[Bp_ipv6] Latest ver of Background Paper

Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates
Thu Aug 27 05:56:03 EDT 2015


Thank you, Olivier, Paul and Nathalie,

Olivier, I appreciate your contribution very much, but I'm afraid that the
edits had closed on this background document, and Wim had sent the PDF to
the Secretariat.

However the document eventually will be posted to the online platform and
will remain open for suggested edits up until our discussion at the IGF.
Please feel free to add your thoughts on the platform.

I was so sorry to have missed the call this morning. I had connectivity
problems. I am departing from Ghana today and returning to New Zealand
(which takes about two days). I look forward to reviewing the notes from
the call en route.

Warm regards,
Susan



Susan Chalmers
susan at chalmers.associates

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

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
wrote:

> 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,
>
> Olivier
>
> 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
>
> *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 <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 <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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150827/0cb43409/attachment.html>


More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list