[Bp_ipv6] Latest ver of Background Paper

Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates
Mon Aug 24 11:27:31 EDT 2015


Greetings all, Nathalie, Patrik, Paul,

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rMXYBfa2ZgwzDn4YfQpxEh7JXwkmvPp6iUKdRNy1z6s/edit?usp=sharing

Herewith the penultimate draft of the Background Document. Thanks to Patrik
and Paul for your contributions, nearly all of which have been incorporated
into the text.

Nathalie, I hear you on using rhetoric like "bitstream." I also think that
Patrik's example is very important. I've tried to re-word that section in
terms of wholesaler and retailer, the former not enabling the latter to
provide IPv6 svc. Please let me know if it translates accurately.

The document has evolved nicely! Excellent job, everyone.

I just have three citations that would be nice to add to the text, to
support the assertions made therein.

Can I ask the list to help?

"2 sentences and a citation (link/reference)" -- all needed in the section
relating to secondary markets for IPv4 addresses.

1. An example of routing misbehaviour / hijacks in the trading of IPv4
addresses.
2. Define "geolocation" in terms of IP addresses and how IPv4 transfers can
mess that up.
3. Explanation of how IP addresses are 'sold' initially from RIRs - so that
the reader can have something to compare secondary markets with.

I propose that Wim take a few days to receive any responses to the above
request, and then format the final PDF for circulation, and publish. We can
also publish the document on the open platform for further comments, edits.

With that, we can round out our work on this phase of the discussion.

Does that suit everyone?

Warm regards,
Susan





Susan Chalmers
susan at chalmers.associates

*CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES
http://chalmers.associates

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Nathalie Trenaman <nathalie at ripe.net>
wrote:

> Hi Patrick,
>
>
> > On 22 Aug 2015, at 13:18, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Newcomer to this party (dragged in by Marco and Susan), I went through
> the document and part from correcting some spelling mistakes, I added a few
> things I think should be added. Maybe you have discussed them and decided
> they are not to be added:
> >
> > Let me see if I remember them now when I type this email...
> >
> > 1. NAT/CGN and law enforcement
> >
> > We can not not talk about law enforcement and CGN/NAT
> >
> > 2. Bitstream services
> >
> > We have serious issues in Sweden with monopolies that provide bitstream
> services that prohibit the ability for the ISP to provide IPv6. Quite often
> bitstream providers that have been given monopoly situation by the city (or
> even owned by the city), i.e. completely under control by public services,
> i.e. indirectly by politicians.
> >
>
> While I completely agree with you on the content (including NAT and Law
> enforcement and bitstream services) , I think we have to be careful with
> “jargon”. Language that makes sense to us, but not for outsiders. For
> example “bitstream services”. I know what these are, bus does everybody?
> I also saw the word “homenet” in the doc. I’ve asked my direct colleagues,
> but none of them knows what it means.
>
> Cheers,
> Nathalie
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/attachments/20150824/dbd6aeff/attachment.html>


More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list