IPv6 Confusion

Stephen Sprunk stephen at sprunk.org
Wed Feb 18 16:45:13 CST 2009


David Conrad wrote:
> 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),

It's hard to imagine a vendor that is getting _no_ requests for IPv6 
support these days; every RFP I see has it listed as an "optional 
requirement".

However, development priorities are set not by requests but by the 
amount of business they'll lose if they /don't/ do something.  Since 
IPv6 is not _mandatory_ to win deals in most cases, it's simply not 
getting done.  And, of course, customers can't make it mandatory in an 
RFP until at least one vendor has implemented it, or they risk getting 
no qualified responses...

I bet the latter is why the US DoD gave up on their hard IPv6 
requirements and now simply mandates that products be "software 
upgradeable" to support IPv6...

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3241 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20090218/e4b8cdd1/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list