - New Orleans LA -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Hopkins Sent: 2014 August 18, Mon 11:38 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Akamai charges for IPv6 support? Is it normal to bill for IPv6 service as a separate product? I was surprised to hear from from my Akamai rep they they do:
Hi Aaron, We can add the IPV6 service to the contract at an additional cost of $XXX/month. Please let me know if you would like to go ahead with the service and I can create the contract and send it for your review.
I've been working on adding IPv6 support to my current project on my own time, and am now ready to enable it. But as soon as there is a recurring cost associated with IPv6 support, I need to be able to justify it. And I'm afraid that I can't currently explain a benefit of enabling IPv6 for our users. I'll likely end up not doing so while we're still an Akamai customer. It's Akamai's network, so it's their choice. But big players adding friction to enabling IPv6 certainly doesn't seem in everyone's best interests in the long-term. -- Aaron
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Aaron Hopkins <lists@die.net> wrote:
Is it normal to bill for IPv6 service as a separate product? I was surprised to hear from from my Akamai rep they they do:
Hi Aaron, We can add the IPV6 service to the contract at an additional cost of $XXX/month. Please let me know if you would like to go ahead with the service and I can create the contract and send it for your review.
I've been working on adding IPv6 support to my current project on my own time, and am now ready to enable it. But as soon as there is a recurring cost associated with IPv6 support, I need to be able to justify it. And I'm afraid that I can't currently explain a benefit of enabling IPv6 for our users. I'll likely end up not doing so while we're still an Akamai customer.
It's Akamai's network, so it's their choice. But big players adding friction to enabling IPv6 certainly doesn't seem in everyone's best interests in the long-term.
-- Aaron
Cloudflare has a particularly progressive approach to IPv6 and SSL / TLS, you may want to look at them. http://blog.cloudflare.com/eliminating-the-last-reasons-to-not-enable-ipv6
Aaron, I’ll make sure someone follows up on your ticket. To help accelerate overall IPv6 adoption, we stopped charging for new conversions to IPv6 over a year ago. Probably just some misinformation in the sales force from the old policy... Feel free to reach out directly to me if you end up needing more help. Thanks, - Noam On Aug 18, 2014, at 12:38 PM, Aaron Hopkins <lists@die.net> wrote:
Is it normal to bill for IPv6 service as a separate product? I was surprised to hear from from my Akamai rep they they do:
Hi Aaron, We can add the IPV6 service to the contract at an additional cost of $XXX/month. Please let me know if you would like to go ahead with the service and I can create the contract and send it for your review.
I've been working on adding IPv6 support to my current project on my own time, and am now ready to enable it. But as soon as there is a recurring cost associated with IPv6 support, I need to be able to justify it. And I'm afraid that I can't currently explain a benefit of enabling IPv6 for our users. I'll likely end up not doing so while we're still an Akamai customer.
It's Akamai's network, so it's their choice. But big players adding friction to enabling IPv6 certainly doesn't seem in everyone's best interests in the long-term.
-- Aaron
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014, Noam Freedman wrote:
I'll make sure someone follows up on your ticket. To help accelerate overall IPv6 adoption, we stopped charging for new conversions to IPv6 over a year ago. Probably just some misinformation in the sales force from the old policy...
Oh, I hadn't expected that to be stale information. That's good to hear.
Feel free to reach out directly to me if you end up needing more help.
Hopefully that won't be necessary, but thanks! -- Aaron
participants (15)
-
Aaron Hopkins -
Alejandro Acosta -
Brent Jones -
Ca By -
Clayton Zekelman -
Eric C. Miller -
John Souvestre -
Justin M. Streiner -
Mark Andrews -
Matthew Kaufman -
Mehmet Akcin -
Noam Freedman -
Rubens Kuhl -
Sander Steffann -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu