Re: RFPs and IPv6

[David Farmer <farmer=40umn.edu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 9:08 AM Livingood, Jason <jason_livingood=40comcast.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 7/1/24, 16:19, "Ofer Inbar" <cos@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:cos@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> Are you really saying that the IETF is a special kind of buyer that
needs to remain "neutral" in some way, and NOT exert any market force,
even if the IETF does have preferences?

What I am saying is the IETF is not a very large buyer, so in a lot of cases we have little ability to shape market solutions - just to buy them or not (this is not always the case of course). I was trying to switch to a different suggestion about how to create a market dynamic that would drive providers to support IPv6 - namely making future protocols IPv6-only.

We need to be realistic about the amount of purchasing power the IETF has. Nevertheless, we should utilize what we have to the best of our ability.

To that end, it may seem counterintuitive, but making IPv6 mandatory reduces our influence regarding the issue. In an RFP process, proposals lacking mandatory features are discarded, even if they are otherwise superior proposals. Whereas if IPv6 was a desired feature instead of mandatory, proposals lacking the feature can move forward. This allows an otherwise superior proposal to be considered and the ability to negotiate with the supplier even to add IPv6 to the solution. Is that really going to happen? Maybe not, but being stuck with an inferior solution that supports IPv6 likely will not serve the organization's overall goals either.

Thanks.

--

===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@xxxxxxx
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota  
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================