From vuntz at opensuse.org Mon Jun 1 03:16:42 2015 From: vuntz at opensuse.org (Dick Ware) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 07:16:42 -0000 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] anyone should read this good news Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From izumi at nic.ad.jp Mon Jun 1 12:09:47 2015 From: izumi at nic.ad.jp (Izumi Okutani) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 01:09:47 +0900 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] [Intersessional_2015] BPF on IPv6; Problem Definition In-Reply-To: References: <43D48BFE-E031-44FA-B908-E4CE300A034D@nbcuni.com> Message-ID: <556C83CB.9020100@nic.ad.jp> Thank you Miwa for your comment. > I think detailed analysis you provided in your previous email on adoption of IPv6 have lots of technical/technological aspects. The technical stakeholders have been dealing stated issues. Therefore I think developing BP message along this line by this forum will overlap with efforts that have been made by service providers, content providers, CDN, application developers, device/network equipment venders etc. Sure. As stated in our draft guiding principles, this group doesn't intend to duplicate the work already carried out by other forums or communities. We have also suggested that our scope will not focus on technical aspect of IPv6 adoption, which has been supported by Natalie and observe no objections for far. Does anyone have any other comments/observations? > I think focusing on commonality between IGF and IPv6 will help us to move forward in defining problems and opportunities on IPv6 as an IGF discussion group. Both of them require multi stakeholder approaches. I think establishing discussion on problem definition around this commonality will make more compatible argument. > I think in order to increase IPv6 adoption, we need to keep encouraging the multi-stakehodler approach, and I can see here some benefit to have BP document developed by this group. Good point for our consideration in the problem definition. Let me re-share that the current suggested scope of this group is not the IPv6 adoption itself but to compile the best practices on measures and activites to creat an environment to encourage IPv6 adoption. Ofcourse, this scope is still preliminary and open to any other suggestions/comments. We would like to fix the scope and the goals of the group shortly after our coming call this week, so I welcome you all to share your thoughts on the list/at the call. Based on the current suggested scope, one of the major issues in creating this environment to encourage widespread IPv6 adoption could be, that a single organization or a single stakeholder cannot make it happen on their own. This fits in nicely with the nature of the IGF being multistakeholder. I have quoted a part of the draft "Introduction" of this group, which looks relevant to your point above. - Widespread adoption of IPv6 will be important to maintaining the global reach and integrity of the Internet. Following this wide-spread adoption, the eventual transition to IPv6 will only be successful when we, as a community, are all moving together at the same time. Adoption of IPv6 by a single entity is often a challenge; it is not useful if one organization alone adopts IPv6 when majority of the Internet is based on IPv4. The long-term sustainability of the network and success of the Internet to accommodate IPv6 depends on getting more organisations to adopt IPv6. - There are ways in which different stakeholders with different roles can each contribute to IPv6 adoption. This Best Practice Forum gives all stakeholders the opportunity to contribute. > APNIC has disseminated customised IPv6 messages to each stakeholder of the Internet since 2008. As FYI, please see the following link for more details: > > https://www.apnic.net/community/ipv6-program/messages Thank you for sharing this. Looks like these contents relate well with the movitation factors we discussed at the last call. Since we have a concrete text which looks consistent with the discussions which took place within the group, how do you all feel about starting from here, to describe the movitation factors in our document? At the last call, there were discussions on whether to focus on the current issue only, or we cover future potential use as well. Instead of picking one over the other, I wonder we could cover both as motivation factors, just like in the webpage refered to? (snip) Why IPv6? Internet Protocol (IP) addresses uniquely identify devices on the Internet. Currently, almost all devices connected to networks use the IP version 4 (IPv4) address system. IPv4 has more than 4 billion possible address combinations, but these are being used up quickly. APNIC reached its last block of IPv4 addresses in April 2011. Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) was developed to ensure the continued growth and innovation of the Internet. IPv6 offers an extremely large (2128) address space, as each address is 128 bits long, rather than 32 bits. Key business drivers for IPv6 IPv6 enables the sustainable growth of the Internet. This in itself is a major motivation to deploy IPv6, but it also provides the possibility for new services and business opportunities on large-scale IP installations e.g. smartphones, smart grid initiatives, and cloud computing. These have all driven an increase in demand for IP addresses. (snip) I also see the list of stakeholders listed further down on the same webpage, which could be our reference in considering our target. > We also made special efforts to engage with government stakeholders. Key messages for this group of stakeholder are: > > * Support IPv6 deployment through partnership between government and industry > * Lead the industry by example in adopting IPv6 in government networks > * Mandate IPv6 in government procurement criteria > > We have worked very closely with APEC TEL on IPv6 and facilitated the forum to develop APEC TEL IPv6 Guidelines in 2010. Here it is as FYI: > > http://www.apec.org/Home/Groups/SOM-Steering-Committee-on-Economic-and-Technical-Cooperation/Working-Groups/~/media/Files/Groups/TEL/2010_APEC-TEL-IPv6-guidelines-FINAL.ashx Thanks, measures listed in "Category" looks like a good component to list as activties and measure to be listed as examples in this Best Practices document. "Background" described in the APEC TEL IPv6 Guidelines looks consistent with the above quoted "Introduction" of this group which says "There are ways in which different stakeholders with different roles can each contribute to IPv6 adoption. " Background (from APEC TEL IPv6 Guidelines): "... explored the issues and determined that positive steps to encourage the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 can be taken by a broad range of stakeholders, in their individual capacities but also in collaboration." So far, we have all agreed to target governments and policy makers in this document. Would we want to consider any other stakeholders listed above, in addition to governments and policy makers, as the target of this document? > I hope you find the above input useful. It is useful to have a specific information pointer like this. Thank you Miwa. As suggested earlier, we are planning to start calling for existing resources and information, once we have defined the Problem statement. Even before this, if there is any information relevant for discussions, sharing it here on this list is certainly welcome. Regards, Izumi On 2015/05/28 17:24, Miwa Fujii wrote: > Hi Dean et al., > > First time to post to this list. Nice e-meeting you :-) > > Here is a ver quick background of me: I?ve worked at APNIC as IPv6 Program Specialist between 2008 ? 2013. I moved onto another role since then, but IPv6 is still part of my portfolio at APNIC I?d like to provide some input here based on my experience and knowledge on IPv6. > > I think detailed analysis you provided in your previous email on adoption of IPv6 have lots of technical/technological aspects. The technical stakeholders have been dealing stated issues. Therefore I think developing BP message along this line by this forum will overlap with efforts that have been made by service providers, content providers, CDN, application developers, device/network equipment venders etc. > > I think focusing on commonality between IGF and IPv6 will help us to move forward in defining problems and opportunities on IPv6 as an IGF discussion group. Both of them require multi stakeholder approaches. I think establishing discussion on problem definition around this commonality will make more compatible argument. > > I think in order to increase IPv6 adoption, we need to keep encouraging the multi-stakehodler approach, and I can see here some benefit to have BP document developed by this group. > > APNIC has disseminated customised IPv6 messages to each stakeholder of the Internet since 2008. As FYI, please see the following link for more details: > > https://www.apnic.net/community/ipv6-program/messages > > We also made special efforts to engage with government stakeholders. Key messages for this group of stakeholder are: > > * Support IPv6 deployment through partnership between government and industry > * Lead the industry by example in adopting IPv6 in government networks > * Mandate IPv6 in government procurement criteria > > We have worked very closely with APEC TEL on IPv6 and facilitated the forum to develop APEC TEL IPv6 Guidelines in 2010. Here it is as FYI: > > http://www.apec.org/Home/Groups/SOM-Steering-Committee-on-Economic-and-Technical-Cooperation/Working-Groups/~/media/Files/Groups/TEL/2010_APEC-TEL-IPv6-guidelines-FINAL.ashx > > I hope you find the above input useful. > > Best regards, > > Miwa > > From: , "Glenn (NBCUniversal)" > > Date: Saturday, 23 May 2015 2:44 am > To: Susan Chalmers > > Cc: "bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org" >, "intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org" > > Subject: Re: [Bp_ipv6] BPF on IPv6; Problem Definition > > Susan, > > May I also suggest as part of the problem definition we include > > What does adopt IPv6 mean? > > It can mean many things: > > It's available: > - networks offer it as an additional option for traffic > - devices/operating systems offer it as an option for traffic > - services offer it as an option for connecting > > Or it could mean > > It's preferred: > - networks offer it as the preferred option for traffic > - devices/operating systems offer it as the preferred option for traffic > - services offer it as the preferred option for connecting > > Or it could mean > > It's exclusive: > - networks offer it as the only option for traffic > - devices/operating systems offer it as the only option for traffic > - services offer it as the only option for connecting > > Defining this is important, and I don't know for certain that everyone would answer the question the same way. > > Perhaps even a poll of our participants would be revealing in how we answer this. > > I will go first: my ideal goal is it's exclusive; my realistic choice it's that it's preferred. > > Regards, > Glenn > > Sent from my iPad, please forgive any tpyos or auto connections > > On May 22, 2015, at 8:57 AM, Susan Chalmers > wrote: > > Greetings, all, > > Thanks to all who joined us for the call yesterday. We are off to a brilliant start. Three things: > > First, I would like to introduce Wim DeGezelle, who will be assisting us generally, and especially in collecting materials and drafting the background and final documents for comment. Welcome, Wim. Wim will be preparing minutes from our recent call, which he shall circulate when ready. > > In the meantime, the recording of the conversation is available here: > > https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/ldr.php?RCID=31dfd6486e65a50b47e1231b7a80cf9d > > Second, on a procedural note, our first point of order is to create the background paper by the end of June. The background paper should form, to a large extent, the "preface" to the final paper. > > In the background paper we should define the problem. Recalling comments from the call, the problem definition - in it of itself - will be of great practical value to the broader community. > > Let us begin our discussion on the problem definition. To start, what is the question that we are trying to answer, e.g.: > > * Why is it important to adopt IPv6? > * What are best practices for creating an environment that enables IPv6 adoption? > * ....? > > The background paper should include this problem definition, in addition to an outline of the planned table of contents. > > Third, In terms of the table of contents, our starting point is the template provided by ISOC. This can be changed to suit our purposes. > > 1. Definition of the issue > 2. Regional specificities observed (e.g. Internet industry development) > 3. Existing policy measures and private sector initiatives, impediments > 4. What worked well, identifying common effective practices > 5. Unintended consequences of policy interventions, good and bad > 6. Unresolved issues where further multistakeholder cooperation is needed > 7. Insights gained as a result of the experience > 8. Proposed steps for further multistakeholder dialogue > > Perhaps we should start a separate email thread discussing this format? > > In terms of scheduling, we'd like to host fortnightly calls starting June 3rd. Here is the Doodle poll for selecting a time on the 3rd: http://doodle.com/e6x25d8tn288dnq9 > It would be lovely if you could fill in your preferences by close of business on Monday. > > Many thanks, and let's define this problem! > > Sincerely, > Susan > > > > > Susan Chalmers > susan at chalmers.associates > > CHALMERS & ASSOCIATES > http://chalmers.associates > _______________________________________________ > Bp_ipv6 mailing list > Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Intersessional_2015 mailing list > Intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/intersessional_2015_intgovforum.org > From izumi at nic.ad.jp Mon Jun 1 12:31:25 2015 From: izumi at nic.ad.jp (Izumi Okutani) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 01:31:25 +0900 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] [Intersessional_2015] BPF on IPv6; Problem Definition In-Reply-To: <556C83CB.9020100@nic.ad.jp> References: <43D48BFE-E031-44FA-B908-E4CE300A034D@nbcuni.com> <556C83CB.9020100@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: <556C88DD.7080101@nic.ad.jp> Hi all, There has been lots of useful inputs, which could be incorporated in our background paper including the problem definition/problem statement. I have summarized these points for your reference to continue the discussions on the Problem Definition on this mailing list, and towards our second call this week. I welcome your comments to list additional points, expand/improve on the points raised, and/or suggest changes to the points which have been shared. * Motivation Factor/Background * Why IPv6? Internet Protocol (IP) addresses uniquely identify devices on the Internet. Currently, almost all devices connected to networks use the IP version 4 (IPv4) address system. IPv4 has more than 4 billion possible address combinations, but these are being used up quickly. APNIC reached its last block of IPv4 addresses in April 2011[Perhaps add global statistics?]. Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) was developed to ensure the continued growth and innovation of the Internet. IPv6 offers an extremely large (2128) address space, as each address is 128 bits long, rather than 32 bits. Key business drivers for IPv6 IPv6 enables the sustainable growth of the Internet. This in itself is a major motivation to deploy IPv6, but it also provides the possibility for new services and business opportunities on large-scale IP installations e.g. smartphones, smart grid initiatives, and cloud computing. These have all driven an increase in demand for IP addresses. * Introduction/Problem definition * - Widespread adoption of IPv6 will be important to maintaining the global reach and integrity of the Internet. Following this wide-spread adoption, the eventual transition to IPv6 will only be successful when we, as a community, are all moving together at the same time. Adoption of IPv6 by a single entity is often a challenge; it is not useful if one organization alone adopts IPv6 when majority of the Internet is based on IPv4. The long-term sustainability of the network and success of the Internet to accommodate IPv6 depends on getting more organisations to adopt IPv6. - There are ways in which different stakeholders with different roles can each contribute to IPv6 adoption such as: [List examples of Stakeholders] Governments and policy makers How can governments and policy makers support an environment that encourages IPv6 adoption by industry players in their economy? (e.g. by sharing information, setting a role model, facilitating dialogue among industry players, supporting capacity building of the environment, creating financial incentives?); # APEC TEL paper may give us a starting point to list the measures and activities which can be taken by governments Question: Anyone else to add as the stakeholders? Research and academia: How research and academia can help in sharing the general picture of the status of IPv6 adoption? Community/Forum: How we can Community/Forum share information, build general sentiment, raise awareness towards IPv6 adoption Nonprofit projects and activities: How it can help in raising awareness, motivate for specific actions, capacity building Role per services: What can the various service providers for: fixed line access, mobile access, data centers, applications and contents providers, suppliers of products do to help IPv6 adoption? # APEC TEL paper may give us a starting point to list the stakeholders # A suggestion is made to define "IPv6 Adoption" as the problem statement. Another point is made that this would have lots of technical/technological aspects which technical stakeholders have been dealing. * Target of this document * From what has been listed in the group so far: - Governments and policy makers (Listed by several participants, no objections observed) - Possible other stakeholders from the course of the discussions: Suppliers of products? Industry Association of the suppliers? Business Users? (Users of those equipment) Those who wish to build a community/Forum (e.g. IPv6 TF)? Question: Ayone else? Do we consider all stakeholders in IPv6 adoption as the target of this document or do we just focus on (a) certain stakeholder(s) as the target of this document? Regards, Izumi On 2015/06/02 1:09, Izumi Okutani wrote: > Thank you Miwa for your comment. > >> I think detailed analysis you provided in your previous email on adoption of IPv6 have lots of technical/technological aspects. The technical stakeholders have been dealing stated issues. Therefore I think developing BP message along this line by this forum will overlap with efforts that have been made by service providers, content providers, CDN, application developers, device/network equipment venders etc. > > Sure. As stated in our draft guiding principles, this group doesn't intend to duplicate the work already carried out by other forums or communities. > We have also suggested that our scope will not focus on technical aspect of IPv6 adoption, which has been supported by Natalie and observe no objections for far. > > Does anyone have any other comments/observations? > >> I think focusing on commonality between IGF and IPv6 will help us to move forward in defining problems and opportunities on IPv6 as an IGF discussion group. Both of them require multi stakeholder approaches. I think establishing discussion on problem definition around this commonality will make more compatible argument. >> I think in order to increase IPv6 adoption, we need to keep encouraging the multi-stakehodler approach, and I can see here some benefit to have BP document developed by this group. > > Good point for our consideration in the problem definition. > Let me re-share that the current suggested scope of this group is not the IPv6 adoption itself but to compile the best practices on measures and activites to creat an environment to encourage IPv6 adoption. > > Ofcourse, this scope is still preliminary and open to any other suggestions/comments. > We would like to fix the scope and the goals of the group shortly after our coming call this week, so I welcome you all to share your thoughts on the list/at the call. > > Based on the current suggested scope, one of the major issues in creating this environment to encourage widespread IPv6 adoption could be, that a single organization or a single stakeholder cannot make it happen on their own. > This fits in nicely with the nature of the IGF being multistakeholder. > > I have quoted a part of the draft "Introduction" of this group, which looks relevant to your point above. > > - Widespread adoption of IPv6 will be important to maintaining the > global reach and integrity of the Internet. Following this > wide-spread adoption, the eventual transition to IPv6 will only be > successful when we, as a community, are all moving together at the > same time. Adoption of IPv6 by a single entity is often a challenge; > it is not useful if one organization alone adopts IPv6 when majority > of the Internet is based on IPv4. The long-term sustainability of > the network and success of the Internet to accommodate IPv6 depends > on getting more organisations to adopt IPv6. > - There are ways in which different stakeholders with different roles > can each contribute to IPv6 adoption. This Best Practice Forum gives > all stakeholders the opportunity to contribute. > >> APNIC has disseminated customised IPv6 messages to each stakeholder of the Internet since 2008. As FYI, please see the following link for more details: >> >> https://www.apnic.net/community/ipv6-program/messages > > Thank you for sharing this. Looks like these contents relate well with the movitation factors we discussed at the last call. > Since we have a concrete text which looks consistent with the discussions which took place within the group, how do you all feel about starting from here, to describe the movitation factors in our document? > > At the last call, there were discussions on whether to focus on the current issue only, or we cover future potential use as well. > Instead of picking one over the other, I wonder we could cover both as motivation factors, just like in the webpage refered to? > > (snip) > Why IPv6? > Internet Protocol (IP) addresses uniquely identify devices on the Internet. Currently, almost all devices connected to networks use the IP version 4 (IPv4) address system. IPv4 has more than 4 billion possible address combinations, but these are being used up quickly. APNIC reached its last block of IPv4 addresses in April 2011. Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) was developed to ensure the continued growth and innovation of the Internet. IPv6 offers an extremely large (2128) address space, as each address is 128 bits long, rather than 32 bits. > > Key business drivers for IPv6 > IPv6 enables the sustainable growth of the Internet. This in itself is a major motivation to deploy IPv6, but it also provides the possibility for new services and business opportunities on large-scale IP installations e.g. smartphones, smart grid initiatives, and cloud computing. These have all driven an increase in demand for IP addresses. > (snip) > > I also see the list of stakeholders listed further down on the same webpage, which could be our reference in considering our target. > >> We also made special efforts to engage with government stakeholders. Key messages for this group of stakeholder are: >> >> * Support IPv6 deployment through partnership between government and industry >> * Lead the industry by example in adopting IPv6 in government networks >> * Mandate IPv6 in government procurement criteria >> >> We have worked very closely with APEC TEL on IPv6 and facilitated the forum to develop APEC TEL IPv6 Guidelines in 2010. Here it is as FYI: >> >> http://www.apec.org/Home/Groups/SOM-Steering-Committee-on-Economic-and-Technical-Cooperation/Working-Groups/~/media/Files/Groups/TEL/2010_APEC-TEL-IPv6-guidelines-FINAL.ashx > > > Thanks, measures listed in "Category" looks like a good component to list as activties and measure to be listed as examples in this Best Practices document. > > "Background" described in the APEC TEL IPv6 Guidelines looks consistent with the above quoted "Introduction" of this group which says "There are ways in which different stakeholders with different roles can each contribute to IPv6 adoption. " > > Background (from APEC TEL IPv6 Guidelines): > "... explored the issues and determined that positive steps to encourage the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 can be taken by a broad range of stakeholders, in their individual capacities but also in collaboration." > > So far, we have all agreed to target governments and policy makers in this document. > Would we want to consider any other stakeholders listed above, in addition to governments and policy makers, as the target of this document? > >> I hope you find the above input useful. > > It is useful to have a specific information pointer like this. Thank you Miwa. > > As suggested earlier, we are planning to start calling for existing resources and information, once we have defined the Problem statement. > Even before this, if there is any information relevant for discussions, sharing it here on this list is certainly welcome. > > > > Regards, > Izumi > > > On 2015/05/28 17:24, Miwa Fujii wrote: >> Hi Dean et al., >> >> First time to post to this list. Nice e-meeting you :-) >> >> Here is a ver quick background of me: I???ve worked at APNIC as IPv6 Program Specialist between 2008 ??? 2013. I moved onto another role since then, but IPv6 is still part of my portfolio at APNIC I???d like to provide some input here based on my experience and knowledge on IPv6. >> >> I think detailed analysis you provided in your previous email on adoption of IPv6 have lots of technical/technological aspects. The technical stakeholders have been dealing stated issues. Therefore I think developing BP message along this line by this forum will overlap with efforts that have been made by service providers, content providers, CDN, application developers, device/network equipment venders etc. >> >> I think focusing on commonality between IGF and IPv6 will help us to move forward in defining problems and opportunities on IPv6 as an IGF discussion group. Both of them require multi stakeholder approaches. I think establishing discussion on problem definition around this commonality will make more compatible argument. >> >> I think in order to increase IPv6 adoption, we need to keep encouraging the multi-stakehodler approach, and I can see here some benefit to have BP document developed by this group. >> >> APNIC has disseminated customised IPv6 messages to each stakeholder of the Internet since 2008. As FYI, please see the following link for more details: >> >> https://www.apnic.net/community/ipv6-program/messages >> >> We also made special efforts to engage with government stakeholders. Key messages for this group of stakeholder are: >> >> * Support IPv6 deployment through partnership between government and industry >> * Lead the industry by example in adopting IPv6 in government networks >> * Mandate IPv6 in government procurement criteria >> >> We have worked very closely with APEC TEL on IPv6 and facilitated the forum to develop APEC TEL IPv6 Guidelines in 2010. Here it is as FYI: >> >> http://www.apec.org/Home/Groups/SOM-Steering-Committee-on-Economic-and-Technical-Cooperation/Working-Groups/~/media/Files/Groups/TEL/2010_APEC-TEL-IPv6-guidelines-FINAL.ashx >> >> I hope you find the above input useful. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Miwa >> >> From: , "Glenn (NBCUniversal)" > >> Date: Saturday, 23 May 2015 2:44 am >> To: Susan Chalmers > >> Cc: "bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org" >, "intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org" > >> Subject: Re: [Bp_ipv6] BPF on IPv6; Problem Definition >> >> Susan, >> >> May I also suggest as part of the problem definition we include >> >> What does adopt IPv6 mean? >> >> It can mean many things: >> >> It's available: >> - networks offer it as an additional option for traffic >> - devices/operating systems offer it as an option for traffic >> - services offer it as an option for connecting >> >> Or it could mean >> >> It's preferred: >> - networks offer it as the preferred option for traffic >> - devices/operating systems offer it as the preferred option for traffic >> - services offer it as the preferred option for connecting >> >> Or it could mean >> >> It's exclusive: >> - networks offer it as the only option for traffic >> - devices/operating systems offer it as the only option for traffic >> - services offer it as the only option for connecting >> >> Defining this is important, and I don't know for certain that everyone would answer the question the same way. >> >> Perhaps even a poll of our participants would be revealing in how we answer this. >> >> I will go first: my ideal goal is it's exclusive; my realistic choice it's that it's preferred. >> >> Regards, >> Glenn >> >> Sent from my iPad, please forgive any tpyos or auto connections >> >> On May 22, 2015, at 8:57 AM, Susan Chalmers > wrote: >> >> Greetings, all, >> >> Thanks to all who joined us for the call yesterday. We are off to a brilliant start. Three things: >> >> First, I would like to introduce Wim DeGezelle, who will be assisting us generally, and especially in collecting materials and drafting the background and final documents for comment. Welcome, Wim. Wim will be preparing minutes from our recent call, which he shall circulate when ready. >> >> In the meantime, the recording of the conversation is available here: >> >> https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/ldr.php?RCID=31dfd6486e65a50b47e1231b7a80cf9d >> >> Second, on a procedural note, our first point of order is to create the background paper by the end of June. The background paper should form, to a large extent, the "preface" to the final paper. >> >> In the background paper we should define the problem. Recalling comments from the call, the problem definition - in it of itself - will be of great practical value to the broader community. >> >> Let us begin our discussion on the problem definition. To start, what is the question that we are trying to answer, e.g.: >> >> * Why is it important to adopt IPv6? >> * What are best practices for creating an environment that enables IPv6 adoption? >> * ....? >> >> The background paper should include this problem definition, in addition to an outline of the planned table of contents. >> >> Third, In terms of the table of contents, our starting point is the template provided by ISOC. This can be changed to suit our purposes. >> >> 1. Definition of the issue >> 2. Regional specificities observed (e.g. Internet industry development) >> 3. Existing policy measures and private sector initiatives, impediments >> 4. What worked well, identifying common effective practices >> 5. Unintended consequences of policy interventions, good and bad >> 6. Unresolved issues where further multistakeholder cooperation is needed >> 7. Insights gained as a result of the experience >> 8. Proposed steps for further multistakeholder dialogue >> >> Perhaps we should start a separate email thread discussing this format? >> >> In terms of scheduling, we'd like to host fortnightly calls starting June 3rd. Here is the Doodle poll for selecting a time on the 3rd: http://doodle.com/e6x25d8tn288dnq9 >> It would be lovely if you could fill in your preferences by close of business on Monday. >> >> Many thanks, and let's define this problem! >> >> Sincerely, >> Susan >> >> >> >> >> Susan Chalmers >> susan at chalmers.associates >> >> CHALMERS & ASSOCIATES >> http://chalmers.associates >> _______________________________________________ >> Bp_ipv6 mailing list >> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org >> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Intersessional_2015 mailing list >> Intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org >> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/intersessional_2015_intgovforum.org >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Bp_ipv6 mailing list > Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org > From sanjaya at apnic.net Mon Jun 1 20:03:42 2015 From: sanjaya at apnic.net (Sanjaya Sanjaya) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 00:03:42 +0000 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] [Intersessional_2015] BPF on IPv6; Problem Definition In-Reply-To: <556C88DD.7080101@nic.ad.jp> References: <43D48BFE-E031-44FA-B908-E4CE300A034D@nbcuni.com> <556C83CB.9020100@nic.ad.jp> <556C88DD.7080101@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: <8020831EE6E9B346AB89CD7720CB84D66761AFC7@NXMDA2.org.apnic.net> May I suggest that the document is also targeted to all executives (CxOs?) of all industries? And yes, that should include Finance and HR executives. The executive summary must be written in a language that all execs can understand. Cheers, Sanjaya -----Original Message----- From: Bp_ipv6 [mailto:bp_ipv6-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of Izumi Okutani Sent: Tuesday, 2 June 2015 2:31 AM To: intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org; bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org Subject: Re: [Bp_ipv6] [Intersessional_2015] BPF on IPv6; Problem Definition ... snip ... * Target of this document * From what has been listed in the group so far: - Governments and policy makers (Listed by several participants, no objections observed) - Possible other stakeholders from the course of the discussions: Suppliers of products? Industry Association of the suppliers? Business Users? (Users of those equipment) Those who wish to build a community/Forum (e.g. IPv6 TF)? Question: Ayone else? Do we consider all stakeholders in IPv6 adoption as the target of this document or do we just focus on (a) certain stakeholder(s) as the target of this document? Regards, Izumi From miwa at apnic.net Mon Jun 1 21:33:07 2015 From: miwa at apnic.net (Miwa Fujii) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 01:33:07 +0000 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] [Intersessional_2015] BPF on IPv6; Problem Definition In-Reply-To: <556C88DD.7080101@nic.ad.jp> References: <43D48BFE-E031-44FA-B908-E4CE300A034D@nbcuni.com> <556C83CB.9020100@nic.ad.jp> <556C88DD.7080101@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: Hi Izumi, Thanks for the summary. It looks good to me. Just one comment, yes, I?d support your suggestion to include global data for IPv4 address exhaustion, I.e., not only APNIC. There are many sites covers this data. So here is just as FYI. http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/ Thanks! miwa On 2/06/2015 2:31 am, "Izumi Okutani" wrote: >Hi all, > > >There has been lots of useful inputs, which could be incorporated in our >background paper including the problem definition/problem statement. >I have summarized these points for your reference to continue the >discussions on the Problem Definition on this mailing list, and towards >our second call this week. > >I welcome your comments to list additional points, expand/improve on the >points raised, and/or suggest changes to the points which have been >shared. > > >* Motivation Factor/Background * > Why IPv6? > Internet Protocol (IP) addresses uniquely identify devices on the >Internet. Currently, almost all devices connected to networks use the IP >version 4 (IPv4) address system. IPv4 has more than 4 billion possible >address combinations, > but these are being used up quickly. APNIC reached its last block of >IPv4 addresses in April 2011[Perhaps add global statistics?]. Internet >Protocol version 6 (IPv6) was developed to ensure the continued growth >and innovation of > the Internet. IPv6 offers an extremely large (2128) address space, as >each address is 128 bits long, rather than 32 bits. > > Key business drivers for IPv6 > IPv6 enables the sustainable growth of the Internet. This in itself is >a major motivation to deploy IPv6, but it also provides the possibility >for new services and business opportunities on large-scale IP >installations e.g. > smartphones, smart grid initiatives, and cloud computing. These have >all driven an increase in demand for IP addresses. > > * Introduction/Problem definition * > - Widespread adoption of IPv6 will be important to maintaining the > global reach and integrity of the Internet. Following this > wide-spread adoption, the eventual transition to IPv6 will only be > successful when we, as a community, are all moving together at the > same time. Adoption of IPv6 by a single entity is often a challenge; > it is not useful if one organization alone adopts IPv6 when majority > of the Internet is based on IPv4. The long-term sustainability of > the network and success of the Internet to accommodate IPv6 depends > on getting more organisations to adopt IPv6. > > - There are ways in which different stakeholders with different roles > can each contribute to IPv6 adoption such as: > [List examples of Stakeholders] > Governments and policy makers > How can governments and policy makers support an environment that >encourages IPv6 adoption by industry players in their economy? > (e.g. by sharing information, setting a role model, facilitating >dialogue among industry players, supporting capacity building of the >environment, creating financial incentives?); > # APEC TEL paper may give us a starting point to list the measures >and activities which can be taken by governments > > Question: Anyone else to add as the stakeholders? > Research and academia: How research and academia can help in >sharing the general picture of the status of IPv6 adoption? > Community/Forum: How we can Community/Forum share information, >build general sentiment, raise awareness towards IPv6 adoption > Nonprofit projects and activities: How it can help in raising >awareness, motivate for specific actions, capacity building > Role per services: What can the various service providers for: >fixed line access, mobile access, data centers, applications and contents >providers, suppliers of products do to help IPv6 adoption? > # APEC TEL paper may give us a starting point to list the >stakeholders > > # A suggestion is made to define "IPv6 Adoption" as the problem >statement. > Another point is made that this would have lots of >technical/technological aspects which technical stakeholders have been >dealing. > > * Target of this document * > From what has been listed in the group so far: > > - Governments and policy makers (Listed by several participants, no >objections observed) > > - Possible other stakeholders from the course of the discussions: > Suppliers of products? > Industry Association of the suppliers? > Business Users? (Users of those equipment) > Those who wish to build a community/Forum (e.g. IPv6 TF)? > > Question: Ayone else? Do we consider all stakeholders in IPv6 >adoption as the target of this document or do we just focus on (a) >certain stakeholder(s) as the target of this document? > > >Regards, >Izumi > >On 2015/06/02 1:09, Izumi Okutani wrote: >> Thank you Miwa for your comment. >> >>> I think detailed analysis you provided in your previous email on >>>adoption of IPv6 have lots of technical/technological aspects. The >>>technical stakeholders have been dealing stated issues. Therefore I >>>think developing BP message along this line by this forum will overlap >>>with efforts that have been made by service providers, content >>>providers, CDN, application developers, device/network equipment >>>venders etc. >> >> Sure. As stated in our draft guiding principles, this group doesn't >>intend to duplicate the work already carried out by other forums or >>communities. >> We have also suggested that our scope will not focus on technical >>aspect of IPv6 adoption, which has been supported by Natalie and observe >>no objections for far. >> >> Does anyone have any other comments/observations? >> >>> I think focusing on commonality between IGF and IPv6 will help us to >>>move forward in defining problems and opportunities on IPv6 as an IGF >>>discussion group. Both of them require multi stakeholder approaches. >>>I think establishing discussion on problem definition around this >>>commonality will make more compatible argument. >>> I think in order to increase IPv6 adoption, we need to keep >>>encouraging the multi-stakehodler approach, and I can see here some >>>benefit to have BP document developed by this group. >> >> Good point for our consideration in the problem definition. >> Let me re-share that the current suggested scope of this group is not >>the IPv6 adoption itself but to compile the best practices on measures >>and activites to creat an environment to encourage IPv6 adoption. >> >> Ofcourse, this scope is still preliminary and open to any other >>suggestions/comments. >> We would like to fix the scope and the goals of the group shortly after >>our coming call this week, so I welcome you all to share your thoughts >>on the list/at the call. >> >> Based on the current suggested scope, one of the major issues in >>creating this environment to encourage widespread IPv6 adoption could >>be, that a single organization or a single stakeholder cannot make it >>happen on their own. >> This fits in nicely with the nature of the IGF being multistakeholder. >> >> I have quoted a part of the draft "Introduction" of this group, which >>looks relevant to your point above. >> >> - Widespread adoption of IPv6 will be important to maintaining the >> global reach and integrity of the Internet. Following this >> wide-spread adoption, the eventual transition to IPv6 will only be >> successful when we, as a community, are all moving together at the >> same time. Adoption of IPv6 by a single entity is often a challenge; >> it is not useful if one organization alone adopts IPv6 when majority >> of the Internet is based on IPv4. The long-term sustainability of >> the network and success of the Internet to accommodate IPv6 depends >> on getting more organisations to adopt IPv6. >> - There are ways in which different stakeholders with different roles >> can each contribute to IPv6 adoption. This Best Practice Forum gives >> all stakeholders the opportunity to contribute. >> >>> APNIC has disseminated customised IPv6 messages to each stakeholder of >>>the Internet since 2008. As FYI, please see the following link for >>>more details: >>> >>> https://www.apnic.net/community/ipv6-program/messages >> >> Thank you for sharing this. Looks like these contents relate well with >>the movitation factors we discussed at the last call. >> Since we have a concrete text which looks consistent with the >>discussions which took place within the group, how do you all feel about >>starting from here, to describe the movitation factors in our document? >> >> At the last call, there were discussions on whether to focus on the >>current issue only, or we cover future potential use as well. >> Instead of picking one over the other, I wonder we could cover both as >>motivation factors, just like in the webpage refered to? >> >> (snip) >> Why IPv6? >> Internet Protocol (IP) addresses uniquely identify devices on the >>Internet. Currently, almost all devices connected to networks use the IP >>version 4 (IPv4) address system. IPv4 has more than 4 billion possible >>address combinations, but these are being used up quickly. APNIC reached >>its last block of IPv4 addresses in April 2011. Internet Protocol >>version 6 (IPv6) was developed to ensure the continued growth and >>innovation of the Internet. IPv6 offers an extremely large (2128) >>address space, as each address is 128 bits long, rather than 32 bits. >> >> Key business drivers for IPv6 >> IPv6 enables the sustainable growth of the Internet. This in itself is >>a major motivation to deploy IPv6, but it also provides the possibility >>for new services and business opportunities on large-scale IP >>installations e.g. smartphones, smart grid initiatives, and cloud >>computing. These have all driven an increase in demand for IP addresses. >> (snip) >> >> I also see the list of stakeholders listed further down on the same >>webpage, which could be our reference in considering our target. >> >>> We also made special efforts to engage with government stakeholders. >>>Key messages for this group of stakeholder are: >>> >>> * Support IPv6 deployment through partnership between government and >>>industry >>> * Lead the industry by example in adopting IPv6 in government networks >>> * Mandate IPv6 in government procurement criteria >>> >>> We have worked very closely with APEC TEL on IPv6 and facilitated the >>>forum to develop APEC TEL IPv6 Guidelines in 2010. Here it is as FYI: >>> >>> >>>http://www.apec.org/Home/Groups/SOM-Steering-Committee-on-Economic-and-T >>>echnical-Cooperation/Working-Groups/~/media/Files/Groups/TEL/2010_APEC-T >>>EL-IPv6-guidelines-FINAL.ashx >> >> >> Thanks, measures listed in "Category" looks like a good component to >>list as activties and measure to be listed as examples in this Best >>Practices document. >> >> "Background" described in the APEC TEL IPv6 Guidelines looks consistent >>with the above quoted "Introduction" of this group which says "There are >>ways in which different stakeholders with different roles can each >>contribute to IPv6 adoption. " >> >> Background (from APEC TEL IPv6 Guidelines): >> "... explored the issues and determined that positive steps to >>encourage the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 can be taken by a broad range >>of stakeholders, in their individual capacities but also in >>collaboration." >> >> So far, we have all agreed to target governments and policy makers in >>this document. >> Would we want to consider any other stakeholders listed above, in >>addition to governments and policy makers, as the target of this >>document? >> >>> I hope you find the above input useful. >> >> It is useful to have a specific information pointer like this. Thank >>you Miwa. >> >> As suggested earlier, we are planning to start calling for existing >>resources and information, once we have defined the Problem statement. >> Even before this, if there is any information relevant for discussions, >>sharing it here on this list is certainly welcome. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> Izumi >> >> >> On 2015/05/28 17:24, Miwa Fujii wrote: >>> Hi Dean et al., >>> >>> First time to post to this list. Nice e-meeting you :-) >>> >>> Here is a ver quick background of me: I???ve worked at APNIC as IPv6 >>>Program Specialist between 2008 ??? 2013. I moved onto another role >>>since then, but IPv6 is still part of my portfolio at APNIC I???d like >>>to provide some input here based on my experience and knowledge on IPv6. >>> >>> I think detailed analysis you provided in your previous email on >>>adoption of IPv6 have lots of technical/technological aspects. The >>>technical stakeholders have been dealing stated issues. Therefore I >>>think developing BP message along this line by this forum will overlap >>>with efforts that have been made by service providers, content >>>providers, CDN, application developers, device/network equipment >>>venders etc. >>> >>> I think focusing on commonality between IGF and IPv6 will help us to >>>move forward in defining problems and opportunities on IPv6 as an IGF >>>discussion group. Both of them require multi stakeholder approaches. >>>I think establishing discussion on problem definition around this >>>commonality will make more compatible argument. >>> >>> I think in order to increase IPv6 adoption, we need to keep >>>encouraging the multi-stakehodler approach, and I can see here some >>>benefit to have BP document developed by this group. >>> >>> APNIC has disseminated customised IPv6 messages to each stakeholder of >>>the Internet since 2008. As FYI, please see the following link for >>>more details: >>> >>> https://www.apnic.net/community/ipv6-program/messages >>> >>> We also made special efforts to engage with government stakeholders. >>>Key messages for this group of stakeholder are: >>> >>> * Support IPv6 deployment through partnership between government and >>>industry >>> * Lead the industry by example in adopting IPv6 in government networks >>> * Mandate IPv6 in government procurement criteria >>> >>> We have worked very closely with APEC TEL on IPv6 and facilitated the >>>forum to develop APEC TEL IPv6 Guidelines in 2010. Here it is as FYI: >>> >>> >>>http://www.apec.org/Home/Groups/SOM-Steering-Committee-on-Economic-and-T >>>echnical-Cooperation/Working-Groups/~/media/Files/Groups/TEL/2010_APEC-T >>>EL-IPv6-guidelines-FINAL.ashx >>> >>> I hope you find the above input useful. