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 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
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
