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.