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Miwa >>> >>> From: , "Glenn (NBCUniversal)" >>>> >>> Date: Saturday, 23 May 2015 2:44 am >>> To: Susan Chalmers >>>> >>> Cc: "bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org" >>>>, >>>"intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org>>rum.org>" >>>>>rum.org>> >>> Subject: Re: [Bp_ipv6] BPF on IPv6; Problem Definition >>> >>> Susan, >>> >>> May I also suggest as part of the problem definition we include >>> >>> What does adopt IPv6 mean? >>> >>> It can mean many things: >>> >>> It's available: >>> - networks offer it as an additional option for traffic >>> - devices/operating systems offer it as an option for traffic >>> - services offer it as an option for connecting >>> >>> Or it could mean >>> >>> It's preferred: >>> - networks offer it as the preferred option for traffic >>> - devices/operating systems offer it as the preferred option for >>>traffic >>> - services offer it as the preferred option for connecting >>> >>> Or it could mean >>> >>> It's exclusive: >>> - networks offer it as the only option for traffic >>> - devices/operating systems offer it as the only option for traffic >>> - services offer it as the only option for connecting >>> >>> Defining this is important, and I don't know for certain that everyone >>>would answer the question the same way. >>> >>> Perhaps even a poll of our participants would be revealing in how we >>>answer this. >>> >>> I will go first: my ideal goal is it's exclusive; my realistic choice >>>it's that it's preferred. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Glenn >>> >>> Sent from my iPad, please forgive any tpyos or auto connections >>> >>> On May 22, 2015, at 8:57 AM, Susan Chalmers >>>> wrote: >>> >>> Greetings, all, >>> >>> Thanks to all who joined us for the call yesterday. We are off to a >>>brilliant start. Three things: >>> >>> First, I would like to introduce Wim DeGezelle, who will be assisting >>>us generally, and especially in collecting materials and drafting the >>>background and final documents for comment. Welcome, Wim. Wim will be >>>preparing minutes from our recent call, which he shall circulate when >>>ready. >>> >>> In the meantime, the recording of the conversation is available here: >>> >>> >>>https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/ldr.php?RCID=31dfd6486e65a50b4 >>>7e1231b7a80cf9d >>> >>> Second, on a procedural note, our first point of order is to create >>>the background paper by the end of June. The background paper should >>>form, to a large extent, the "preface" to the final paper. >>> >>> In the background paper we should define the problem. Recalling >>>comments from the call, the problem definition - in it of itself - will >>>be of great practical value to the broader community. >>> >>> Let us begin our discussion on the problem definition. To start, what >>>is the question that we are trying to answer, e.g.: >>> >>> * Why is it important to adopt IPv6? >>> * What are best practices for creating an environment that enables >>>IPv6 adoption? >>> * ....? >>> >>> The background paper should include this problem definition, in >>>addition to an outline of the planned table of contents. >>> >>> Third, In terms of the table of contents, our starting point is the >>>template provided by ISOC. This can be changed to suit our purposes. >>> >>> 1. Definition of the issue >>> 2. Regional specificities observed (e.g. Internet industry >>>development) >>> 3. Existing policy measures and private sector initiatives, >>>impediments >>> 4. What worked well, identifying common effective practices >>> 5. Unintended consequences of policy interventions, good and bad >>> 6. Unresolved issues where further multistakeholder cooperation is >>>needed >>> 7. Insights gained as a result of the experience >>> 8. Proposed steps for further multistakeholder dialogue >>> >>> Perhaps we should start a separate email thread discussing this format? >>> >>> In terms of scheduling, we'd like to host fortnightly calls starting >>>June 3rd. Here is the Doodle poll for selecting a time on the 3rd: >>>http://doodle.com/e6x25d8tn288dnq9 >>> It would be lovely if you could fill in your preferences by close of >>>business on Monday. >>> >>> Many thanks, and let's define this problem! >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> Susan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Susan Chalmers >>> susan at chalmers.associates >>> >>> CHALMERS & ASSOCIATES >>> http://chalmers.associates >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bp_ipv6 mailing list >>> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org >>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Intersessional_2015 mailing list >>> Intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org >>> >>>http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/intersessional_2015_intgovforum. >>>org >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 From miwa at apnic.net Mon Jun 1 21:34:34 2015 From: miwa at apnic.net (Miwa Fujii) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 01:34:34 +0000 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] [Intersessional_2015] BPF on IPv6; Problem Definition In-Reply-To: <8020831EE6E9B346AB89CD7720CB84D66761AFC7@NXMDA2.org.apnic.net> References: <43D48BFE-E031-44FA-B908-E4CE300A034D@nbcuni.com> <556C83CB.9020100@nic.ad.jp> <556C88DD.7080101@nic.ad.jp> <8020831EE6E9B346AB89CD7720CB84D66761AFC7@NXMDA2.org.apnic.net> Message-ID: Hi All, Just to support Sanjaya?s input. APNIC has following consolidated information: https://www.apnic.net/community/ipv6-program/ipv6-for-decision-makers As FYI. miwa On 2/06/2015 10:03 am, "Sanjaya Sanjaya" wrote: > >May I suggest that the document is also targeted to all executives >(CxOs?) of all industries? And yes, that should include Finance and HR >executives. The executive summary must be written in a language that all >execs can understand. > >Cheers, >Sanjaya > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bp_ipv6 [mailto:bp_ipv6-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of Izumi >Okutani >Sent: Tuesday, 2 June 2015 2:31 AM >To: intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org; bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org >Subject: Re: [Bp_ipv6] [Intersessional_2015] BPF on IPv6; Problem >Definition > >... snip ... > > * Target of this document * > From what has been listed in the group so far: > > - Governments and policy makers (Listed by several participants, no >objections observed) > > - Possible other stakeholders from the course of the discussions: > Suppliers of products? > Industry Association of the suppliers? > Business Users? (Users of those equipment) > Those who wish to build a community/Forum (e.g. IPv6 TF)? > > Question: Ayone else? Do we consider all stakeholders in IPv6 >adoption as the target of this document or do we just focus on (a) >certain stakeholder(s) as the target of this document? > > >Regards, >Izumi > >_______________________________________________ >Bp_ipv6 mailing list >Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org >http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org From sanjaya at apnic.net Mon Jun 1 22:38:30 2015 From: sanjaya at apnic.net (Sanjaya Sanjaya) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 02:38:30 +0000 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] [Intersessional_2015] BPF on IPv6; Problem Definition In-Reply-To: References: <43D48BFE-E031-44FA-B908-E4CE300A034D@nbcuni.com> <556C83CB.9020100@nic.ad.jp> <556C88DD.7080101@nic.ad.jp> <8020831EE6E9B346AB89CD7720CB84D66761AFC7@NXMDA2.org.apnic.net> Message-ID: <8020831EE6E9B346AB89CD7720CB84D66761B4B2@NXMDA2.org.apnic.net> Yup, something like that, but target ALL industry (i.e. multi-stakeholder, not just the Internet Industry players). Cheers, Sanjaya -----Original Message----- From: Miwa Fujii Sent: Tuesday, 2 June 2015 11:35 AM To: Sanjaya Sanjaya; intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org; bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org Subject: Re: [Bp_ipv6] [Intersessional_2015] BPF on IPv6; Problem Definition Hi All, Just to support Sanjaya?s input. APNIC has following consolidated information: https://www.apnic.net/community/ipv6-program/ipv6-for-decision-makers As FYI. miwa On 2/06/2015 10:03 am, "Sanjaya Sanjaya" wrote: > >May I suggest that the document is also targeted to all executives >(CxOs?) of all industries? And yes, that should include Finance and HR >executives. The executive summary must be written in a language that >all execs can understand. > >Cheers, >Sanjaya > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bp_ipv6 [mailto:bp_ipv6-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of >Izumi Okutani >Sent: Tuesday, 2 June 2015 2:31 AM >To: intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org; bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org >Subject: Re: [Bp_ipv6] [Intersessional_2015] BPF on IPv6; Problem >Definition > >... snip ... > > * Target of this document * > From what has been listed in the group so far: > > - Governments and policy makers (Listed by several participants, >no objections observed) > > - Possible other stakeholders from the course of the discussions: > Suppliers of products? > Industry Association of the suppliers? > Business Users? (Users of those equipment) > Those who wish to build a community/Forum (e.g. IPv6 TF)? > > Question: Ayone else? Do we consider all stakeholders in IPv6 >adoption as the target of this document or do we just focus on (a) >certain stakeholder(s) as the target of this document? > > >Regards, >Izumi > >_______________________________________________ >Bp_ipv6 mailing list >Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org >http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org From izumi at nic.ad.jp Tue Jun 2 01:03:31 2015 From: izumi at nic.ad.jp (Izumi Okutani) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:03:31 +0900 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] [Intersessional_2015] BPF on IPv6; Problem Definition In-Reply-To: References: <43D48BFE-E031-44FA-B908-E4CE300A034D@nbcuni.com> <556C83CB.9020100@nic.ad.jp> <556C88DD.7080101@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: <556D3923.1030108@nic.ad.jp> Thanks Miwa for another useful reference. Does anyone have any comments about adding this reference or have any other suggestions? If there are no objections about referencing the statistics we could reflect it as a reference point. I note this is well recognized website, trusted as being neutural, accurate and up to date by the operational communities. Just as a reminder, the text is shared as starting point of dicussions. It is quoted from APEC TEL document, so it would not be approporiate for this group to use the exact sentence as it is. I continue to welcome your inputs on whether there are any other points to add/suggestions for changes, and we can brush up the text as needed. Thanks, Izumi On 2015/06/02 10:33, Miwa Fujii wrote: > Hi Izumi, > > Thanks for the summary. It looks good to me. > > Just one comment, yes, I???d support your suggestion to include global data > for IPv4 address exhaustion, I.e., not only APNIC. There are many sites > covers this data. So here is just as FYI. > http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/ > > Thanks! > > miwa > > On 2/06/2015 2:31 am, "Izumi Okutani" wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> >> There has been lots of useful inputs, which could be incorporated in our >> background paper including the problem definition/problem statement. >> I have summarized these points for your reference to continue the >> discussions on the Problem Definition on this mailing list, and towards >> our second call this week. >> >> I welcome your comments to list additional points, expand/improve on the >> points raised, and/or suggest changes to the points which have been >> shared. >> >> >> * Motivation Factor/Background * >> Why IPv6? >> Internet Protocol (IP) addresses uniquely identify devices on the >> Internet. Currently, almost all devices connected to networks use the IP >> version 4 (IPv4) address system. IPv4 has more than 4 billion possible >> address combinations, >> but these are being used up quickly. APNIC reached its last block of >> IPv4 addresses in April 2011[Perhaps add global statistics?]. Internet >> Protocol version 6 (IPv6) was developed to ensure the continued growth >> and innovation of >> the Internet. IPv6 offers an extremely large (2128) address space, as >> each address is 128 bits long, rather than 32 bits. >> >> Key business drivers for IPv6 >> IPv6 enables the sustainable growth of the Internet. This in itself is >> a major motivation to deploy IPv6, but it also provides the possibility >> for new services and business opportunities on large-scale IP >> installations e.g. >> smartphones, smart grid initiatives, and cloud computing. These have >> all driven an increase in demand for IP addresses. >> >> * Introduction/Problem definition * >> - Widespread adoption of IPv6 will be important to maintaining the >> global reach and integrity of the Internet. Following this >> wide-spread adoption, the eventual transition to IPv6 will only be >> successful when we, as a community, are all moving together at the >> same time. Adoption of IPv6 by a single entity is often a challenge; >> it is not useful if one organization alone adopts IPv6 when majority >> of the Internet is based on IPv4. The long-term sustainability of >> the network and success of the Internet to accommodate IPv6 depends >> on getting more organisations to adopt IPv6. >> >> - There are ways in which different stakeholders with different roles >> can each contribute to IPv6 adoption such as: >> [List examples of Stakeholders] >> Governments and policy makers >> How can governments and policy makers support an environment that >> encourages IPv6 adoption by industry players in their economy? >> (e.g. by sharing information, setting a role model, facilitating >> dialogue among industry players, supporting capacity building of the >> environment, creating financial incentives?); >> # APEC TEL paper may give us a starting point to list the measures >> and activities which can be taken by governments >> >> Question: Anyone else to add as the stakeholders? >> Research and academia: How research and academia can help in >> sharing the general picture of the status of IPv6 adoption? >> Community/Forum: How we can Community/Forum share information, >> build general sentiment, raise awareness towards IPv6 adoption >> Nonprofit projects and activities: How it can help in raising >> awareness, motivate for specific actions, capacity building >> Role per services: What can the various service providers for: >> fixed line access, mobile access, data centers, applications and contents >> providers, suppliers of products do to help IPv6 adoption? >> # APEC TEL paper may give us a starting point to list the >> stakeholders >> >> # A suggestion is made to define "IPv6 Adoption" as the problem >> statement. >> Another point is made that this would have lots of >> technical/technological aspects which technical stakeholders have been >> dealing. >> >> * Target of this document * >> From what has been listed in the group so far: >> >> - Governments and policy makers (Listed by several participants, no >> objections observed) >> >> - Possible other stakeholders from the course of the discussions: >> Suppliers of products? >> Industry Association of the suppliers? >> Business Users? (Users of those equipment) >> Those who wish to build a community/Forum (e.g. IPv6 TF)? >> >> Question: Ayone else? Do we consider all stakeholders in IPv6 >> adoption as the target of this document or do we just focus on (a) >> certain stakeholder(s) as the target of this document? >> >> >> Regards, >> Izumi >> >> On 2015/06/02 1:09, Izumi Okutani wrote: >>> Thank you Miwa for your comment. >>> >>>> I think detailed analysis you provided in your previous email on >>>> adoption of IPv6 have lots of technical/technological aspects. The >>>> technical stakeholders have been dealing stated issues. Therefore I >>>> think developing BP message along this line by this forum will overlap >>>> with efforts that have been made by service providers, content >>>> providers, CDN, application developers, device/network equipment >>>> venders etc. >>> >>> Sure. As stated in our draft guiding principles, this group doesn't >>> intend to duplicate the work already carried out by other forums or >>> communities. >>> We have also suggested that our scope will not focus on technical >>> aspect of IPv6 adoption, which has been supported by Natalie and observe >>> no objections for far. >>> >>> Does anyone have any other comments/observations? >>> >>>> I think focusing on commonality between IGF and IPv6 will help us to >>>> move forward in defining problems and opportunities on IPv6 as an IGF >>>> discussion group. Both of them require multi stakeholder approaches. >>>> I think establishing discussion on problem definition around this >>>> commonality will make more compatible argument. >>>> I think in order to increase IPv6 adoption, we need to keep >>>> encouraging the multi-stakehodler approach, and I can see here some >>>> benefit to have BP document developed by this group. >>> >>> Good point for our consideration in the problem definition. >>> Let me re-share that the current suggested scope of this group is not >>> the IPv6 adoption itself but to compile the best practices on measures >>> and activites to creat an environment to encourage IPv6 adoption. >>> >>> Ofcourse, this scope is still preliminary and open to any other >>> suggestions/comments. >>> We would like to fix the scope and the goals of the group shortly after >>> our coming call this week, so I welcome you all to share your thoughts >>> on the list/at the call. >>> >>> Based on the current suggested scope, one of the major issues in >>> creating this environment to encourage widespread IPv6 adoption could >>> be, that a single organization or a single stakeholder cannot make it >>> happen on their own. >>> This fits in nicely with the nature of the IGF being multistakeholder. >>> >>> I have quoted a part of the draft "Introduction" of this group, which >>> looks relevant to your point above. >>> >>> - Widespread adoption of IPv6 will be important to maintaining the >>> global reach and integrity of the Internet. Following this >>> wide-spread adoption, the eventual transition to IPv6 will only be >>> successful when we, as a community, are all moving together at the >>> same time. Adoption of IPv6 by a single entity is often a challenge; >>> it is not useful if one organization alone adopts IPv6 when majority >>> of the Internet is based on IPv4. The long-term sustainability of >>> the network and success of the Internet to accommodate IPv6 depends >>> on getting more organisations to adopt IPv6. >>> - There are ways in which different stakeholders with different roles >>> can each contribute to IPv6 adoption. This Best Practice Forum gives >>> all stakeholders the opportunity to contribute. >>> >>>> APNIC has disseminated customised IPv6 messages to each stakeholder of >>>> the Internet since 2008. As FYI, please see the following link for >>>> more details: >>>> >>>> https://www.apnic.net/community/ipv6-program/messages >>> >>> Thank you for sharing this. Looks like these contents relate well with >>> the movitation factors we discussed at the last call. >>> Since we have a concrete text which looks consistent with the >>> discussions which took place within the group, how do you all feel about >>> starting from here, to describe the movitation factors in our document? >>> >>> At the last call, there were discussions on whether to focus on the >>> current issue only, or we cover future potential use as well. >>> Instead of picking one over the other, I wonder we could cover both as >>> motivation factors, just like in the webpage refered to? >>> >>> (snip) >>> Why IPv6? >>> Internet Protocol (IP) addresses uniquely identify devices on the >>> Internet. Currently, almost all devices connected to networks use the IP >>> version 4 (IPv4) address system. IPv4 has more than 4 billion possible >>> address combinations, but these are being used up quickly. APNIC reached >>> its last block of IPv4 addresses in April 2011. Internet Protocol >>> version 6 (IPv6) was developed to ensure the continued growth and >>> innovation of the Internet. IPv6 offers an extremely large (2128) >>> address space, as each address is 128 bits long, rather than 32 bits. >>> >>> Key business drivers for IPv6 >>> IPv6 enables the sustainable growth of the Internet. This in itself is >>> a major motivation to deploy IPv6, but it also provides the possibility >>> for new services and business opportunities on large-scale IP >>> installations e.g. smartphones, smart grid initiatives, and cloud >>> computing. These have all driven an increase in demand for IP addresses. >>> (snip) >>> >>> I also see the list of stakeholders listed further down on the same >>> webpage, which could be our reference in considering our target. >>> >>>> We also made special efforts to engage with government stakeholders. >>>> Key messages for this group of stakeholder are: >>>> >>>> * Support IPv6 deployment through partnership between government and >>>> industry >>>> * Lead the industry by example in adopting IPv6 in government networks >>>> * Mandate IPv6 in government procurement criteria >>>> >>>> We have worked very closely with APEC TEL on IPv6 and facilitated the >>>> forum to develop APEC TEL IPv6 Guidelines in 2010. Here it is as FYI: >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.apec.org/Home/Groups/SOM-Steering-Committee-on-Economic-and-T >>>> echnical-Cooperation/Working-Groups/~/media/Files/Groups/TEL/2010_APEC-T >>>> EL-IPv6-guidelines-FINAL.ashx >>> >>> >>> Thanks, measures listed in "Category" looks like a good component to >>> list as activties and measure to be listed as examples in this Best >>> Practices document. >>> >>> "Background" described in the APEC TEL IPv6 Guidelines looks consistent >>> with the above quoted "Introduction" of this group which says "There are >>> ways in which different stakeholders with different roles can each >>> contribute to IPv6 adoption. " >>> >>> Background (from APEC TEL IPv6 Guidelines): >>> "... explored the issues and determined that positive steps to >>> encourage the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 can be taken by a broad range >>> of stakeholders, in their individual capacities but also in >>> collaboration." >>> >>> So far, we have all agreed to target governments and policy makers in >>> this document. >>> Would we want to consider any other stakeholders listed above, in >>> addition to governments and policy makers, as the target of this >>> document? >>> >>>> I hope you find the above input useful. >>> >>> It is useful to have a specific information pointer like this. Thank >>> you Miwa. >>> >>> As suggested earlier, we are planning to start calling for existing >>> resources and information, once we have defined the Problem statement. >>> Even before this, if there is any information relevant for discussions, >>> sharing it here on this list is certainly welcome. