From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:57:12 -1000
Mikael,
>> Suggestion: next time you buy equipment from competing vendors,
>> tell the sales folk from the losing vendors that one deciding
>> factor was (vendor or product) IPv6 support. That (and perhaps only
>> that) will get their attention... 
> Well, considering how very few vendors actually support IPv6, it's
> hard to find proper competition.
You don't have to tell the truth to the losing sales folk...
Yes, I saw the smiley, but what you suggested could cause a lot of
suffering if it is a formal bid. (If a mom-n-pop buys a 2960, probably
not an issue.)
Ethical issues aside, giving incorrect information to a losing vendor
is fraud and, at least in the public sector, can get you in more trouble
than you would ever want to think about being in.
Our procurement officers are scrupulous in detailing the required
information for the losing bidder's debrief on contracts of any
size. This means putting in just as much information as is required and
nothing more and making sure that what is included is correct.
Kevin,
You don't have to tell the truth to the losing sales folk...
Yes, I saw the smiley, but
Sigh. Perhaps there needs to be an emoticon for "really joking, really. no, really.".
Ethical issues aside, giving incorrect information to a losing vendor
is fraud and, at least in the public sector, can get you in more trouble
than you would ever want to think about being in.
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), then stating one reason the vendor did not win a bid was because of that vendor's stance on IPv6 may be accurate (YMMV). I have some skepticism such a claim would be considered unethical or fraud, even in the squeaky clean world of US government procurement.
Regards,
-drc
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
I think you will agree that vendor support for IPv6 has come a long way
in the past few years. Even Force10 is shipping v6 capable hardware! 
The price of software licenses for v6 (when required) is now a figure we
think about when proposing new equipment. Even customers who do not
have a v6 strategy are at least conscious of the fact that they will
need it eventually, and may rather pay a little more for a box that
includes the feature now, than spend more on a license that includes
things they don't need later on.
I think, for example, that Juniper is making a mistake by rolling v6
capability into a license that also includes BGP and ISIS on some
platforms. Cisco is guilty of this as well.
I am not necessarily advocating that v6 must be a basic feature on every
new box; but I don't think it is correct to force customers to buy a
license that includes a lot of other bells and whistles just to get v6.
It could be a separate cost.
- j
I think, for example, that Juniper is making a mistake by rolling v6
capability into a license that also includes BGP and ISIS on some
platforms. Cisco is guilty of this as well.
I am not necessarily advocating that v6 must be a basic feature on every
new box; but I don't think it is correct to force customers to buy a
license that includes a lot of other bells and whistles just to get v6.
It could be a separate cost.
I mean, surely the intellectual property has been developed now, are the
vendors /still/ paying developers off for this? hasn't most of the money
already been spent?