[Bp_ipv6] Latest ver of Background Paper

Nathalie Trenaman nathalie at ripe.net
Thu Aug 27 04:28:58 EDT 2015

Hi all,

I agree with Paul here. Have a look at: https://thingful.net/ <https://thingful.net/>
IoT is already here, and wide spread. Have a look at Germany, when you select “energy”.
As en example how a government uses IoT already to measure radiation in every little town. 
Not even talking about bike shed availability in Dubai and weather stations people share.


> On 27 Aug 2015, at 09:50, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
> With respect Olivier, IP-connected widgets will be extremely commonplace, and I’m afraid not be just (or even mainly) for the logical purposes you mention - but for any and every purpose, trivial or otherwise, that product designers can use to make a buck.
> Paul
> The document should certainly not sound like a piece of hype,
> On 27 Aug 2015, at 17:30, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>> 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
>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bp_ipv6 mailing list
>> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net
> http://www.apnic.net                                            @apnicdg
> _______________________________________________
> Bp_ipv6 mailing list
> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/attachments/20150827/a2b7f042/attachment.html>

More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list