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Izumi >>> >>> >>> On 2015/05/28 17:24, Miwa Fujii wrote: >>>> Hi Dean et al., >>>> >>>> First time to post to this list. Nice e-meeting you :-) >>>> >>>> Here is a ver quick background of me: I?????????ve worked at APNIC as IPv6 >>>> Program Specialist between 2008 ????????? 2013. I moved onto another role >>>> since then, but IPv6 is still part of my portfolio at APNIC I?????????d like >>>> to provide some input here based on my experience and knowledge on IPv6. >>>> >>>> I think detailed analysis you provided in your previous email on >>>> adoption of IPv6 have lots of technical/technological aspects. The >>>> technical stakeholders have been dealing stated issues. Therefore I >>>> think developing BP message along this line by this forum will overlap >>>> with efforts that have been made by service providers, content >>>> providers, CDN, application developers, device/network equipment >>>> venders etc. >>>> >>>> I think focusing on commonality between IGF and IPv6 will help us to >>>> move forward in defining problems and opportunities on IPv6 as an IGF >>>> discussion group. Both of them require multi stakeholder approaches. >>>> I think establishing discussion on problem definition around this >>>> commonality will make more compatible argument. >>>> >>>> I think in order to increase IPv6 adoption, we need to keep >>>> encouraging the multi-stakehodler approach, and I can see here some >>>> benefit to have BP document developed by this group. >>>> >>>> APNIC has disseminated customised IPv6 messages to each stakeholder of >>>> the Internet since 2008. As FYI, please see the following link for >>>> more details: >>>> >>>> https://www.apnic.net/community/ipv6-program/messages >>>> >>>> We also made special efforts to engage with government stakeholders. >>>> Key messages for this group of stakeholder are: >>>> >>>> * Support IPv6 deployment through partnership between government and >>>> industry >>>> * Lead the industry by example in adopting IPv6 in government networks >>>> * Mandate IPv6 in government procurement criteria >>>> >>>> We have worked very closely with APEC TEL on IPv6 and facilitated the >>>> forum to develop APEC TEL IPv6 Guidelines in 2010. Here it is as FYI: >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.apec.org/Home/Groups/SOM-Steering-Committee-on-Economic-and-T >>>> echnical-Cooperation/Working-Groups/~/media/Files/Groups/TEL/2010_APEC-T >>>> EL-IPv6-guidelines-FINAL.ashx >>>> >>>> I hope you find the above input useful. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Miwa >>>> >>>> From: , "Glenn (NBCUniversal)" >>>> > >>>> Date: Saturday, 23 May 2015 2:44 am >>>> To: Susan Chalmers >>>> > >>>> Cc: "bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org" >>>> >, >>>> "intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org>>> rum.org>" >>>> >>> rum.org>> >>>> Subject: Re: [Bp_ipv6] BPF on IPv6; Problem Definition >>>> >>>> Susan, >>>> >>>> May I also suggest as part of the problem definition we include >>>> >>>> What does adopt IPv6 mean? >>>> >>>> It can mean many things: >>>> >>>> It's available: >>>> - networks offer it as an additional option for traffic >>>> - devices/operating systems offer it as an option for traffic >>>> - services offer it as an option for connecting >>>> >>>> Or it could mean >>>> >>>> It's preferred: >>>> - networks offer it as the preferred option for traffic >>>> - devices/operating systems offer it as the preferred option for >>>> traffic >>>> - services offer it as the preferred option for connecting >>>> >>>> Or it could mean >>>> >>>> It's exclusive: >>>> - networks offer it as the only option for traffic >>>> - devices/operating systems offer it as the only option for traffic >>>> - services offer it as the only option for connecting >>>> >>>> Defining this is important, and I don't know for certain that everyone >>>> would answer the question the same way. >>>> >>>> Perhaps even a poll of our participants would be revealing in how we >>>> answer this. >>>> >>>> I will go first: my ideal goal is it's exclusive; my realistic choice >>>> it's that it's preferred. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Glenn >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad, please forgive any tpyos or auto connections >>>> >>>> On May 22, 2015, at 8:57 AM, Susan Chalmers >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Greetings, all, >>>> >>>> Thanks to all who joined us for the call yesterday. We are off to a >>>> brilliant start. Three things: >>>> >>>> First, I would like to introduce Wim DeGezelle, who will be assisting >>>> us generally, and especially in collecting materials and drafting the >>>> background and final documents for comment. Welcome, Wim. Wim will be >>>> preparing minutes from our recent call, which he shall circulate when >>>> ready. >>>> >>>> In the meantime, the recording of the conversation is available here: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/ldr.php?RCID=31dfd6486e65a50b4 >>>> 7e1231b7a80cf9d >>>> >>>> Second, on a procedural note, our first point of order is to create >>>> the background paper by the end of June. The background paper should >>>> form, to a large extent, the "preface" to the final paper. >>>> >>>> In the background paper we should define the problem. Recalling >>>> comments from the call, the problem definition - in it of itself - will >>>> be of great practical value to the broader community. >>>> >>>> Let us begin our discussion on the problem definition. To start, what >>>> is the question that we are trying to answer, e.g.: >>>> >>>> * Why is it important to adopt IPv6? >>>> * What are best practices for creating an environment that enables >>>> IPv6 adoption? >>>> * ....? >>>> >>>> The background paper should include this problem definition, in >>>> addition to an outline of the planned table of contents. >>>> >>>> Third, In terms of the table of contents, our starting point is the >>>> template provided by ISOC. This can be changed to suit our purposes. >>>> >>>> 1. Definition of the issue >>>> 2. Regional specificities observed (e.g. Internet industry >>>> development) >>>> 3. Existing policy measures and private sector initiatives, >>>> impediments >>>> 4. What worked well, identifying common effective practices >>>> 5. Unintended consequences of policy interventions, good and bad >>>> 6. Unresolved issues where further multistakeholder cooperation is >>>> needed >>>> 7. Insights gained as a result of the experience >>>> 8. Proposed steps for further multistakeholder dialogue >>>> >>>> Perhaps we should start a separate email thread discussing this format? >>>> >>>> In terms of scheduling, we'd like to host fortnightly calls starting >>>> June 3rd. Here is the Doodle poll for selecting a time on the 3rd: >>>> http://doodle.com/e6x25d8tn288dnq9 >>>> It would be lovely if you could fill in your preferences by close of >>>> business on Monday. >>>> >>>> Many thanks, and let's define this problem! >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> Susan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Susan Chalmers >>>> susan at chalmers.associates >>>> >>>> CHALMERS & ASSOCIATES >>>> http://chalmers.associates >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Bp_ipv6 mailing list >>>> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org >>>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Intersessional_2015 mailing list >>>> Intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org >>>> >>>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/intersessional_2015_intgovforum. >>>> org >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > From izumi at nic.ad.jp Tue Jun 2 01:06:18 2015 From: izumi at nic.ad.jp (Izumi Okutani) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:06:18 +0900 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] [Intersessional_2015] BPF on IPv6; Problem Definition In-Reply-To: <8020831EE6E9B346AB89CD7720CB84D66761B4B2@NXMDA2.org.apnic.net> References: <43D48BFE-E031-44FA-B908-E4CE300A034D@nbcuni.com> <556C83CB.9020100@nic.ad.jp> <556C88DD.7080101@nic.ad.jp> <8020831EE6E9B346AB89CD7720CB84D66761AFC7@NXMDA2.org.apnic.net> <8020831EE6E9B346AB89CD7720CB84D66761B4B2@NXMDA2.org.apnic.net> Message-ID: <556D39CA.6070009@nic.ad.jp> Sanjaya, Miwa and all, That fits in very well with the IGF participants as the target and an area which needs outreach for IPv6. The people who would be attending the IGF may tend to be policy focusesd people but we could ask them to reach out to the CxOs, including Finance and HR executives. In including them as the target, it may be worth considering the description comprehensible for them, such as need of securing budget, staff training, securing enough staff for commercial deployment, etc, when we get to the phase of working on that part of the contents. It could perhaps even work as a problem statement if we look at it the other way around; that it is not sufficient to have a single engineer with high awareness within an organisation may still face issues, unless.....[there is budget secured for the deployment, secure sufficient human resources for deployment, staff training -- for example. Please feel free to add/suggest changes.] Izumi On 2015/06/02 11:38, Sanjaya Sanjaya wrote: > > Yup, something like that, but target ALL industry (i.e. multi-stakeholder, not just the Internet Industry players). > > Cheers, > Sanjaya > > -----Original Message----- > From: Miwa Fujii > Sent: Tuesday, 2 June 2015 11:35 AM > To: Sanjaya Sanjaya; intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org; bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org > Subject: Re: [Bp_ipv6] [Intersessional_2015] BPF on IPv6; Problem Definition > > Hi All, > > Just to support Sanjaya?s input. APNIC has following consolidated > information: > > https://www.apnic.net/community/ipv6-program/ipv6-for-decision-makers > > As FYI. > > miwa > > On 2/06/2015 10:03 am, "Sanjaya Sanjaya" wrote: > >> >> May I suggest that the document is also targeted to all executives >> (CxOs?) of all industries? And yes, that should include Finance and HR >> executives. The executive summary must be written in a language that >> all execs can understand. >> >> Cheers, >> Sanjaya >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bp_ipv6 [mailto:bp_ipv6-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of >> Izumi Okutani >> Sent: Tuesday, 2 June 2015 2:31 AM >> To: intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org; bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org >> Subject: Re: [Bp_ipv6] [Intersessional_2015] BPF on IPv6; Problem >> Definition >> >> ... snip ... >> >> * Target of this document * >> From what has been listed in the group so far: >> >> - Governments and policy makers (Listed by several participants, >> no objections observed) >> >> - Possible other stakeholders from the course of the discussions: >> Suppliers of products? >> Industry Association of the suppliers? >> Business Users? (Users of those equipment) >> Those who wish to build a community/Forum (e.g. IPv6 TF)? >> >> Question: Ayone else? Do we consider all stakeholders in IPv6 >> adoption as the target of this document or do we just focus on (a) >> certain stakeholder(s) as the target of this document? >> >> >> Regards, >> Izumi >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > From IGF at unog.ch Tue Jun 2 10:26:25 2015 From: IGF at unog.ch (IGF) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 16:26:25 +0200 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Virtual Call IPv6, June 4, 00.00 UTC - Registration link Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From izumi at nic.ad.jp Wed Jun 3 02:27:27 2015 From: izumi at nic.ad.jp (Izumi Okutani) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 15:27:27 +0900 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Agenda for our 2nd call 6/4 Re: Virtual Call IPv6, June 4, 00.00 UTC - Registration link In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <556E9E4F.5040203@nic.ad.jp> Dear all, Please see below the suggested agenda for our second call on June 4 at 24:00 UTC. 1. Agenda Review 2. Status Update 3. Problem Statement and Target 4. Fix Scope and the Goals 5. Timeline and the next Steps 6. AOB * If we have time and can agree as AOB, we may discuss the composition of the document. Looking forward to have discussions at the call and continue to welcome inputs on the mailing list about the problem statement, target as well as scope and goals. Regards, Izumi On 2015/06/02 23:26, IGF wrote: > Dear All, > > Please find below the registration link for the next virtual call on June 4, > 00.00 UTC: > > *Virtual Call BPF IPv6* > Thursday, June 4, 2015 > 00:00 | UTC | 1 hr > > *Register* > > > After your request has been approved, you'll receive instructions for joining > the meeting. > > > Best regards, > IGF Secretariat > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bp_ipv6 mailing list > Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org > From izumi at nic.ad.jp Wed Jun 3 04:26:02 2015 From: izumi at nic.ad.jp (Izumi Okutani) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 17:26:02 +0900 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Agenda for our 2nd call 6/4 Re: Virtual Call IPv6, June 4, 00.00 UTC - Registration link In-Reply-To: <556E9E4F.5040203@nic.ad.jp> References: <556E9E4F.5040203@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: <556EBA1A.90807@nic.ad.jp> Hi all, Just a clarification that June 4 24:00 UTC was intended to mean the midnight UTC between 3rd and 4th June. It was used to mean the same as June 4 UTC0:00, and not + 1 day - in case anyone found it confusing. FYI, for the suggested agenda - Agenda 3. Problem Statement and Target: - I have updated the text below as a reference for discussions, which has reflected inputs from Sanjaya and Miwa. Agenda 4.Fix Scope and the Goals: - Susan, Wim and I suggest adding the sentences below as a part of the "Principles" to give more clarity. "The best path forward to helping IPv6 adoption in a given community will depend on the particular characteristics of the locale (technical, economic, the level of training, etc.). This BPF will seek to collect and describe best practices across a number of different situations at a certain moment, to assist the broadest possible range of situations. The intent is not to define any one, normative solution to assist with IPv6 adoption. " - A few words added to Guiding Principles d: f Forum discussion should be on practical information sharing, rather than theory "or description of an ideal situation" "" = the part added - Scope c added to reflect inputs from Marco and Natalie: Suggested by Susan and all coordinators agreed We have been circulating draft Scope and the Goals for sometime: http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/2015-April/000002.html Therefore, if we don't identify anything which needs a revision after discussions problem definition and target, this hopefully could be agreed and fixed without taking too much time. I am also planning to share the suggested timeline for the group in roughly 7 hours from now. Izumi ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Motivation Factor/Background * Why IPv6? Internet Protocol (IP) addresses uniquely identify devices on the Internet. Currently, almost all devices connected to networks use the IP version 4 (IPv4) address system. IPv4 has more than 4 billion possible address combinations, but these are being used up quickly as shown in: http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/ [Possibly expand explanation]. Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) was developed to ensure the continued growth and innovation of the Internet. IPv6 offers an extremely large (2128) address space, as each address is 128 bits long, rather than 32 bits. Key business drivers for IPv6 IPv6 enables the sustainable growth of the Internet. This in itself is a major motivation to deploy IPv6, but it also provides the possibility for new services and business opportunities on large-scale IP installations e.g. smartphones, smart grid initiatives, and cloud computing. These have all driven an increase in demand for IP addresses. [Wording needs revisions as this is from APEC TEL paper: http://www.apec.org/Home/Groups/SOM-Steering-Committee-on-Economic-and-Technical-Cooperation/Working-Groups/~/media/Files/Groups/TEL/2010_APEC-TEL-IPv6-guidelines-FINAL.ashx] * Introduction/Problem definition * - Widespread adoption of IPv6 will be important to maintaining the global reach and integrity of the Internet. Following this wide-spread adoption, the eventual transition to IPv6 will only be successful when we, as a community, are all moving together at the same time. Adoption of IPv6 by a single entity is often a challenge; it is not useful if one organization alone adopts IPv6 when majority of the Internet is based on IPv4. The long-term sustainability of the network and success of the Internet to accommodate IPv6 depends on getting more organisations to adopt IPv6. - There are ways in which different stakeholders with different roles can each contribute to IPv6 adoption such as: [List examples of Stakeholders] Governments and policy makers How can governments and policy makers support an environment that encourages IPv6 adoption by industry players in their economy? (e.g. by sharing information, setting a role model, facilitating dialogue among industry players, supporting capacity building of the environment, creating financial incentives?); # APEC TEL paper may give us a starting point to list the measures and activities which can be taken by governments Question: Anyone else to add as the stakeholders? Research and academia: How research and academia can help in sharing the general picture of the status of IPv6 adoption? Community/Forum: How we can Community/Forum share information, build general sentiment, raise awareness towards IPv6 adoption Nonprofit projects and activities: How it can help in raising awareness, motivate for specific actions, capacity building Role per services: What can the various service providers for: fixed line access, mobile access, data centers, applications and contents providers, suppliers of products do to help IPv6 adoption? # APEC TEL paper may give us a starting point to list the stakeholders # A suggestion is made to define "IPv6 Adoption" as the problem statement. Another point is made that this would have lots of technical/technological aspects which technical stakeholders have been dealing. * Target of this document * From what has been listed in the group so far: - Governments and policy makers (Listed by several participants, no objections observed) - All executives of all industries (CxOs): including Finance and HR executives for example - Possible other stakeholders from the course of the discussions: Suppliers of products? Industry Association of the suppliers? Business Users? (Users of those equipment) Those who wish to build a community/Forum (e.g. IPv6 TF)? Question: Ayone else? Do we consider all stakeholders in IPv6 adoption as the target of this document or do we just focus on (a) certain stakeholder(s) as the target of this document? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 2015/06/03 15:27, Izumi Okutani wrote: > Dear all, > > > Please see below the suggested agenda for our second call on June 4 at 24:00 UTC. > > 1. Agenda Review > 2. Status Update > 3. Problem Statement and Target > 4. Fix Scope and the Goals > 5. Timeline and the next Steps > 6. AOB > > * If we have time and can agree as AOB, we may discuss the composition of the document. > > Looking forward to have discussions at the call and continue to welcome inputs on the mailing list about the problem statement, target as well as scope and goals. > > > > Regards, > Izumi > > > On 2015/06/02 23:26, IGF wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Please find below the registration link for the next virtual call on June 4, >> 00.00 UTC: >> >> *Virtual Call BPF IPv6* >> Thursday, June 4, 2015 >> 00:00 | UTC | 1 hr >> >> *Register* >> >> >> After your request has been approved, you'll receive instructions for joining >> the meeting. >> >> >> Best regards, >> IGF Secretariat >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bp_ipv6 mailing list >> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org >> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org >> > From nathalie at ripe.net Wed Jun 3 06:25:13 2015 From: nathalie at ripe.net (Nathalie Trenaman) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 12:25:13 +0200 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] [Intersessional_2015] BPF on IPv6; Problem Definition In-Reply-To: <556C88DD.7080101@nic.ad.jp> References: <43D48BFE-E031-44FA-B908-E4CE300A034D@nbcuni.com> <556C83CB.9020100@nic.ad.jp> <556C88DD.7080101@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: Hi all, On 01 Jun 2015, at 18:31, Izumi Okutani wrote: > > > - There are ways in which different stakeholders with different roles > can each contribute to IPv6 adoption such as: > [List examples of Stakeholders] > Governments and policy makers > How can governments and policy makers support an environment that encourages IPv6 adoption by industry players in their economy? > (e.g. by sharing information, setting a role model, facilitating dialogue among industry players, supporting capacity building of the environment, creating financial incentives?); > # APEC TEL paper may give us a starting point to list the measures and activities which can be taken by governments > Did you know the Swedish Post and Telecom regulator also wrote a valuable document for governments on how to promote and deploy IPv6? It is a bit technical in some places, but especially the first few paragraphs are very good for governments: http://www.pts.se/upload/Rapporter/Internet/2012/2012-02-21%20Deployment%20of%20IPv6%20-%20practical%20guidance.pdf Cheers, Nathalie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sander at steffann.nl Wed Jun 3 06:27:18 2015 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 11:27:18 +0100 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] [Intersessional_2015] BPF on IPv6; Problem Definition In-Reply-To: References: <43D48BFE-E031-44FA-B908-E4CE300A034D@nbcuni.com> <556C83CB.9020100@nic.ad.jp> <556C88DD.7080101@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: <447B8DE4-BCF2-4821-B0AF-A5CE91F1E5F7@steffann.nl> Op 3 jun. 2015, om 11:25 heeft Nathalie Trenaman het volgende geschreven: > Did you know the Swedish Post and Telecom regulator also wrote a valuable document for governments on how to promote and deploy IPv6? > > It is a bit technical in some places, but especially the first few paragraphs are very good for governments: > http://www.pts.se/upload/Rapporter/Internet/2012/2012-02-21%20Deployment%20of%20IPv6%20-%20practical%20guidance.pdf Nice, thanks! Sander -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From susan at chalmers.associates Wed Jun 3 09:13:45 2015 From: susan at chalmers.associates (Susan Chalmers) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 09:13:45 -0400 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] [Intersessional_2015] BPF on IPv6; Problem Definition In-Reply-To: <447B8DE4-BCF2-4821-B0AF-A5CE91F1E5F7@steffann.nl> References: <43D48BFE-E031-44FA-B908-E4CE300A034D@nbcuni.com> <556C83CB.9020100@nic.ad.jp> <556C88DD.7080101@nic.ad.jp> <447B8DE4-BCF2-4821-B0AF-A5CE91F1E5F7@steffann.nl> Message-ID: Thanks for sharing this document, Nathalie. All, please send forth any similar documents you think are worth sharing. We will ask Carl from the IGF Secretariat to upload them to this space on the IGF website, which will serve as a library of sorts. The materials collected will be valuable references for the outcome document. Sincerely, Susan Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES http://chalmers.associates