[Bp_ipv6] Latest ver of Background Paper

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Thu Aug 27 03:30:03 EDT 2015


Dear Susan,

apologies for being late on commenting on the background paper. I am
happy with all of its contents except one paragraph which says the
following:

IPv6 is crucial to the Internet’s sustainable growth; because every
device (computers to light
bulbs, fridges to web servers) must have an IP address. The demand for
IP addresses will only
increase as time goes on, as the Internet expands, more devices are
connected, and more
people come online

I have recently started seeing some push-back about this "your fridge
will be connected to the Internet" with some qualifying the Internet of
things are being the next big hype. So saying "every device (computers
to light bulbs, fridges to web servers) must have an IP address" is
likely to gather some criticism, if not some smiles from some people,
and might discredit other paragraphs.

May I suggest the following text:

IPv6 is crucial to the Internet's sustainable growth, especially in
light of the forthcoming Internet of Things (IoT) requiring a lot more
IP address space. Projects that interconnect devices to reduce power
consumption, increase efficiency and traceability and generally make
better use of the world's existing resources will require the allocation
of vast numbers of IPv6 addresses. Ubiquitous connectivity of these
devices using IPv6 is paramount to a simple roll-out in consumer
markets, from the inter-connected car, home automation (light bulbs,
refrigerators, power meters), industrial settings as well as the
logistical back-end cloud services that are needed to service this high
growth, high innovation ecosystem.


Elsewhere, I am concerned we use "innovation" once in the text only, in
the conclusion, saying a user, by not being able to reach some parts of
the Internet might miss the newest innovations. I think it goes a lot
deeper than that: by not actively promoting and using IPv6, stakeholders
in a country are likely to miss the opportunity to innovate themselves
and be part of the change brought on by innovation. In today's
increasingly technological world, leadership is paramount to being able
to negotiate the paradigm shifts ahead of the curve so as to adapt
before having the new rules of the game hinder progress and growth. This
is not only a matter of having a competitive edge, it is a matter of
survival.

Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 24/08/2015 17:27, Susan Chalmers wrote:
> 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
> <mailto:nathalie at ripe.net>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Patrick,
>
>
>     > On 22 Aug 2015, at 13:18, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se
>     <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bp_ipv6 mailing list
> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/attachments/20150827/87317149/attachment.html>


More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list