* Christopher Morrow (morrowc.li...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Adam Rothschild <a...@latency.net> wrote: > > I've heard of folk in and around the NYC metro getting set up for v6 > > by escalating through their commercial account teams, or the field > > 'commercial account teams' == business customers?
As a FIOS business customer, I can say that I've had no progress on that
front, though I've bugged them about it often enough... Perhaps I shall
try again though. I would truely love to hear from one of these folks
in NYC who managed to get it...
> > implementation is shameful, and should be called out wherever
> > possible.
>
> yes :( it's nice that the Networx contract didn't require any ipv6
> readiness...
There's a US government mandate for government public websites to
support IPv6 and quite a few of those do- in some cases through Networx.
I don't recall agencies complaining about the inability to get IPv6 for
public websites via Networx either. Additionally, most of the services
under the Networx contract are more traditional telecom services which
don't particularly care what you run over them.
As for having Networx require IPv6 support for all services- some of us
tried, and while a nice idea, I doubt it would have lasted terribly long
post-award even if it had been included for the few IP-based services
which were part of the original contract. Sadly, having been involved
in government contracting, it's amazing what happens when the vendor
says "we want to provide $awesome, but we need you to waive this *one*
little thing" and there isn't a mandate (afair...) for agencies to run
IPv6 internally (tho they're supposed to be buying devices which
*support* it).
I will say that the more the agencies complain to GSA the highest the
chance of something being done about it.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