On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Sander Steffann wrote: > Op 3 jun. 2015, om 11:25 heeft Nathalie Trenaman het > volgende geschreven: > > Did you know the Swedish Post and Telecom regulator also wrote a valuable > document for governments on how to promote and deploy IPv6? > > It is a bit technical in some places, but especially the first few > paragraphs are very good for governments: > > http://www.pts.se/upload/Rapporter/Internet/2012/2012-02-21%20Deployment%20of%20IPv6%20-%20practical%20guidance.pdf > > > Nice, thanks! > Sander > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From izumi at nic.ad.jp Wed Jun 3 11:29:37 2015 From: izumi at nic.ad.jp (Izumi Okutani) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 00:29:37 +0900 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Draft Timeline Message-ID: <556F1D61.60608@nic.ad.jp> Hi all, I'd like to share the draft timelines for our group as starting point of the discussions. We'll discuss it at the second meeting, and I welcome your comments on the mailing list as well. * General timelines * Early July - Publish background document Before IGF(Oct) - Publish draft outcome document for comments (Incorporating "background document" published in July) IGF (Nov) - Face to face discussions After IGF (Nov/Dec) - Fix the document, publish, proactively share including governments * Timeline for publishing background document * 2nd call (3rd Jun) - Fix Problem Statement - Scope and Goals Online - Discussions on Composition of the document - Call for contributions of contents 3rd call - Agree on the composition of the document - Agree on what part of the document to be covered as "background paper" to publish in July - Rough Timeline per contents to be covered Online - Draft background paper 4th call - Confirm draft of background paper Online (first week of July) - Fix the background paper and publish * Virtual Meetings * a. Set certain regularity of the calls at a particular day of the week and time b. Set certain regularity of the calls and rotate between two sets of a particular day of the week and time c. Poll Everytime Regards, Izumi From susan at chalmers.associates Wed Jun 3 13:22:56 2015 From: susan at chalmers.associates (Susan Chalmers) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:22:56 -0400 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] A review of the discussion to date on the Problem Definition Message-ID: Greetings, all, I'm looking forward to the call this evening (my evening, that is). Thanks to everyone for the great discussion over the past two weeks. In reviewing the discussion to date, and based upon contributions received, I've added edits to the *Scope and Goals *. I have also started a document for the *Problem Definition . * [On an administrative note, is everyone okay with using Google Docs as a platform for collaborative drafting?] If you're joining the call from a laptop/desktop, I was thinking that it would be good to have these documents open; I'd like to take notes/make edits in real time during the call. You will have seen the agenda that Izumi circulated. The focus of our upcoming discussion will be on the Problem Definition and the Scope and Goals document. Below, individual comments. @Glenn, thanks for parsing the different stages of adoption into three parts. I think this is helpful and, to the extent we can, it would be nice if we could describe best practices for all three. That is one way to frame part of the paper. What does everyone think about this idea? I've added this framing to the draft *Problem Definition* outline. @Matthew, thanks for distinguishing between listing the benefits/reasons for adopting IPv6 from describing the policy practices that work or do not work for adopting IPv6. I've added this point to the "Purpose" section of the *Scope and Goals*. @Miwa, thanks for sharing information on APNIC's stakeholder-specific work in this area. I have added the Government messaging to the draft outline of the *Problem Definition.* [As a side note, to all, I was wondering whether "Problem Definition" is the best phrase for this document? I see it as eventually being the introductory chapter of the outcome document - more like an Introduction/Background/Preface. Something to discuss on the call.] I think it would be nice to have stakeholder-specific messaging for all groups, as Izumi illustrated. This is something we can address in the paper itself as more examples come in - another framing question. I've also emphasized the need for the BPF to compliment and not duplicate the work being done in this area by RIRs, etc. Please let me know Miwa if I've captured your concerns adequately. @Izumi, thanks for your helpful framing of the *Problem Definition* outline. I've added the introduction language you've quoted into the draft. I have also added the "motivational factors" and, conceptually, separated them into aspirational or positive motivations, and "negative" motivations, or, otherwise put - the urgency reasons. It would be great to know if this framing sits well with everyone, or if we need to change it. @Sanjaya Pursuant to your email I've added a section in the *Scope and Goals* for "Target Audience" and have listed "Governments, Policymakers, and Business (CxO)." @Miwa, Nathalie - I've sent your references to Carl at the IGF Secretariat so that they can be uploaded to the dedicated webpage at intgovforum.org. To all, please have a look at the two documents and do share your thoughts and views. Thanks all in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Susan Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES http://chalmers.associates -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From susan at chalmers.associates Wed Jun 3 13:29:54 2015 From: susan at chalmers.associates (Susan Chalmers) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:29:54 -0400 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Virtual Call IPv6, June 4, 00.00 UTC - Registration link In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you, Carl. Looking forward to our discussion everyone! Sincerely, Susan Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES http://chalmers.associates On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:26 AM, IGF wrote: > Dear All, > > Please find below the registration link for the next virtual call on June > 4, 00.00 UTC: > > *Virtual Call BPF IPv6* Thursday, June 4, 2015 00:00 | UTC | 1 hr > *Register* > > After your request has been approved, you'll receive instructions for > joining the meeting. > Best regards, > IGF Secretariat > _______________________________________________ > 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: From izumi at nic.ad.jp Wed Jun 3 21:39:18 2015 From: izumi at nic.ad.jp (Izumi Okutani) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 10:39:18 +0900 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Follow up from the 2nd call: Call for comments until 8th June UTC2:00am Message-ID: <556FAC46.2060208@nic.ad.jp> Hi all, Thank you all who joined the call for the constructive discussions. We are now calling for your comments in the coming 48 business hours on the following: 1. The Scope and Goals 2. Timelines 3. Contents of the Problem Definition/Introduction I will send seperate e-mails for each. On 3. Contents of the Problem Definition/Introduction, the exact wording is still to be worked out and we would ike to have your inputs on the contents to be incorporated. For 1 and 2, we'll fix it as written as agreed by the Group, so I encourage you call to review the text as well. We will also start calling for comments, in a seperate e-mail for the contents to be covered, as welll as contributions of the contents. Thank you all for your great contributions both online and at the calls until now and would like to continue this good work. Regards, Izumi From izumi at nic.ad.jp Wed Jun 3 21:47:59 2015 From: izumi at nic.ad.jp (Izumi Okutani) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 10:47:59 +0900 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Call for Comment "Scope and Goals" [ Before Mon 8th June UTC2:00am] Message-ID: <556FAE4F.9070804@nic.ad.jp> Hi all, I welcome your comments on the Scope and Goals of our group until: until Mon 8th June UTC2:00am. We will incorporate your feedback until then, and fix it including the text. This will then be the agreed Scope and Goals of our group "Creating an Enabling Environment for IPv6 Adoption". The PDF Attachment has the same contents as the text below. It was was prepared by the IGF MAG Coordinators, Susan, German and myself together with Wim, and have incorpated the comments from this group. IGF2015 Best Practice Forum Creating an Enabling Environment for IPv6 Adoption Scope and Goals * 1. Introduction * a. The best path forward to helping IPv6 adoption in a given community will depend on the particular characteristics of the locale (technical, economic, the level of training, etc.). This Best Practice Forum (BPF) will seek to collect and describe best practices across a number of different situations at a certain moment, to assist the broadest possible range of situations. The intent is not to define any one, normative solution to assist with IPv6 adoption. b. Widespread adoption of IPv6 will be important to maintaining the global reach and integrity of the Internet. Following this wide-spread adoption, the eventual transition to IPv6 will only be successful when we, as a community, are all moving together at the same time. Adoption of IPv6 by a single entity is often a challenge; it is not useful if one organization alone adopts IPv6 when majority of the Internet is based on IPv4. The long-term sustainability of the network and success of the Internet to accommodate IPv6 depends on getting more organisations to adopt IPv6. c. By documenting best practices regarding measures and activities for creating an environment that accommodates IPv6 adoption, we hope to provide the global Internet community with helpful information that can help guide stakeholders in this exercise. d. There are ways in which different stakeholders with different roles can each contribute to IPv6 adoption. Contributions from all stakeholders are welcomed and encouraged. * 2. Purpose * a. The purpose of this BPF is to document best practices on activities and measures for an environment that supports IPv6 adoption, which we will share through open, multistakeholder discussion on the dedicated mailing list. b. The outcome of this BPF will be a document that focuses on business and policy approaches that have and have not worked to encourage IPv6 adoption. It will consider policy-driven (for example, through procurement requirements), business-driven, and public-private partnership-driven (if any) best practices. * 3. Guiding principles * a. Participants are encouraged to share real-life stories of successful and, more importantly, unsuccessful initiatives for IPv6 adoption; we oftentimes learn a great deal from unsuccessful experiences. b. The discussion is open to all who are interested and willing to contribute constructively, guided by these Scope and Goals; c. The BPF should compliment the work being conducted in other venues (e.g. training by RIRs) and avoid duplication or overlap of the work already being conducted; d. The focus of Forum discussion should be on practical information sharing, rather than theory or description of an ideal situation; e. The information we will compile should be neutral, not for commercial promotion. * 4. Scope * a. As an Internet issue, IPv6 adoption encompasses a broad range of sub-issues, affecting multiple actors and different stakeholders. It will be helpful to define the scope of our discussion at the outset, for a more focused dialogue. b. The scope of the BPF on IPv6 Adoption discussion will focus on the best practices on measures and activities for an environment which supports IPv6 adoption, and, in particular, measures and activities taken at global, regional and local levels. c. The roles of key stakeholders such a: A role governments/policy makers can play to encourage IPv6 adoption. The important role of local IPv6 Task forces, how they help with spreading knowledge, building communities and pushing IPv6 deployments, is within scope. Also, the role of suppliers - that is those who furnish hardware and software, to be IPv6 compliant - is very important and also within scope. d. Technical best practices on IPv6 adoption, which are covered by existing efforts by experts in this area, is outside of the scope of this group. * 5. Target Audience * a. Governments b. Policymakers c. Business (CxOs) 6. Working methodology a. The discussions at the BPF on IPv6 will be guided by Technical Community MAG members Izumi Okutani, Susan Chalmers, and German Valdez. b. The designated mailing list will be the primary working channel of the BPF on IPv6. Information on the mailing list is available here: http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org c. The IGF Secretariat has provided a webpage for this BPF, where relevant materials on IPv6 adoption will be listed, in addition to meeting minutes of the BPF, available here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/78-best-practice-forum/2162-ipv6#documents d. The group will convene WebEx calls from time to time, with the assistance of the IGF Secretariat. e. The final document will be produced by a consultant engaged by the IGF Secretariat. Regards, Izumi on behalf of the MAG Coordinators -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BPFscopegoals.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 21317 bytes Desc: not available URL: From izumi at nic.ad.jp Wed Jun 3 22:01:52 2015 From: izumi at nic.ad.jp (Izumi Okutani) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 11:01:52 +0900 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Call for comment "Timelines" for our group [ Before Mon 8th June UTC2:00am] Message-ID: <556FB190.5060802@nic.ad.jp> Hi all, I'd like to call for comments on the timelines for our group until Mon 8th June UTC2:00am. Please also express your preference on future arrangements of the Virtual Meeting by the above time. No changes have been made since the last timelines I have shared on the list. After incorporating your comments, we will fix it as the agreed timelines of our group, and the next key point in our timelines is to publish the background document by the end of June. *General timelines* Early July - Publish background document Before IGF(Oct) - Publish draft outcome document for comments (Incorporating "background document" published in July) IGF (Nov) - Face to face discussions After IGF (Nov/Dec) - Fix the document, publish, proactively share including governments *Timeline for publishing background document* 2nd call (3rd Jun) - Fix Problem Statement - Scope and Goals Online - Discussions on Composition of the document - Call for contributions of contents 3rd call - Agree on the composition of the document - Agree on what part of the document to be covered as "background paper" to publish in July - Rough Timeline per contents to be covered Online - Draft background paper 4th call - Confirm draft of background paper Online (first week of July) - Fix the background paper and publish *Virtual Meetings* a. Set certain regularity of the calls at a particular day of the week and time b. Set certain regularity of the calls and rotate between two sets of a particular day of the week and time c. Poll Everytime Regards, Izumi on behalf of the MAG Coordinators From izumi at nic.ad.jp Wed Jun 3 22:32:17 2015 From: izumi at nic.ad.jp (Izumi Okutani) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 11:32:17 +0900 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Call for Comments for Contents of the "Problem Definition/Introduction" [ Before Mon 8th June UTC2:00am] Message-ID: <556FB8B1.2060707@nic.ad.jp> Hi all, I welcome your comments for contents to be incorporated in "Problem Definition/Introduction" until Mon 8th June UTC2:00am. Note that the text still needs to be improved in future steps but at this point, would like to hear your inputs on the components to be added. We have identified through our discussions: - The group's focus to be on creating an environment for IPv6 adoption and not IPv6 adoption itself - The challenge in creating such environment is : It is not effective enough to do it on your own, and different stakeholders need to collaborate (Within an organisation, within the same service layer, cross service layers) - As barriers of adoption/area which needs improvements, issue of suppliers readiness, need of more information sharing and bridge awareness gaps in business users (endsite networks) were raised - Awareness by non-technical CxOs in an organization may also be an issue (if reverse and try to see an issue from the target identified) - There are two motivation factors for IPv6: 1. There will be issues by not adoption it - as IPv4 runs out 2. Positive future factors: Large scale use (Mobile, smartgrid), new model of client to client communications (homenet, IoT) Is there anything else to be added in the Problem Statement/Definition? For "different stages of adoption" which has been suggested to include as Problem Definition, I welcome your comments based on description in [For further discussions]. [Current Draft Text] Problem Definition *Introduction* Widespread adoption of IPv6 is important to maintaining the global reach and integrity of the Internet. Following wide-spread adoption, the eventual transition to IPv6 will only be successful when we, as a community, are all moving together at the same time. Adoption of IPv6 by a single entity is often a challenge; it is not useful if one organization alone adopts IPv6 when the majority of the Internet is based on IPv4. The long-term sustainability of the network and success of the Internet to accommodate IPv6 depends on getting more organisations to adopt IPv6. There are ways in which different stakeholders with different roles can each contribute to IPv6 adoption. *Why Adopt IPv6? (benefits/reasons)* - Wider applications beyond conventional use such as homenet, which can lead to client to client communication rather than the client server model. - Mobile? - (negative) - IPv4 exhaustion Internet Protocol (IP) addresses uniquely identify devices on the Internet. Currently, almost all devices connected to networks use the IP version 4 (IPv4) address system. IPv4 has more than 4 billion possible address combinations, but these are being used up quickly. APNIC reached its last block of IPv4 addresses in April 2011. [For Further Discussions] On different stages of adoption suggested as the problem definition, there was a comment that a general status description would be helpful. At the same time an observation was made whether this is something to be covered as the problem definition. A suggestion was made for an alternative contents to cover. Miwa - would you mind to re-share what was share in the chat? Further, a suggestion was made to touch on this as future recommended steps as a message to businesses. I'd welcome your comments on the above discussions at the call and the way forward in handling this. Suggested different stages of adoption - available - preferred - exclusive Regards, Izumi on behalf of the MAG Coordinators From pablo at apnic.net Thu Jun 4 04:51:34 2015 From: pablo at apnic.net (Pablo Hinojosa) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 08:51:34 +0000 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Call for comment "Timelines" for our group [ Before Mon 8th June UTC2:00am] In-Reply-To: <556FB190.5060802@nic.ad.jp> References: <556FB190.5060802@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: Thank you Izumi, While ambitious I am supportive of this proposed timeline. Best regards, Pablo On 6/4/15, 12:01 PM, "Izumi Okutani" wrote: >Hi all, > > >I'd like to call for comments on the timelines for our group until Mon >8th June UTC2:00am. >Please also express your preference on future arrangements of the Virtual >Meeting by the above time. > >No changes have been made since the last timelines I have shared on the >list. > >After incorporating your comments, we will fix it as the agreed timelines >of our group, and the next key point in our timelines is to publish the >background document by the end of June. > > > >*General timelines* > Early July - Publish background document > > Before IGF(Oct) - Publish draft outcome document for >comments > (Incorporating "background document" >published in July) > > IGF (Nov) - Face to face discussions > > After IGF (Nov/Dec) - Fix the document, publish, proactively >share including governments > > >*Timeline for publishing background document* > 2nd call (3rd Jun) - Fix Problem Statement > - Scope and Goals > > Online - Discussions on Composition of the document > - Call for contributions of contents > > 3rd call - Agree on the composition of the document > - Agree on what part of the document to be >covered as "background paper" to publish in July > - Rough Timeline per contents to be covered > > Online - Draft background paper > > 4th call - Confirm draft of background paper > > Online (first week of July) - Fix the background paper and publish > > >*Virtual Meetings* > a. Set certain regularity of the calls at a particular day of the week >and time > b. Set certain regularity of the calls and rotate between two sets of a >particular day of the week and time > c. Poll Everytime > > >Regards, >Izumi on behalf of the MAG Coordinators > >_______________________________________________ >Bp_ipv6 mailing list >Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org >http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org From pablo at apnic.net Thu Jun 4 04:55:24 2015 From: pablo at apnic.net (Pablo Hinojosa) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 08:55:24 +0000 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Call for Comments for Contents of the "Problem Definition/Introduction" [ Before Mon 8th June UTC2:00am] In-Reply-To: <556FB8B1.2060707@nic.ad.jp> References: <556FB8B1.2060707@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: Hi Izumi, I have provided small edits to the docs shared by Susan. I hope that the document will remain open for comments throughout the whole drafting process until publication. Ok to assume this? Best, Pablo On 6/4/15, 12:32 PM, "Izumi Okutani" wrote: >Hi all, > > >I welcome your comments for contents to be incorporated in "Problem >Definition/Introduction" until Mon 8th June UTC2:00am. >Note that the text still needs to be improved in future steps but at this >point, would like to hear your inputs on the components to be added. > > >We have identified through our discussions: > > - The group's focus to be on creating an environment for IPv6 adoption >and not IPv6 adoption itself > - The challenge in creating such environment is : It is not effective >enough to do it on your own, and different stakeholders need to >collaborate (Within an organisation, within the same service layer, cross >service layers) > - As barriers of adoption/area which needs improvements, issue of >suppliers readiness, need of more information sharing and bridge >awareness gaps in business users (endsite networks) were raised > - Awareness by non-technical CxOs in an organization may also be an >issue (if reverse and try to see an issue from the target identified) > - There are two motivation factors for IPv6: > 1. There will be issues by not adoption it - as IPv4 runs out > 2. Positive future factors: Large scale use (Mobile, smartgrid), new >model of client to client communications (homenet, IoT) > >Is there anything else to be added in the Problem Statement/Definition? >For "different stages of adoption" which has been suggested to include as >Problem Definition, I welcome your comments based on description in [For >further discussions]. > > > >[Current Draft Text] >Problem Definition > >*Introduction* > >Widespread adoption of IPv6 is important to maintaining the global reach >and integrity of the Internet. Following wide-spread