[c-nsp] RIPE 554, availability of required IPv6 features

[Peter Rathlev]

On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 13:23 +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> Yes. The signal is "ignore mandatory IPv6 requirements - they will get
> dropped to optional anyway" - which is the partyline I hear from
> multiple vendors about IPv6 requirements in RFPs. They are very relaxed
> about those, and it shows unfortunately.

I'm partly sympathetic to your argument, but since this is a well
documented public process we will have the historical argument the next
time.

> > And RA guard and ND inspection would be mandatory no matter what.
> 
> Mandatory as in "we'll buy 100% more expensive equipment when noone else
> delivers that"? Or "we'll buy nothing if nobody delivers that"?

If noone could deliver then it would be against the rules for us to
require it. That may seem like a chicken-and-egg problem but this venue
is the wrong place to put up a fight. If a few could deliver but at a
substantially larger price we would have to ask ourselves what RA Guard
and ND Inspection is worth; if it raises the price of networking
equipment by e.g. 100% my overall opinion (not just technical) would be
that we can do without. That either means no IPv6 at all or a much less
robust implementation.

My job is to do what is best given the circumstances. It's not to hold
the politicians hostage with technical arguments.

But I'm open to suggestions for acting differently. :-)

-- 
Peter