RE: Madated adoption?

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

You will see an annoucement I believe in the near future from Australian
Defense Organization and more firm posture by NATO.

/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric Klein
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 8:37 AM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Madated adoption?
> 
> Thanks Jeff, So far that makes it:
> 
> US - DoD by FY 2008
> US - The rest of Government agencies by June 2008
> China - for Olympics by June 2008
>  
> and I will keep looking
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Dunn, Jeffrey" <Jeffrey.Dunn@si-intl.com>
> To: "Eric Klein" <ericlklein@softhome.net>; <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> Cc: "Dunn, Jeffrey" <Jeffrey.Dunn@si-intl.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 2:48 PM
> Subject: RE: Madated adoption?
> 
> 
> Eric,
> 
> The U.S. DoD has also "mandated" adoption of IPv6.  Please 
> see the link
> listed below:
> 
> http://ipv6.disa.mil/docs/stenbit-ipv6-guidance-20030929.pdf
> 
> Similarly, U.S. Whitehouse Office of Management and Budget has just
> recently issued guidance on the adoption of IPv6.  Please see the link
> listed below:
> 
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-22.pdf
> 
> Best Regards,
> Jeffrey Dunn
> Systems Test Manager
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Eric Klein
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 5:26 AM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Madated adoption?
> 
> Thanks Jordi this is very helpful.
> 
> Eric
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
> To: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 12:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Madated adoption?
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I try to keep all this info at http://www.ipv6tf.org, but 
> not sure if
> this
> > is as much updated as I wish.
> >
> > My feeling is that only Japan has a clear "mandate" as a government
> decision
> > right now.
> >
> > But there are several related documents for other 
> governmental bodies
> such
> > as:
> > http://www.ipv6tf.org/meet/policy_recommendations.php
> >
> > If anyone can point out some other documents, I will link them also,
> to
> have
> > a more complete picture. For example, I just realized that 
> I'm missing
> links
> > to Japanese, Korean and Chinese documents, at least. I 
> recall there is
> also
> > something from German MoD and Switzerland.
> >
> > Also it could be interesting:
> > http://www.ipv6tf.org/news/newsroom.php?id=684
> >
> > One of the conclusions is that most of the countries, at least in
> Europe,
> > have concrete government support, but not concrete "mandated" dates,
> most
> of
> > the time are suggestions and not widely publicized. Anyway, those
> > suggestions are already achieving results. In Spain most of 
> the public
> > tenders ask for IPv6 support since already 3-4 years ago, but is not
> being
> > enabled by default by now in most cases (I believe this 
> will change in
> the
> > next few months). This usually means that the ISPs and 
> vendors have to
> > support IPv6 and clearly, is not smart to have different 
> product lines
> (or
> > networks) for government business and other customers. For example,
> the
> > recommendation in 2001 from the Ministry of Public Administration
> (MAP)
> was
> > to purchase everything with IPv6 support on it, so it can be enabled
> when
> > required, also all the acquisitions done by the main Internet and
> > Information Society entity, as well as all the ministries that I'm
> aware
> of,
> > are following this.
> >
> > I'm not sure a mandate is required, let's say as a 
> "country" decision.
> I
> > mean, is enough if the government mandates its usage in their own
> > acquisitions. As said, this is good catalyst for the 
> vendors decide if
> they
> > want to have two product lines, with and without IPv6 and
> interoperability
> > problems between both, or whatever.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jordi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > De: Eric Klein <ericlklein@softhome.net>
> > > Responder a: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> > > Fecha: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:27:12 +0300
> > > Para: "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> > > Asunto: Madated adoption?
> > >
> > > Based on my memory (and comments about I-D
> > > ACTION:draft-baker-v6ops-end2end-00.txt )
> > >
> > >
> > > Tim Chown seemed surprised that I had heard that there was a
> mandated
> > > adoption date for the UK  (UK by 2008, Japan by 2010 etc 
> - not sure
> about
> > > years for either).
> > >
> > > Now this WG had a conversation thread a little over a 
> year ago where
> these
> > > came up.
> > >
> > > I was wondering if anyone knew if their (or other) countries had
> announced
> > > compliance dates for the full IPv6 conversions.
> > >
> > > The truth is that this has dual interest to me, as we as 
> a WG should
> know
> > > what the world (or at least individual nations) are doing 
> or saying
> about
> > > IPv6. But this is also related to a thesis that I am 
> working on and
> I am
> > > interested to see what is being done towards actual 
> adoption at the
> national
> > > levels.
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ************************************
> > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
> >
> > Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
> > Information available at:
> > http://www.ipv6-es.com
> >
> > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
> or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be
> aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of
> this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
>