[123118] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Fwd: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC Position On The
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Sat Feb 27 21:01:54 2010
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:00:45 -0800
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1002280031300.21432@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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.
