OT: cheap colo space in Southern Germany/Munich

Philipp Kern phil at philkern.de
Sat Nov 24 19:20:19 CET 2012

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 18:47:43 +0100
Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> It is completely irrelevant. My provider would sustain less than a 
> day of growth if I return my addresses which I've reserved in
> anticipation of future growth. It's just an issue of increasing your
> profit by cannibalizing your customer's business model. Fuck your
> customers, right? Who needs them.

The only thing I miss is an incentive to shift more onto IPv6. I think
it's sane to let customers reconsider how many addresses they really
need or move their business elsewhere. It's in line of address
conservation. After all such a provider still wants to be able to
accept new customers, too. On the other hand you already needed to
justify your existing address space and growth beyond 20% more than
what you currently have would be unjust to consider.

So the problem seems to be that it's a sudden price increase for
existing customers, who relied on the prices not to change, even if
their provider never promised such a thing. You are forced to push
down the address conservation issue down to your customers and/or
increase prices by, say, 5€, losing customers yourself. I'd say that
all of this could've been anticipated given that the provider in
question already went to monthly pricing of IPs for new customers.

If you don't dare to even think of changing your business model
slightly, changing providers does seem fair, doesn't it? Iff you can
get it more cheaply elsewhere, free market suggests to move. The thing
I agree with you, even though you didn't write it explicitly: It sucks
that Hetzner only applies this to their dedicated server products and
not to their VM and web space products. This obviously favors them in
their services. I guess the lesson is not to host at a competitor

Kind regards
Philipp Kern

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list