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

joel jaeggli joelja at bogus.com
Sun Feb 28 02:00:45 UTC 2010

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.

More information about the NANOG mailing list