This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/
[ipv6-wg] Clear Guidance for Enterprises
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Clear Guidance for Enterprises
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Clear Guidance for Enterprises
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo at vegoda.org
Wed May 31 15:35:52 CEST 2023
Hi, On Tue, 30 May 2023 at 23:52, Springob, Andreas (IIT-CSS/Network & Identity Solutions) <andreas.springob at aldi-sued.com> wrote: > > Hi Wilhelm, > > Lot of things were said and all are correct. Lack of knowledge, budget, priority, interest, projects, success. It might be rather an approach for RIPE and other RIRs to get in contact with governmental units, setting up legislation as with the office of management and budget in the US: The RIPE NCC has done this - and probably still does it. When I attended these meetings in the past there was pushback from civil servants. Governments often struggle to get more than two qualified vendors for many contracts. The civil servants were concerned that adding an IPv6 requirement would further reduce competition and make managing cost more difficult. Kind regards, Leo
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Clear Guidance for Enterprises
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Clear Guidance for Enterprises
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]