adoption, the >eventual transition to IPv6 will only be successful when we, as a >community, are all moving together at the same time. Adoption of IPv6 by >a single entity is often a challenge; it is not useful if one >organization alone adopts IPv6 when the majority of the Internet is based >on IPv4. The long-term sustainability of the network and success of the >Internet to accommodate IPv6 depends on getting more organisations to >adopt IPv6. There are ways in which different stakeholders with different >roles can each contribute to IPv6 adoption. > >*Why Adopt IPv6? (benefits/reasons)* >- Wider applications beyond conventional use such as homenet, which can >lead to client to client communication rather than the client server >model. >- Mobile? >- (negative) >- IPv4 exhaustion > >Internet Protocol (IP) addresses uniquely identify devices on the >Internet. Currently, almost all devices connected to networks use the IP >version 4 (IPv4) address system. IPv4 has more than 4 billion possible >address combinations, but these are being used up quickly. APNIC reached >its last block of IPv4 addresses in April 2011. > > >[For Further Discussions] > >On different stages of adoption suggested as the problem definition, >there was a comment that a general status description would be helpful. >At the same time an observation was made whether this is something to be >covered as the problem definition. A suggestion was made for an >alternative contents to cover. Miwa - would you mind to re-share what was >share in the chat? > >Further, a suggestion was made to touch on this as future recommended >steps as a message to businesses. >I'd welcome your comments on the above discussions at the call and the >way forward in handling this. > >Suggested different stages of adoption >- available >- preferred >- exclusive > >Regards, >Izumi on behalf of the MAG Coordinators > > >_______________________________________________ >Bp_ipv6 mailing list >Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org >http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org From pablo at apnic.net Thu Jun 4 04:58:38 2015 From: pablo at apnic.net (Pablo Hinojosa) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 08:58:38 +0000 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] A review of the discussion to date on the Problem Definition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Susan, I agree with the use of online docs (either google or via wiki) for better tracking of comments and versions. Thank you for making these available. Pablo From: Susan Chalmers > Date: Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 3:22 AM To: "bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org" > Subject: [Bp_ipv6] A review of the discussion to date on the Problem Definition Greetings, all, I'm looking forward to the call this evening (my evening, that is). Thanks to everyone for the great discussion over the past two weeks. In reviewing the discussion to date, and based upon contributions received, I've added edits to the Scope and Goals. I have also started a document for the Problem Definition. [On an administrative note, is everyone okay with using Google Docs as a platform for collaborative drafting?] If you're joining the call from a laptop/desktop, I was thinking that it would be good to have these documents open; I'd like to take notes/make edits in real time during the call. You will have seen the agenda that Izumi circulated. The focus of our upcoming discussion will be on the Problem Definition and the Scope and Goals document. Below, individual comments. @Glenn, thanks for parsing the different stages of adoption into three parts. I think this is helpful and, to the extent we can, it would be nice if we could describe best practices for all three. That is one way to frame part of the paper. What does everyone think about this idea? I've added this framing to the draft Problem Definition outline. @Matthew, thanks for distinguishing between listing the benefits/reasons for adopting IPv6 from describing the policy practices that work or do not work for adopting IPv6. I've added this point to the "Purpose" section of the Scope and Goals. @Miwa, thanks for sharing information on APNIC's stakeholder-specific work in this area. I have added the Government messaging to the draft outline of the Problem Definition. [As a side note, to all, I was wondering whether "Problem Definition" is the best phrase for this document? I see it as eventually being the introductory chapter of the outcome document - more like an Introduction/Background/Preface. Something to discuss on the call.] I think it would be nice to have stakeholder-specific messaging for all groups, as Izumi illustrated. This is something we can address in the paper itself as more examples come in - another framing question. I've also emphasized the need for the BPF to compliment and not duplicate the work being done in this area by RIRs, etc. Please let me know Miwa if I've captured your concerns adequately. @Izumi, thanks for your helpful framing of the Problem Definition outline. I've added the introduction language you've quoted into the draft. I have also added the "motivational factors" and, conceptually, separated them into aspirational or positive motivations, and "negative" motivations, or, otherwise put - the urgency reasons. It would be great to know if this framing sits well with everyone, or if we need to change it. @Sanjaya Pursuant to your email I've added a section in the Scope and Goals for "Target Audience" and have listed "Governments, Policymakers, and Business (CxO)." @Miwa, Nathalie - I've sent your references to Carl at the IGF Secretariat so that they can be uploaded to the dedicated webpage at intgovforum.org. To all, please have a look at the two documents and do share your thoughts and views. Thanks all in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Susan Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates CHALMERS & ASSOCIATES http://chalmers.associates -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nathalie at ripe.net Thu Jun 4 05:22:58 2015 From: nathalie at ripe.net (Nathalie Trenaman) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 11:22:58 +0200 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Call for Comments for Contents of the "Problem Definition/Introduction" [ Before Mon 8th June UTC2:00am] In-Reply-To: <556FB8B1.2060707@nic.ad.jp> References: <556FB8B1.2060707@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: <44D1BBA2-3653-4DA8-A591-AC53C0F5494A@ripe.net> Hi Izumi, hi all, > > We have identified through our discussions: > > - The group's focus to be on creating an environment for IPv6 adoption and not IPv6 adoption itself As said earlier, I completely agree with this. With the current target audience, as described in the scope and goals, we have already a very broad project/document ahead of us. > - The challenge in creating such environment is : It is not effective enough to do it on your own, and different stakeholders need to collaborate (Within an organisation, within the same service layer, cross service layers) Actually, I was looking for this wording in the document (Within an organisation, within the same service layer, cross service layers) but it isn?t there at the moment. Maybe a good idea to add that... > - As barriers of adoption/area which needs improvements, issue of suppliers readiness, need of more information sharing and bridge awareness gaps in business users (endsite networks) were raised > - Awareness by non-technical CxOs in an organization may also be an issue (if reverse and try to see an issue from the target identified) > - There are two motivation factors for IPv6: > 1. There will be issues by not adoption it - as IPv4 runs out > 2. Positive future factors: Large scale use (Mobile, smartgrid), new model of client to client communications (homenet, IoT) Hmm, I tend not to use the word ?issues? to much, in relation to IPv6, as is has a bit of a negative tone.I see it is used in the document: Scope As an Internet issue, IPv6 adoption encompasses a broad range of sub-issues, affecting multiple actors and different stakeholders. It will be helpful to define the scope of our discussion at the outset, for a more focused dialogue. I agree with the scope itself, but I wouldn?t call IPv6 an ?issue? :-) Almost 7% of all internet users are happily using it today, without issue. It could be that the word ?issue? is used with the meaning ?topic?. Could we use challenge? Or something else? > > [Current Draft Text] > Problem Definition > > *Introduction* > > Widespread adoption of IPv6 is important to maintaining the global reach and integrity of the Internet. Following wide-spread adoption, the eventual transition to IPv6 will only be successful when we, as a community, are all moving together at the same time. Adoption of IPv6 by a single entity is often a challenge; it is not useful if one organization alone adopts IPv6 when the majority of the Internet is based on IPv4. The long-term sustainability of the network and success of the Internet to accommodate IPv6 depends on getting more organisations to adopt IPv6. There are ways in which different stakeholders with different roles can each contribute to IPv6 adoption. > > *Why Adopt IPv6? (benefits/reasons)* > - Wider applications beyond conventional use such as homenet, which can lead to client to client communication rather than the client server model. > - Mobile? > - (negative) > - IPv4 exhaustion > > Internet Protocol (IP) addresses uniquely identify devices on the Internet. Currently, almost all devices connected to networks use the IP version 4 (IPv4) address system. IPv4 has more than 4 billion possible address combinations, but these are being used up quickly. APNIC reached its last block of IPv4 addresses in April 2011. I would definitely mention another RIR here as well. How about the status of ARIN? > > > [For Further Discussions] > > On different stages of adoption suggested as the problem definition, there was a comment that a general status description would be helpful. At the same time an observation was made whether this is something to be covered as the problem definition. A suggestion was made for an alternative contents to cover. Miwa - would you mind to re-share what was share in the chat? > > Further, a suggestion was made to touch on this as future recommended steps as a message to businesses. > I'd welcome your comments on the above discussions at the call and the way forward in handling this. > > Suggested different stages of adoption > - available > - preferred > - exclusive I gave this some thought and I don?t think the suggested different stages of adoption fit in the document itself. The reason for this, is because I think we stick to "The group's focus to be on creating an environment for IPv6 adoption and not IPv6 adoption itself? than the different stages of adoption are inside the scope. They could fit in an document that would describe technical behaviours/deployments of IPv6. Cheers, Nathalie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From izumi at nic.ad.jp Thu Jun 4 05:40:29 2015 From: izumi at nic.ad.jp (Izumi Okutani) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 18:40:29 +0900 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Call for Comments for Contents of the "Problem Definition/Introduction" [ Before Mon 8th June UTC2:00am] In-Reply-To: References: <556FB8B1.2060707@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: <55701D0D.3000504@nic.ad.jp> Hi Pablo, > I have provided small edits to the docs shared by Susan. Excellent thank you! > I hope that the document will remain open for comments throughout the > whole drafting process until publication. Ok to assume this? That would be my understanding about the edits for the output document, while I haven't confirmed with other coordinators. i.e., It would make sense for me for the document on Problem Definition to be able to edit throughout the drafting process: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sGKIzpw8CvR1Gpi7rjXL63OLxk8llHcWn-3K7Bg88hI/edit?usp=sharing On the Scope and Goals, once this is fixed, we would like to stick to the Scope and Goals agreed, to keep us focused in our work. So the idea is not to keep on revisiting it, unless there is something that everyone strongly identify the need to revise it. @Susan, German, please feel free to share if you have other thoughts. Regards, Izumi On 2015/06/04 17:55, Pablo Hinojosa wrote: > Hi Izumi, > > I have provided small edits to the docs shared by Susan. > > I hope that the document will remain open for comments throughout the > whole drafting process until publication. Ok to assume this? > > Best, > Pablo > > On 6/4/15, 12:32 PM, "Izumi Okutani" wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> >> I welcome your comments for contents to be incorporated in "Problem >> Definition/Introduction" until Mon 8th June UTC2:00am. >> Note that the text still needs to be improved in future steps but at this >> point, would like to hear your inputs on the components to be added. >> >> >> We have identified through our discussions: >> >> - The group's focus to be on creating an environment for IPv6 adoption >> and not IPv6 adoption itself >> - The challenge in creating such environment is : It is not effective >> enough to do it on your own, and different stakeholders need to >> collaborate (Within an organisation, within the same service layer, cross >> service layers) >> - As barriers of adoption/area which needs improvements, issue of >> suppliers readiness, need of more information sharing and bridge >> awareness gaps in business users (endsite networks) were raised >> - Awareness by non-technical CxOs in an organization may also be an >> issue (if reverse and try to see an issue from the target identified) >> - There are two motivation factors for IPv6: >> 1. There will be issues by not adoption it - as IPv4 runs out >> 2. Positive future factors: Large scale use (Mobile, smartgrid), new >> model of client to client communications (homenet, IoT) >> >> Is there anything else to be added in the Problem Statement/Definition? >> For "different stages of adoption" which has been suggested to include as >> Problem Definition, I welcome your comments based on description in [For >> further discussions]. >> >> >> >> [Current Draft Text] >> Problem Definition >> >> *Introduction* >> >> Widespread adoption of IPv6 is important to maintaining the global reach >> and integrity of the Internet. Following wide-spread adoption, the >> eventual transition to IPv6 will only be successful when we, as a >> community, are all moving together at the same time. Adoption of IPv6 by >> a single entity is often a challenge; it is not useful if one >> organization alone adopts IPv6 when the majority of the Internet is based >> on IPv4. The long-term sustainability of the network and success of the >> Internet to accommodate IPv6 depends on getting more organisations to >> adopt IPv6. There are ways in which different stakeholders with different >> roles can each contribute to IPv6 adoption. >> >> *Why Adopt IPv6? (benefits/reasons)* >> - Wider applications beyond conventional use such as homenet, which can >> lead to client to client communication rather than the client server >> model. >> - Mobile? >> - (negative) >> - IPv4 exhaustion >> >> Internet Protocol (IP) addresses uniquely identify devices on the >> Internet. Currently, almost all devices connected to networks use the IP >> version 4 (IPv4) address system. IPv4 has more than 4 billion possible >> address combinations, but these are being used up quickly. APNIC reached >> its last block of IPv4 addresses in April 2011. >> >> >> [For Further Discussions] >> >> On different stages of adoption suggested as the problem definition, >> there was a comment that a general status description would be helpful. >> At the same time an observation was made whether this is something to be >> covered as the problem definition. A suggestion was made for an >> alternative contents to cover. Miwa - would you mind to re-share what was >> share in the chat? >> >> Further, a suggestion was made to touch on this as future recommended >> steps as a message to businesses. >> I'd welcome your comments on the above discussions at the call and the >> way forward in handling this. >> >> Suggested different stages of adoption >> - available >> - preferred >> - exclusive >> >> Regards, >> Izumi on behalf of the MAG Coordinators >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bp_ipv6 mailing list >> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org >> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org > From izumi at nic.ad.jp Thu Jun 4 06:21:12 2015 From: izumi at nic.ad.jp (Izumi Okutani) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 19:21:12 +0900 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Call for Comments for Contents of the "Problem Definition/Introduction" [ Before Mon 8th June UTC2:00am] In-Reply-To: <44D1BBA2-3653-4DA8-A591-AC53C0F5494A@ripe.net> References: <556FB8B1.2060707@nic.ad.jp> <44D1BBA2-3653-4DA8-A591-AC53C0F5494A@ripe.net> Message-ID: <55702698.6070603@nic.ad.jp> Hi Nathalie and all, Many thanks for your input. The link you have shared about the Swedish government initiative was also very helpful. Thanks you. It would be great to hear more about how it when we come to discussing the measures taken by the government, as one of the examples. If you find anything relevant from the document to be incorporated in the Introduction/Problem Definition, suggestions are always welcome. My comments inline. On 2015/06/04 18:22, Nathalie Trenaman wrote: > Hi Izumi, hi all, >> >> We have identified through our discussions: >> >> - The group's focus to be on creating an environment for IPv6 adoption and not IPv6 adoption itself > > As said earlier, I completely agree with this. With the current target audience, as described in the scope and goals, we have already a very broad project/document ahead of us. Noted. Thanks. I generally observe support for this definition of the scope so far, including from the others in this group. It is important that participants in the group feel comfortable with this distinction in the scope. Please share your opinion, especially if you have different thoughts, before we close our comments on 8th June UTC2:00am. > >> - The challenge in creating such environment is : It is not effective enough to do it on your own, and different stakeholders need to collaborate (Within an organisation, within the same service layer, cross service layers) > > Actually, I was looking for this wording in the document (Within an organisation, within the same service layer, cross service layers) but it isn?t there at the moment. Maybe a good idea to add that... > >> - As barriers of adoption/area which needs improvements, issue of suppliers readiness, need of more information sharing and bridge awareness gaps in business users (endsite networks) were raised >> - Awareness by non-technical CxOs in an organization may also be an issue (if reverse and try to see an issue from the target identified) >> - There are two motivation factors for IPv6: >> 1. There will be issues by not adoption it - as IPv4 runs out >> 2. Positive future factors: Large scale use (Mobile, smartgrid), new model of client to client communications (homenet, IoT) > > Hmm, I tend not to use the word ?issues? to much, in relation to IPv6, as is has a bit of a negative tone.I see it is used in the document: Sure, I see your point. Does "Challenges" sound better ? (Open to other suggestions) > Scope > As an Internet issue, IPv6 adoption encompasses a broad range of sub-issues, affecting multiple actors and different stakeholders. It will be helpful to define the scope of our discussion at the outset, for a more focused dialogue. > > > I agree with the scope itself, but I wouldn?t call IPv6 an ?issue? :-) Almost 7% of all internet users are happily using it today, without issue. It could be that the word ?issue? is used with the meaning ?topic?. > Could we use challenge? Or something else? Oh I see you have suggested this. I think this conveys the message without the negative tone. What do others think? >> >> [Current Draft Text] >> Problem Definition >> >> *Introduction* >> >> Widespread adoption of IPv6 is important to maintaining the global reach and integrity of the Internet. Following wide-spread adoption, the eventual transition to IPv6 will only be successful when we, as a community, are all moving together at the same time. Adoption of IPv6 by a single entity is often a challenge; it is not useful if one organization alone adopts IPv6 when the majority of the Internet is based on IPv4. The long-term sustainability of the network and success of the Internet to accommodate IPv6 depends on getting more organisations to adopt IPv6. There are ways in which different stakeholders with different roles can each contribute to IPv6 adoption. >> >> *Why Adopt IPv6? (benefits/reasons)* >> - Wider applications beyond conventional use such as homenet, which can lead to client to client communication rather than the client server model. >> - Mobile? >> - (negative) >> - IPv4 exhaustion >> >> Internet Protocol (IP) addresses uniquely identify devices on the Internet. Currently, almost all devices connected to networks use the IP version 4 (IPv4) address system. IPv4 has more than 4 billion possible address combinations, but these are being used up quickly. APNIC reached its last block of IPv4 addresses in April 2011. > > I would definitely mention another RIR here as well. How about the status of ARIN? Agreed and Miwa suggested to reference the statistics by Geoff Huston (potaroo). (It was quoted from APEC TEL paper, which is why it just mentions APNIC, as the RIR in the APAC region) I think I reflected the draft I circulated, so I'll update the Google docs. >> >> >> [For Further Discussions] >> >> On different stages of adoption suggested as the problem definition, there was a comment that a general status description would be helpful. At the same time an observation was made whether this is something to be covered as the problem definition. A suggestion was made for an alternative contents to cover. Miwa - would you mind to re-share what was share in the chat? >> >> Further, a suggestion was made to touch on this as future recommended steps as a message to businesses. >> I'd welcome your comments on the above discussions at the call and the way forward in handling this. >> >> Suggested different stages of adoption >> - available >> - preferred >> - exclusive > > I gave this some thought and I don?t think the suggested different stages of adoption fit in the document itself. The reason for this, is because I think we stick to "The group's focus to be on creating an environment for IPv6 adoption and not IPv6 adoption itself? than the different stages of adoption are inside the scope. They could fit in an document that would describe technical behaviours/deployments of IPv6. > Noted Nathalie, thanks! Izumi From pablo at apnic.net Thu Jun 4 06:25:43 2015 From: pablo at apnic.net (Pablo Hinojosa) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 10:25:43 +0000 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Call for Comments for Contents of the "Problem Definition/Introduction" [ Before Mon 8th June UTC2:00am] In-Reply-To: <55701D0D.3000504@nic.ad.jp> References: <556FB8B1.2060707@nic.ad.jp> ,<55701D0D.3000504@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: Thanks Izumi, agree: scope and goals fixed; output document liquid until publication. Pablo -------- Original message -------- From: Izumi Okutani Date:04/06/2015 10:41 AM (GMT+01:00) To: Pablo Hinojosa , bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org Cc: Subject: Re: [Bp_ipv6] Call for Comments for Contents of the "Problem Definition/Introduction" [ Before Mon 8th June UTC2:00am] Hi Pablo, > I have provided small edits to the docs shared by Susan. Excellent thank you! > I hope that the document will remain open for comments throughout the > whole