[Bp_ipv6] Latest ver of Background Paper

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Thu Aug 27 04:47:49 EDT 2015

Hello Paul and Nathalie,

Understood but for the present document who is your audience? Telling them about lots of ip connected refrigerators is unlikely to impress. I think that we are in agreement about the variety of connected devices - I am just suggesting we concentrate on language that appeals to politicians and business people rather than hobbyists.
Kindest regards,


Sent from my iPad

> On 27 Aug 2015, at 10:28, Nathalie Trenaman <nathalie at ripe.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I agree with Paul here. Have a look at: 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.
> Nathalie 
>> 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/20150827/39b38442/attachment.html>

More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list