ipv6 load balancers

[Jeroen Massar]

Mark Schouten wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 16:03 +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> I know that BIT (http://www.bit.nl, unfortunately no english edition of 
>> that site) uses F5 BIG-IP already for a couple of years in production 
>> IPv6 and from what I know they are quite happy with it too.
> 
> We are indeed. The only downside is the extra licensecosts.

I really don't get that vendors are doing this. I can agree that they 
probably need to do some kind of 'cost recovery' or something and that 
they love to make extra money, but this way a lot of folks are like 
"IPv6 costs extra money, it doesn't directly generate it, then why do 
it?" Especially management and other bean counters will raise a red flag 
because of that and thus halt doing IPv6 for the time being, probably 
till it is too late.

I think vendors would be better off not pulling these kind of tricks and 
would sell more products if they did not charge extra for IPv6.

Greets,
  Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20080502/fa4a3317/attachment.sig>