Re: [Fwd: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group]

[joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

Tony Finch wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> > On 02/27/2010 03:49 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Japanese government did two things:
> > >
> > >     - tax incentivise ipv6 compliance
> > >     - make meaningful ipv6 compliance mandatory when dealing with Japanese
> > > government technical contracts.
> > >
> > > The effect of this was to 1) create a direct financial incentive to deploy
> > > meaningfully, and 2) create an indirect financial incentive to deploy ipv6
> > > meaningfully.  Spot the pattern here?
> > If you are a network contractor for the US government or a vendor
> > selling network equipment to the DOD then you've had a similar
> > incentive, if it's not there, you're not going to end up on the approved
> > suppliers list.
>
> I get the impression that in Japan the incentives led to real deployment,
> but not in the US - which is a big FAIL for DOD procurement policy.

Having responded to rfp/rfi requests from US governement entities and
their contractors I can assure you that not having ipv6 support in the
network design, and on the equipment to be deployed, along with the
usual other requirements (fips 140-2/cc eal 4/etc) was um not going to
fly (literally in some cases).

> Tony.