> -----Original Message----- > From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us] > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 2:06 PM > > Why are your respective companies treating IPv6 turn ups as a sales > matter instead of a standard technical change request like IP > addresses or BGP? [WES] Because in most companies, sales owns the direct relationship with the customer, so when they ask about a new feature or service, they work with sales, and sales gets the right technical folks involved. A clarification that is probably important here: "a sales matter" != "extra charges for IPv6" at least at my employer, so if you believe that is why it's being referred to sales, I ask that you not jump to conclusions. Eventually, this is something that can be accomplished solely through a portal like any other technical change request, but short term, we wanted to focus on making our IPv6 availability as wide as possible and as soon as possible. That requires a bit more handholding, and sometimes a manual process here and there, which involves sales.
>Sprint and Qwest, I know you're guilty. [WES] Bill, I know that you mean well and you're just trying to push IPv6 deployment, and sometimes a little public shame goes a long way, but in the future, before you call my company out in public with tenuous assertions like this, please at least try to reach out to me privately to address your perceived issue with the way Sprint is handling IPv6 rollout? It's not like I'm hard to find, even if it's a blast message to NANOG that looks like "Will someone with IPv6 clue at Sprint contact me?" > How many of > the rest of you are making IPv6 installation harder for your customers > than it needs to be? [WES] I guess that depends on who you talk to and their definition of hard. Obviously you feel that there's some problem, so feel free to provide details specific to Sprint off-list and I'll do my best to address them. Wes George Token Sprint whipping boy and IPv6 mechanic http://www.sprintv6.net
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
