On Sat, 24 Nov 2012, Peter Rathlev wrote:
We have an RFP out for L2 aggregation equipment and have included the
two sections of RIPE 554's Requirements for enterprise/ISP grade
\Layer 2 switch\ equipment. One is a list of mandatory requirements
listing the following:
[snip]
We're hearing a
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 01:02:58AM +0100, Peter Rathlev wrote:
And if we end up modifying the RFP to make the basic IPv6 support
optional we have hopefully at least sent a signal.
Yes. The signal is ignore mandatory IPv6 requirements - they will get
dropped to optional anyway - which is the
On 26/11/12 12:23, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 01:02:58AM +0100, Peter Rathlev wrote:
And if we end up modifying the RFP to make the basic IPv6 support
optional we have hopefully at least sent a signal.
Yes. The signal is ignore mandatory IPv6 requirements - they will get
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
On Sat, 2012-11-24 at 19:22 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
This is an interesting problem. If one vendor (out of a fairly small
group anyway) is listening and providing solutions, while everybody
else keeps stalling, what can you do...?
Where I work you just roll over and take it. At least that's
Thank you all for the input. It seems the general consensus here is that
we should put pressure on the vendors to actually implement these things
even if they're not available right now. And if we end up modifying the
RFP to make the basic IPv6 support optional we have hopefully at least
sent a
This is broader than just Cisco, but I'm thinking many people here have
experience with other vendors' equipment.
We have an RFP out for L2 aggregation equipment and have included the
two sections of RIPE 554's Requirements for enterprise/ISP grade
\Layer 2 switch\ equipment. One is a list of
Hi,
Are my assumptions wrong? We're (in part politically) not allowed to
require anything that only one or two vendors would be able to fulfill,
i'm afraid that you may find only a couple of vondors who actually
care about IPv6 - at least in such a way that they do eg RA gaurd, MLDv2
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 02:32:59PM +0100, Peter Rathlev wrote:
Are my assumptions wrong? We're (in part politically) not allowed to
require anything that only one or two vendors would be able to fulfill,
though something that lives up to one of the three points above
shouldn't be a
You speak with your dollars...
Frank
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:23 PM
To: Peter Rathlev
Cc: cisco-nsp
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] RIPE 554, availability
On 11/24/2012 11:00 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
You speak with your dollars...
That's the basic idea, but it's often more problematic (as I'm sure
everyone here knows). Purchasing and procurement rules are often imposed
by other parts of the organisation, and can make it extremely difficult
to
11 matches
Mail list logo