drafting process until publication. Ok to assume this? That would be my understanding about the edits for the output document, while I haven't confirmed with other coordinators. i.e., It would make sense for me for the document on Problem Definition to be able to edit throughout the drafting process: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sGKIzpw8CvR1Gpi7rjXL63OLxk8llHcWn-3K7Bg88hI/edit?usp=sharing On the Scope and Goals, once this is fixed, we would like to stick to the Scope and Goals agreed, to keep us focused in our work. So the idea is not to keep on revisiting it, unless there is something that everyone strongly identify the need to revise it. @Susan, German, please feel free to share if you have other thoughts. Regards, Izumi On 2015/06/04 17:55, Pablo Hinojosa wrote: > Hi Izumi, > > I have provided small edits to the docs shared by Susan. > > I hope that the document will remain open for comments throughout the > whole drafting process until publication. Ok to assume this? > > Best, > Pablo > > On 6/4/15, 12:32 PM, "Izumi Okutani" wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> >> I welcome your comments for contents to be incorporated in "Problem >> Definition/Introduction" until Mon 8th June UTC2:00am. >> Note that the text still needs to be improved in future steps but at this >> point, would like to hear your inputs on the components to be added. >> >> >> We have identified through our discussions: >> >> - The group's focus to be on creating an environment for IPv6 adoption >> and not IPv6 adoption itself >> - The challenge in creating such environment is : It is not effective >> enough to do it on your own, and different stakeholders need to >> collaborate (Within an organisation, within the same service layer, cross >> service layers) >> - As barriers of adoption/area which needs improvements, issue of >> suppliers readiness, need of more information sharing and bridge >> awareness gaps in business users (endsite networks) were raised >> - Awareness by non-technical CxOs in an organization may also be an >> issue (if reverse and try to see an issue from the target identified) >> - There are two motivation factors for IPv6: >> 1. There will be issues by not adoption it - as IPv4 runs out >> 2. Positive future factors: Large scale use (Mobile, smartgrid), new >> model of client to client communications (homenet, IoT) >> >> Is there anything else to be added in the Problem Statement/Definition? >> For "different stages of adoption" which has been suggested to include as >> Problem Definition, I welcome your comments based on description in [For >> further discussions]. >> >> >> >> [Current Draft Text] >> Problem Definition >> >> *Introduction* >> >> Widespread adoption of IPv6 is important to maintaining the global reach >> and integrity of the Internet. Following wide-spread adoption, the >> eventual transition to IPv6 will only be successful when we, as a >> community, are all moving together at the same time. Adoption of IPv6 by >> a single entity is often a challenge; it is not useful if one >> organization alone adopts IPv6 when the majority of the Internet is based >> on IPv4. The long-term sustainability of the network and success of the >> Internet to accommodate IPv6 depends on getting more organisations to >> adopt IPv6. There are ways in which different stakeholders with different >> roles can each contribute to IPv6 adoption. >> >> *Why Adopt IPv6? (benefits/reasons)* >> - Wider applications beyond conventional use such as homenet, which can >> lead to client to client communication rather than the client server >> model. >> - Mobile? >> - (negative) >> - IPv4 exhaustion >> >> Internet Protocol (IP) addresses uniquely identify devices on the >> Internet. Currently, almost all devices connected to networks use the IP >> version 4 (IPv4) address system. IPv4 has more than 4 billion possible >> address combinations, but these are being used up quickly. APNIC reached >> its last block of IPv4 addresses in April 2011. >> >> >> [For Further Discussions] >> >> On different stages of adoption suggested as the problem definition, >> there was a comment that a general status description would be helpful. >> At the same time an observation was made whether this is something to be >> covered as the problem definition. A suggestion was made for an >> alternative contents to cover. Miwa - would you mind to re-share what was >> share in the chat? >> >> Further, a suggestion was made to touch on this as future recommended >> steps as a message to businesses. >> I'd welcome your comments on the above discussions at the call and the >> way forward in handling this. >> >> Suggested different stages of adoption >> - available >> - preferred >> - exclusive >> >> Regards, >> Izumi on behalf of the MAG Coordinators >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: From izumi at nic.ad.jp Wed Jun 3 19:49:09 2015 From: izumi at nic.ad.jp (Izumi Okutani) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 08:49:09 +0900 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Agenda for our 2nd call 6/4 Re: Virtual Call IPv6, June 4, 00.00 UTC - Registration link In-Reply-To: <556E9E4F.5040203@nic.ad.jp> References: <556E9E4F.5040203@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: <556F9275.2080904@nic.ad.jp> Dear all, Attached is the material for our 2nd call shortly. It is based on what has been shared on this list and should be nothing new. Talk to you soon - for those who cannot join, recordings and notes will be made avaiable as the last time. Regards, Izumi On 2015/06/03 15:27, Izumi Okutani wrote: > Dear all, > > > Please see below the suggested agenda for our second call on June 4 at 24:00 UTC. > > 1. Agenda Review > 2. Status Update > 3. Problem Statement and Target > 4. Fix Scope and the Goals > 5. Timeline and the next Steps > 6. AOB > > * If we have time and can agree as AOB, we may discuss the composition of the document. > > Looking forward to have discussions at the call and continue to welcome inputs on the mailing list about the problem statement, target as well as scope and goals. > > > > Regards, > Izumi > > > On 2015/06/02 23:26, IGF wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Please find below the registration link for the next virtual call on June 4, >> 00.00 UTC: >> >> *Virtual Call BPF IPv6* >> Thursday, June 4, 2015 >> 00:00 | UTC | 1 hr >> >> *Register* >> >> >> After your request has been approved, you'll receive instructions for joining >> the meeting. >> >> >> Best regards, >> IGF Secretariat >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IPv6 BP_2nd call.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 97150 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carlos at lacnic.net Thu Jun 4 10:44:12 2015 From: carlos at lacnic.net (Carlos M. Martinez) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 11:44:12 -0300 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Call for Comment "Scope and Goals" [ Before Mon 8th June UTC2:00am] In-Reply-To: <556FAE4F.9070804@nic.ad.jp> References: <556FAE4F.9070804@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: <5570643C.30306@lacnic.net> Hello, I have provided a few additional bullets in the documents. regards -Carlos On 6/3/15 10:47 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote: > Hi all, > > > I welcome your comments on the Scope and Goals of our group until: until Mon 8th June UTC2:00am. > > We will incorporate your feedback until then, and fix it including the text. > This will then be the agreed Scope and Goals of our group "Creating an Enabling Environment for IPv6 Adoption". > > > The PDF Attachment has the same contents as the text below. > It was was prepared by the IGF MAG Coordinators, Susan, German and myself together with Wim, and have incorpated the comments from this group. > > > IGF2015 Best Practice Forum > Creating an Enabling Environment for IPv6 Adoption > > Scope and Goals > > * 1. Introduction * > a. The best path forward to helping IPv6 adoption in a given community will depend on the particular characteristics of the locale (technical, economic, the level of training, etc.). This Best Practice Forum (BPF) will seek to collect and describe best practices across a number of different situations at a certain moment, to assist the broadest possible range of situations. The intent is not to define any one, normative solution to assist with IPv6 adoption. > b. Widespread adoption of IPv6 will be important to maintaining the global reach and integrity of the Internet. Following this wide-spread adoption, the eventual transition to IPv6 will only be successful when we, as a community, are all moving together at the same time. Adoption of IPv6 by a single entity is often a challenge; it is not useful if one organization alone adopts IPv6 when majority of the Internet is based on IPv4. The long-term sustainability of the network and success of the Internet to accommodate IPv6 depends on getting more organisations to adopt IPv6. > c. By documenting best practices regarding measures and activities for creating an environment that accommodates IPv6 adoption, we hope to provide the global Internet community with helpful information that can help guide stakeholders in this exercise. > d. There are ways in which different stakeholders with different roles can each contribute to IPv6 adoption. Contributions from all stakeholders are welcomed and encouraged. > > * 2. Purpose * > a. The purpose of this BPF is to document best practices on activities and measures for an environment that supports IPv6 adoption, which we will share through open, multistakeholder discussion on the dedicated mailing list. > b. The outcome of this BPF will be a document that focuses on business and policy approaches that have and have not worked to encourage IPv6 adoption. It will consider policy-driven (for example, through procurement requirements), business-driven, and public-private partnership-driven (if any) best practices. > > * 3. Guiding principles * > a. Participants are encouraged to share real-life stories of successful and, more importantly, unsuccessful initiatives for IPv6 adoption; we oftentimes learn a great deal from unsuccessful experiences. > b. The discussion is open to all who are interested and willing to contribute constructively, guided by these Scope and Goals; > c. The BPF should compliment the work being conducted in other venues (e.g. training by RIRs) and avoid duplication or overlap of the work already being conducted; > d. The focus of Forum discussion should be on practical information sharing, rather than theory or description of an ideal situation; > e. The information we will compile should be neutral, not for commercial promotion. > > * 4. Scope * > a. As an Internet issue, IPv6 adoption encompasses a broad range of sub-issues, affecting multiple actors and different stakeholders. It will be helpful to define the scope of our discussion at the outset, for a more focused dialogue. > b. The scope of the BPF on IPv6 Adoption discussion will focus on the best practices on measures and activities for an environment which supports IPv6 adoption, and, in particular, measures and activities taken at global, regional and local levels. > c. The roles of key stakeholders such a: A role governments/policy makers can play to encourage IPv6 adoption. The important role of local IPv6 Task forces, how they help with spreading knowledge, building communities and pushing IPv6 deployments, is within scope. Also, the role of suppliers - that is those who furnish hardware and software, to be IPv6 compliant - is very important and also within scope. > d. Technical best practices on IPv6 adoption, which are covered by existing efforts by experts in this area, is outside of the scope of this group. > > * 5. Target Audience * > a. Governments > b. Policymakers > c. Business (CxOs) > 6. Working methodology > a. The discussions at the BPF on IPv6 will be guided by Technical Community MAG members Izumi Okutani, Susan Chalmers, and German Valdez. > b. The designated mailing list will be the primary working channel of the BPF on IPv6. Information on the mailing list is available here: http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org > c. The IGF Secretariat has provided a webpage for this BPF, where relevant materials on IPv6 adoption will be listed, in addition to meeting minutes of the BPF, available here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/78-best-practice-forum/2162-ipv6#documents > d. The group will convene WebEx calls from time to time, with the assistance of the IGF Secretariat. > e. The final document will be produced by a consultant engaged by the IGF Secretariat. > > > Regards, > Izumi on behalf of the MAG Coordinators > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From susan at chalmers.associates Thu Jun 4 11:52:42 2015 From: susan at chalmers.associates (Susan Chalmers) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 11:52:42 -0400 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Call for Comment "Scope and Goals" [ Before Mon 8th June UTC2:00am] In-Reply-To: <5570643C.30306@lacnic.net> References: <556FAE4F.9070804@nic.ad.jp> <5570643C.30306@lacnic.net> Message-ID: Thank you, Carlos. All, for ease of contribution you may visit the *Scope and Goals *Google doc. Sincerely, Susan Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES http://chalmers.associates On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote: > Hello, > > I have provided a few additional bullets in the documents. > > regards > > -Carlos > > On 6/3/15 10:47 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote: > > Hi all, > > > I welcome your comments on the Scope and Goals of our group until: until Mon 8th June UTC2:00am. > > We will incorporate your feedback until then, and fix it including the text. > This will then be the agreed Scope and Goals of our group "Creating an Enabling Environment for IPv6 Adoption". > > > The PDF Attachment has the same contents as the text below. > It was was prepared by the IGF MAG Coordinators, Susan, German and myself together with Wim, and have incorpated the comments from this group. > > > IGF2015 Best Practice Forum > Creating an Enabling Environment for IPv6 Adoption > > Scope and Goals > > * 1. Introduction * > a. The best path forward to helping IPv6 adoption in a given community will depend on the particular characteristics of the locale (technical, economic, the level of training, etc.). This Best Practice Forum (BPF) will seek to collect and describe best practices across a number of different situations at a certain moment, to assist the broadest possible range of situations. The intent is not to define any one, normative solution to assist with IPv6 adoption. > b. Widespread adoption of IPv6 will be important to maintaining the global reach and integrity of the Internet. Following this wide-spread adoption, the eventual transition to IPv6 will only be successful when we, as a community, are all moving together at the same time. Adoption of IPv6 by a single entity is often a challenge; it is not useful if one organization alone adopts IPv6 when majority of the Internet is based on IPv4. The long-term sustainability of the network and success of the Internet to accommodate IPv6 depends on getting more organisations to adopt IPv6. > c. By documenting best practices regarding measures and activities for creating an environment that accommodates IPv6 adoption, we hope to provide the global Internet community with helpful information that can help guide stakeholders in this exercise. > d. There are ways in which different stakeholders with different roles can each contribute to IPv6 adoption. Contributions from all stakeholders are welcomed and encouraged. > > * 2. Purpose * > a. The purpose of this BPF is to document best practices on activities and measures for an environment that supports IPv6 adoption, which we will share through open, multistakeholder discussion on the dedicated mailing list. > b. The outcome of this BPF will be a document that focuses on business and policy approaches that have and have not worked to encourage IPv6 adoption. It will consider policy-driven (for example, through procurement requirements), business-driven, and public-private partnership-driven (if any) best practices. > > * 3. Guiding principles * > a. Participants are encouraged to share real-life stories of successful and, more importantly, unsuccessful initiatives for IPv6 adoption; we oftentimes learn a great deal from unsuccessful experiences. > b. The discussion is open to all who are interested and willing to contribute constructively, guided by these Scope and Goals; > c. The BPF should compliment the work being conducted in other venues (e.g. training by RIRs) and avoid duplication or overlap of the work already being conducted; > d. The focus of Forum discussion should be on practical information sharing, rather than theory or description of an ideal situation; > e. The information we will compile should be neutral, not for commercial promotion. > > * 4. Scope * > a. As an Internet issue, IPv6 adoption encompasses a broad range of sub-issues, affecting multiple actors and different stakeholders. It will be helpful to define the scope of our discussion at the outset, for a more focused dialogue. > b. The scope of the BPF on IPv6 Adoption discussion will focus on the best practices on measures and activities for an environment which supports IPv6 adoption, and, in particular, measures and activities taken at global, regional and local levels. > c. The roles of key stakeholders such a: A role governments/policy makers can play to encourage IPv6 adoption. The important role of local IPv6 Task forces, how they help with spreading knowledge, building communities and pushing IPv6 deployments, is within scope. Also, the role of suppliers - that is those who furnish hardware and software, to be IPv6 compliant - is very important and also within scope. > d. Technical best practices on IPv6 adoption, which are covered by existing efforts by experts in this area, is outside of the scope of this group. > > * 5. Target Audience * > a. Governments > b. Policymakers > c. Business (CxOs) > 6. Working methodology > a. The discussions at the BPF on IPv6 will be guided by Technical Community MAG members Izumi Okutani, Susan Chalmers, and German Valdez. > b. The designated mailing list will be the primary working channel of the BPF on IPv6. Information on the mailing list is available here: http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org > c. The IGF Secretariat has provided a webpage for this BPF, where relevant materials on IPv6 adoption will be listed, in addition to meeting minutes of the BPF, available here: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2008-igf-hyderabad/event-reports/78-best-practice-forum/2162-ipv6#documents > d. The group will convene WebEx calls from time to time, with the assistance of the IGF Secretariat. > e. The final document will be produced by a consultant engaged by the IGF Secretariat. > > > Regards, > Izumi on behalf of the MAG Coordinators > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bp_ipv6 mailing listBp_ipv6 at intgovforum.orghttp://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: From miwa at apnic.net Thu Jun 4 18:06:01 2015 From: miwa at apnic.net (Miwa Fujii) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 22:06:01 +0000 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Call for Comments for Contents of the "Problem Definition/Introduction" [ Before Mon 8th June UTC2:00am] In-Reply-To: <556FB8B1.2060707@nic.ad.jp> References: <556FB8B1.2060707@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: Hi Izumi and Susan, Thanks for chairing yesterday?s tele-conference. Thanks for this summary as well. I think it captured well what we discussed. Just one small clarification from my end. Pls see my comments below in lines. >[For Further Discussions] > >On different stages of adoption suggested as the problem definition, >there was a comment that a general status description would be helpful. >At the same time an observation was made whether this is something to be >covered as the problem definition. A suggestion was made for an >alternative contents to cover. Miwa - would you mind to re-share what was >share in the chat? > >Further, a suggestion was made to touch on this as future recommended >steps as a message to businesses. >I'd welcome your comments on the above discussions at the call and the >way forward in handling this. > >Suggested different stages of adoption >- available >- preferred >- exclusive As mentioned in yesterday?s tele-conference, I think the above information, i.e., Suggested different stages of adoption, is rather outside of the scope of this BP document to be developed by this group. As we discussed yesterday, I understand the main aim of this document is to provide environmental support for IPv6 adoption. The above topic has more specific technical elements which have been tackled by the Internet technical community for over the last decade. And the efforts are still being made. And there is no one size fit all solution. IPv6 adoption in each network has lots of individual and unique elements to be considered. Having said so, if this BP document still wants to include some simple messages for the technical community, then it can be focused on a very high level information something like: ?Start testing IPv6 in your network now, and consider enabling IPv6 for new subscribers as a default services. This approach is one of proven methods of successful IPv6 deployment among IPv6 adopters.? And this type of text can be stated in a latter part of the document, not in the introductory part. I hope the above explanation provides some clarity what I mentioned yesterday. Thanks again for your great work. Miwa > >Regards, >Izumi on behalf of the MAG Coordinators > > >_______________________________________________ >Bp_ipv6 mailing list >Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org >http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org From marcoh at ripe.net Fri Jun 5 03:20:01 2015 From: marcoh at ripe.