[112015] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Confusion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Wed Feb 18 14:05:57 2009
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
To: Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net>
In-Reply-To: <20090218181951.EEC111CC09@ptavv.es.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:05:50 -1000
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Kevin,
On Feb 18, 2009, at 8:19 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>> You don't have to tell the truth to the losing sales folk... :-)
> Yes, I saw the smiley, but
Sigh. Perhaps there needs to be an emoticon for "really joking,
really. no, really.".
> Ethical issues aside, giving incorrect information to a losing vendor
> is fraud and, at least in the public sector, can get you in more
> trouble
> than you would ever want to think about being in.
If a vendor sales person indicates they are getting no requests for
IPv6 support in their products (which would clearly be false since
presumably you are requesting IPv6 support), then stating one reason
the vendor did not win a bid was because of that vendor's stance on
IPv6 may be accurate (YMMV). I have some skepticism such a claim
would be considered unethical or fraud, even in the squeaky clean
world of US government procurement.
Regards,
-drc
