[Bp_ipv6] BPF IPv6 - call for contribution and updates

Marco Hogewoning marcoh at ripe.net
Mon Jul 13 07:44:43 EDT 2015


All,

Left some comments and suggested text in the doc.

On a high-level there are two things that strike me. One is the IMHO very big stress on the incompatibility between IPv4 and IPv6. Of course this exists and to a large part this attributed to the slow adoption but this ship has also changed. IPv6 design was standardised by the IETF following rough consensus. At that time it was decided that it should not be backwards compatible.

I feel that the current text opens to much to “let’s go back and fix this” and while we certainly should acknowledge that issues exists. we should also be realistic and manage expectations to a “this is possible” attitude. Several large deployments exist which prove, albeit with some technical magic, that IPv6 and IPv4 can live together and even connect to each other where necessary. Such solutions come with a cost and while such cost are in the account of the ones implementing IPv6, they are caused by the ones who are not moving,

I think that rather then maintaining the picture of IPv6 being a problem, we should try and turn this around and post the continuing use of IPv4 being the real issue here that drives the cost up for everybody - even for the good people who have listened and deployed IPv6 - with absolutely no long term benefits whatsoever.

The same can be argues for instance regarding capacity building. Am I the only one who find it strange that while investing serious amounts in training people that there appears to be a steady supply of new ICT workers entering todays markets that have 0 knowledge of IPv6? Give me one good reason as an employer why I should hire somebody fresh out of school who can’t work with IPv6?

Because there aren’t any? That might have his drawbacks on the likelihood of training (or allowing them to train) my employees. Demand going up with a limited supply means that as soon as they are trained I have to pay them much more or they will leave with their newly acquired skill set, not the best for my business.

In short, can we get the over arching theme to ”IPv4 is the problem” and provide support for all the brave men and women out there who took it upon them to swim against the stream and deploy IPv6? Because it is there where the Current Practices are that can help us further this project and the IPv6 deployment in general.

Cheers,

MarcoH

> On 07 Jul 2015, at 17:57, Wim Degezelle <wdegezelle at drmv.be> wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> So far we've discussed the Scope and Goals of the BPF IPv6 and the structure for the Background paper.
> 
> You now are invited to contribute with comments and suggestions for the content of the background paper. The Background paper serves as an introduction to the actual Best Practices and aims at explaining to a wide and mainly non-technical audience what IPv6 is, why it should be deployed and what challenges are there are.
> 
> Please add your suggestions to the draft document before 14th July:
> 
> Draft Background Document (v1) Please suggest you changes
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Iz9xrMs7njqmVo-8Gp_XEHk72--2vAx55o_sQSCLlAY/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> for reference:  Structure for the Background document (not editable) 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RpbSFQ62vrrkZTyLRwAJ2jhJqN678Rr4CRalVIWt6wk/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> 
> 
> Based on your contributions we will compile a new version to discuss at the next call on 14 or 15 July. 
> Please fill in the Doodle  to schedule this meeting:  http://doodle.com/7w6mewn9ggpwb469 .
> 
> 
> By the end of the week we will start collecting Best practice examples. For this we are currently working on a template which will be shared with you.
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation!
> Kind Regards
> 
> Izumi, Susan, German and Wim 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bp_ipv6 mailing list
> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org





More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list