I have both Level3 and NTT v6 connections and there are no additional charges for the service. I recall NTT had one a few years ago, but I think that's fallen by the wayside.
Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D) On 2/17/11 7:01 PM, "Jack Carrozzo" <j...@crepinc.com> wrote: >We pick up v6 from HE currently (like the rest of the world). L3 offered >us >dual stack also, but they wanted money to set it up plus MRC. None of our >Bits That Matter (tm) go over v6 anyhow. (I guess the right phrase would >be >"revenue producing bits"). > >-Jack Carrozzo > >On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Eric Van Tol <e...@atlantech.net> wrote: > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net] >> > Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 2:49 PM >> > To: Jack Carrozzo >> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org >> > Subject: Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection >> > >> > I'm curious what providers have not gotten their IPv6 >> > plans/networks/customer ports enabled. >> > >> > I know that Comcast is doing their trials now (Thanks John!) and will >>be >> > presenting at the upcoming NANOG about their experiences. >> > >> > What parts of the big "I" Internet are not enabled or ready? >> > >> >> We don't see Savvis, Level3, or AboveNet with IPv6 capabilities in our >> region (DC). Two years ago, neither Verizon or AT&T had IPv6, either. >>Not >> sure about them now, as we no longer use them for transit. One would >>think >> everyone would have v6 capabilities in the heart of government >>territory, >> but okay. >> >> For whatever reason, Verio actually charges (or used to) for their IPv6 >> separately from IPv4 and to top it all off, it wasn't significantly >> discounted. >> >> -evt >> >> >>