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 10:20:01 +0300 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Call for Comments for Contents of the "Problem Definition/Introduction" [ Before Mon 8th June UTC2:00am] In-Reply-To: References: <556FB8B1.2060707@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: <3E5A75CC-FE1B-4576-8E22-F061033F16BA@ripe.net> Hi all, Sorry I was unable to join the call, currently busy at EuroDIG. I agree with Miwa to the point we should avoid any duplication of work. I also support the idea to limit it to the environmental support. As Miwa mentioned, there is no one-size solution and certainly wouldn't want this document to leave people with the impression that there might be. Also looking at the timelines and resource constraints we probably face, I think we are getting to broad and to deep into certain areas. As we already seem to agree there are different stages, we can always discuss doing a follow up later if we find that there is something missing from the greater picture, As to the problem statement itself, maybe we include something regarding "creating the right environment that allows for coordination between different actors in the Internet value chain". One of the bigger issues we seem to keep being confronted with are the "X has to do this, so I can do Y" and this is where things get stuck. As with Miwa, we probably have documents describing both X and Y in detail, where this effort could become useful is to identify ways to make sure these dependencies can be resolved by coordinating between the different actors and stakeholders, which fits neatly in the bigger IGF picture of binging everybody together. Regards, Marco Hogewoning External Relations - RIPE NCC (Sent from a touch screen) > On 5 Jun 2015, at 01:06, Miwa Fujii wrote: > > Hi Izumi and Susan, > > Thanks for chairing yesterday?s tele-conference. Thanks for this summary > as well. I think it captured well what we discussed. > > Just one small clarification from my end. Pls see my comments below in > lines. > >> [For Further Discussions] >> >> On different stages of adoption suggested as the problem definition, >> there was a comment that a general status description would be helpful. >> At the same time an observation was made whether this is something to be >> covered as the problem definition. A suggestion was made for an >> alternative contents to cover. Miwa - would you mind to re-share what was >> share in the chat? >> >> Further, a suggestion was made to touch on this as future recommended >> steps as a message to businesses. >> I'd welcome your comments on the above discussions at the call and the >> way forward in handling this. >> >> Suggested different stages of adoption >> - available >> - preferred >> - exclusive > > As mentioned in yesterday?s tele-conference, I think the above > information, i.e., Suggested different stages of adoption, is rather > outside of the scope of this BP document to be developed by this group. > As we discussed yesterday, I understand the main aim of this document is > to provide environmental support for IPv6 adoption. > > The above topic has more specific technical elements which have been > tackled by the Internet technical community for over the last decade. And > the efforts are still being made. And there is no one size fit all > solution. IPv6 adoption in each network has lots of individual and unique > elements to be considered. > > Having said so, if this BP document still wants to include some simple > messages for the technical community, then it can be focused on a very > high level information something like: > > ?Start testing IPv6 in your network now, and consider enabling IPv6 for > new subscribers as a default services. This approach is one of proven > methods of successful IPv6 deployment among IPv6 adopters.? > > And this type of text can be stated in a latter part of the document, not > in the introductory part. > > I hope the above explanation provides some clarity what I mentioned > yesterday. > > Thanks again for your great work. > > Miwa > > >> >> Regards, >> Izumi on behalf of the MAG Coordinators >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 From izumi at nic.ad.jp Fri Jun 5 11:29:18 2015 From: izumi at nic.ad.jp (Izumi Okutani) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 00:29:18 +0900 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Call for Comments for Contents of the "Problem Definition/Introduction" [ Before Mon 8th June UTC2:00am] In-Reply-To: <3E5A75CC-FE1B-4576-8E22-F061033F16BA@ripe.net> References: <556FB8B1.2060707@nic.ad.jp> <3E5A75CC-FE1B-4576-8E22-F061033F16BA@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5571C04E.1000804@nic.ad.jp> Hi all, Thanks for your inputs on the point for further discussions after our 2nd call. This is the summary of what I see as comments on the mailing list: So far, several participants have expressed not to add "Suggested different stages of adoption". The reasons explained on the mailing list are as below. * Question about relevance to cover in this group: - This is the best practices on creating an environment to encourage IPv6 adoption, not IPv6 adoption itself. - The suggestion has more specific technical elements. It could fit in a document that would describe technical behaviours/deployments of IPv6. - There is no one size fit all solution. IPv6 adoption in each network has lots of individual and unique elements to be considered. - Given the timelines, we are getting too broad and too deep into certain areas. - This is already covered in the technical community. We should avoid any duplication of work. * Suggested way forward - As we already seem to agree there are different stages, we can always discuss doing a follow up later if we find that there is something missing from the greater picture. - After considering the points expressed, if this BP document still wants to include some simple messages for the technical community, it can be focused on a very high level information (Specific text suggestion has been shared). This type of text can be stated in a latter part of the document, not in the introductory part. - We probably have documents describing both X and Y in detail, where this effort could become useful is to identify ways to make sure these dependencies can be resolved by coordinating between the different actors and stakeholders, which fits neatly in the bigger IGF picture of binging everybody together. Thanks again to everyone who have shared your inputs. So far, I have not (yet) seen reasons explained to support adding this description. I continue to welcome comments on this point. I have listed what have seen as expressed on the mailing list after the 2nd call but if anyone has different observations, please feel free to share it here. If you have different thoughts from the comments expressed already, don't be afraid to share it and it would be helpful for our discussions if you could explain your rationale as well. Thanks, Izumi On 2015/06/05 16:20, Marco Hogewoning wrote: > Hi all, > > Sorry I was unable to join the call, currently busy at EuroDIG. > > I agree with Miwa to the point we should avoid any duplication of work. > > I also support the idea to limit it to the environmental support. As Miwa mentioned, there is no one-size solution and certainly wouldn't want this document to leave people with the impression that there might be. > > Also looking at the timelines and resource constraints we probably face, I think we are getting to broad and to deep into certain areas. As we already seem to agree there are different stages, we can always discuss doing a follow up later if we find that there is something missing from the greater picture, > > As to the problem statement itself, maybe we include something regarding "creating the right environment that allows for coordination between different actors in the Internet value chain". One of the bigger issues we seem to keep being confronted with are the "X has to do this, so I can do Y" and this is where things get stuck. > > As with Miwa, we probably have documents describing both X and Y in detail, where this effort could become useful is to identify ways to make sure these dependencies can be resolved by coordinating between the different actors and stakeholders, which fits neatly in the bigger IGF picture of binging everybody together. > > Regards, > > Marco Hogewoning > External Relations - RIPE NCC > > (Sent from a touch screen) > >> On 5 Jun 2015, at 01:06, Miwa Fujii wrote: >> >> Hi Izumi and Susan, >> >> Thanks for chairing yesterday??????s tele-conference. Thanks for this summary >> as well. I think it captured well what we discussed. >> >> Just one small clarification from my end. Pls see my comments below in >> lines. >> >>> [For Further Discussions] >>> >>> On different stages of adoption suggested as the problem definition, >>> there was a comment that a general status description would be helpful. >>> At the same time an observation was made whether this is something to be >>> covered as the problem definition. A suggestion was made for an >>> alternative contents to cover. Miwa - would you mind to re-share what was >>> share in the chat? >>> >>> Further, a suggestion was made to touch on this as future recommended >>> steps as a message to businesses. >>> I'd welcome your comments on the above discussions at the call and the >>> way forward in handling this. >>> >>> Suggested different stages of adoption >>> - available >>> - preferred >>> - exclusive >> >> As mentioned in yesterday??????s tele-conference, I think the above >> information, i.e., Suggested different stages of adoption, is rather >> outside of the scope of this BP document to be developed by this group. >> As we discussed yesterday, I understand the main aim of this document is >> to provide environmental support for IPv6 adoption. >> >> The above topic has more specific technical elements which have been >> tackled by the Internet technical community for over the last decade. And >> the efforts are still being made. And there is no one size fit all >> solution. IPv6 adoption in each network has lots of individual and unique >> elements to be considered. >> >> Having said so, if this BP document still wants to include some simple >> messages for the technical community, then it can be focused on a very >> high level information something like: >> >> ??????Start testing IPv6 in your network now, and consider enabling IPv6 for >> new subscribers as a default services. This approach is one of proven >> methods of successful IPv6 deployment among IPv6 adopters.?????? >> >> And this type of text can be stated in a latter part of the document, not >> in the introductory part. >> >> I hope the above explanation provides some clarity what I mentioned >> yesterday. >> >> Thanks again for your great work. >> >> Miwa >> >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Izumi on behalf of the MAG Coordinators >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 From izumi at nic.ad.jp Fri Jun 5 12:15:36 2015 From: izumi at nic.ad.jp (Izumi Okutani) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 01:15:36 +0900 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Call for Comments for Contents of the "Problem Definition/Introduction" [ Before Mon 8th June UTC2:00am] In-Reply-To: <3E5A75CC-FE1B-4576-8E22-F061033F16BA@ripe.net> References: <556FB8B1.2060707@nic.ad.jp> <3E5A75CC-FE1B-4576-8E22-F061033F16BA@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5571CB28.5030702@nic.ad.jp> Hi Marco and all, > As to the problem statement itself, maybe we include something regarding "creating the right environment that allows for coordination between different actors in the Internet value chain". One of the bigger issues we seem to keep being confronted with are the "X has to do this, so I can do Y" and this is where things get stuck. > > As with Miwa, we probably have documents describing both X and Y in detail, where this effort could become useful is to identify ways to make sure these dependencies can be resolved by coordinating between the different actors and stakeholders, which fits neatly in the bigger IGF picture of binging everybody together. > Indeed, I totally agree this is the core problem we would like to address as the IGF forum, taking into account of multistakeholder nature of the IGF as well as the nature of the challenges on IPv6. This is what I have attempted to describe in the "Introduction" of the Scope and Goals with fellow coordinators, but I realise from your feedback this message is not coming through as clear enough as intended. I have incorporated your input in the draft "Problem Definition" - * mark is where I added your feedback. Please make further edits as needed here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sGKIzpw8CvR1Gpi7rjXL63OLxk8llHcWn-3K7Bg88hI/edit?usp=sharing --- Widespread adoption of IPv6 is important to maintaining the global reach and integrity of the Internet. Following wide-spread adoption, the eventual transition to IPv6 will only be successful when we, as a community, are all moving together at the same time. Adoption of IPv6 by a single entity is often a challenge; it is not useful if one organization alone adopts IPv6 when the majority of the Internet is based on IPv4. *Creating the right environment that allows for coordination between different actors in the Internet value chain is the key in addressing it. One of the bigger challenges on encouraging IPv6 adoption are the "X has to do this, in order for an organization or a particular service layer to do ?Y" in adopting IPv6. This is where it creates barriers in its adoption.* The long-term sustainability of the network and success of the Internet to accommodate IPv6 depends on getting more organisations to adopt IPv6. There are ways in which different stakeholders with different roles can each contribute to IPv6 adoption. --- Wish everyone on the list attending EuroDIG a fruitful rest of the meeting. It looks like good discussions are taking place from the tweets I see. Regards, Izumi On 2015/06/05 16:20, Marco Hogewoning wrote: > Hi all, > > Sorry I was unable to join the call, currently busy at EuroDIG. > > I agree with Miwa to the point we should avoid any duplication of work. > > I also support the idea to limit it to the environmental support. As Miwa mentioned, there is no one-size solution and certainly wouldn't want this document to leave people with the impression that there might be. > > Also looking at the timelines and resource constraints we probably face, I think we are getting to broad and to deep into certain areas. As we already seem to agree there are different stages, we can always discuss doing a follow up later if we find that there is something missing from the greater picture, > > As to the problem statement itself, maybe we include something regarding "creating the right environment that allows for coordination between different actors in the Internet value chain". One of the bigger issues we seem to keep being confronted with are the "X has to do this, so I can do Y" and this is where things get stuck. > > As with Miwa, we probably have documents describing both X and Y in detail, where this effort could become useful is to identify ways to make sure these dependencies can be resolved by coordinating between the different actors and stakeholders, which fits neatly in the bigger IGF picture of binging everybody together. > > Regards, > > Marco Hogewoning > External Relations - RIPE NCC > > (Sent from a touch screen) > >> On 5 Jun 2015, at 01:06, Miwa Fujii wrote: >> >> Hi Izumi and Susan, >> >> Thanks for chairing yesterday??s tele-conference. Thanks for this summary >> as well. I think it captured well what we discussed. >> >> Just one small clarification from my end. Pls see my comments below in >> lines. >> >>> [For Further Discussions] >>> >>> On different stages of adoption suggested as the problem definition, >>> there was a comment that a general status description would be helpful. >>> At the same time an observation was made whether this is something to be >>> covered as the problem definition. A suggestion was made for an >>> alternative contents to cover. Miwa - would you mind to re-share what was >>> share in the chat? >>> >>> Further, a suggestion was made to touch on this as future recommended >>> steps as a message to businesses. >>> I'd welcome your comments on the above discussions at the call and the >>> way forward in handling this. >>> >>> Suggested different stages of adoption >>> - available >>> - preferred >>> - exclusive >> >> As mentioned in yesterday??s tele-conference, I think the above >> information, i.e., Suggested different stages of adoption, is rather >> outside of the scope of this BP document to be developed by this group. >> As we discussed yesterday, I understand the main aim of this document is >> to provide environmental support for IPv6 adoption. >> >> The above topic has more specific technical elements which have been >> tackled by the Internet technical community for over the last decade. And >> the efforts are still being made. And there is no one size fit all >> solution. IPv6 adoption in each network has lots of individual and unique >> elements to be considered. >> >> Having said so, if this BP document still wants to include some simple >> messages for the technical community, then it can be focused on a very >> high level information something like: >> >> ??Start testing IPv6 in your network now, and consider enabling IPv6 for >> new subscribers as a default services. This approach is one of proven >> methods of successful IPv6 deployment among IPv6 adopters.?? >> >> And this type of text can be stated in a latter part of the document, not >> in the introductory part. >> >> I hope the above explanation provides some clarity what I mentioned >> yesterday. >> >> Thanks again for your great work. >> >> Miwa >> >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Izumi on behalf of the MAG Coordinators >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 From izumi at nic.ad.jp Fri Jun 5 12:25:44 2015 From: izumi at nic.ad.jp (Izumi Okutani) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 01:25:44 +0900 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Follow up from the 2nd call: Call for comments until 8th June UTC2:00am In-Reply-To: <556FAC46.2060208@nic.ad.jp> References: <556FAC46.2060208@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: <5571CD88.8000007@nic.ad.jp> Hi all, I'd like to re-share the Google doc links where you can make edits to the document directly. Thanks Susan for setting this up. > 1. The Scope and Goals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sGKIzpw8CvR1Gpi7rjXL63OLxk8llHcWn-3K7Bg88hI/edit?usp=sharing > 2. Timelines > 3. Contents of the Problem Definition/Introduction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nQe8_Sp-7L17UYIQ81wH5Czz9qg0taGZ_52CyYUYlNo/edit?usp=sharing Please also feel free to comment on the e-mail threads per topic, on any point you want to raise and have discussions with the group. Call for Comment "Scope and Goals" http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/2015-June/000046.html Call for comment "Timelines" for our group http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/2015-June/000047.html Call for Comment Contents of the "Problem Definition/Introduction" http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/2015-June/000048.html Thanks, Izumi On 2015/06/04 10:39, Izumi Okutani wrote: > Hi all, > > > Thank you all who joined the call for the constructive discussions. > > We are now calling for your comments in the coming 48 business hours on the following: > > 1. The Scope and Goals > 2. Timelines > 3. Contents of the Problem Definition/Introduction > > I will send seperate e-mails for each. > > On 3. Contents of the Problem Definition/Introduction, the exact wording is still to be worked out and we would ike to have your inputs on the contents to be incorporated. > For 1 and 2, we'll fix it as written as agreed by the Group, so I encourage you call to review the text as well. > > > We will also start calling for comments, in a seperate e-mail for the contents to be covered, as welll as contributions of the contents. > Thank you all for your great contributions both online and at the calls until now and would like to continue this good work. > > > Regards, > Izumi > > > _______________________________________________ > Bp_ipv6 mailing list > Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org > From izumi at nic.ad.jp Fri Jun 5 15:55:12 2015 From: izumi at nic.ad.jp (Izumi Okutani) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 04:55:12 +0900 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Follow up from the 2nd call: Call for comments until 8th June UTC2:00am In-Reply-To: <20150605192032.GS27903@services1-scz.tcp0.com> References: <556FAC46.2060208@nic.ad.jp> <5571CD88.8000007@nic.ad.jp> <20150605192032.GS27903@services1-scz.tcp0.com> Message-ID: <5571FEA0.9030304@nic.ad.jp> Sure Aaron, thanks for letting us know. I undertand this is a lot to documents to review infact. Let us extend another 24 hours to everyone, until 9th June 2:00am UTC for 1-3. I hope this works and thank you for taking your time to review the documents. Cheers, Izumi On 2015/06/06 4:20, Aaron Hughes wrote: > I was able to review and comment on the problem definition, however, I have meetings for the next 4 ours and will be right at the 48 hour mark when I am able to review the Scope and Goals and Timelines. If possible, a few more hours would be very useful for me before we close the 48 hour review window. Apologies, these last two weeks have simply been booked. > > Cheers, > Aaron > > On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 01:25:44AM +0900, Izumi Okutani wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> >> I'd like to re-share the Google doc links where you can make edits to the document directly. >> Thanks Susan for setting this up. >> >>> 1. The Scope and Goals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sGKIzpw8CvR1Gpi7rjXL63OLxk8llHcWn-3K7Bg88hI/edit?usp=sharing >>> 2. Timelines >>> 3. Contents of the Problem Definition/Introduction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nQe8_Sp-7L17UYIQ81wH5Czz9qg0taGZ_52CyYUYlNo/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Please also feel free to comment on the e-mail threads per topic, on any point you want to raise and have discussions with the group. >> >> Call for Comment "Scope and Goals" >> http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/2015-June/000046.html >> >> Call for comment "Timelines" for our group >> http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/2015-June/000047.html >> >> Call for Comment Contents of the "Problem Definition/Introduction" >> http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/2015-June/000048.html >> >> >> Thanks, >> Izumi >> >> On 2015/06/04 10:39, Izumi Okutani wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> >>> Thank you all who joined the call for the constructive discussions. >>> >>> We are now calling for your comments in the coming 48 business hours on the following: >>> >>> 1. The Scope and Goals >>> 2. Timelines >>> 3. Contents of the Problem Definition/Introduction >>> >>> I will send seperate e-mails for each. >>> >>> On 3. Contents of the Problem Definition/Introduction, the exact wording is still to be worked out and we would ike to have your inputs on the contents to be incorporated. >>> For 1 and 2, we'll fix it as written as agreed by the Group, so I encourage you call to review the text as well. >>> >>> >>> We will also start calling for comments, in a seperate e-mail for the contents to be covered, as welll as contributions of the contents. >>> Thank you all for your great contributions both online and at the calls until now and would like to continue this good work. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Izumi >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > From susan at chalmers.associates Sun Jun 7 22:43:31 2015 From: susan at chalmers.associates (Susan Chalmers) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 22:43:31 -0400 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Update: Scope & Goals; Problem Definition Message-ID: Greetings, I am following up on Izumi's recent emails to confirm that comments/edits are invited on these documents by 9th June 2:00am UTC: *Scope & Goals* (introduces the BPF, outlines its scope, goals, guiding principles, and working methodology) I have taken the moderator's prerogative and edited the *Scope & Goals* for structure and readability, whilst preserving the integrity of all substantive points offered by the discussants to date. The suggested structure is: Introduction, Scope, Goals, Guiding Principles, Working Methodology. - Tracked changes version: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nQe8_Sp-7L17UYIQ81wH5Czz9qg0taGZ_52CyYUYlNo/edit?usp=sharing - Clean version: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JM-ChD-0zmWOpYoCqmMDTuWUvnf_4vzV5EgDuVJ96uY/edit?usp=sharing *May I suggest that, unless there are substantive/structural objections to the proposed edits, all look to the clean version to make further refinements before the June 9th due date.* *'Problem Definition' *(explains common challenges to IPv6 adoption and the help that the BPF seeks to provide; can serve as the basis for our background paper, in addition to an introduction to the final paper) Tomorrow, EST, I will seek to create a second draft of the document for ease of commenting purposes. The draft will reflect the discussion that has unfolded thus far on the mailing list. - The current Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sGKIzpw8CvR1Gpi7rjXL63OLxk8llHcWn-3K7Bg88hI/edit?usp=sharing Please contribute your thoughts in the meantime, if you have not done so. I will acknowledge them in the new draft. *Finally*, Izumi has circulated a suggested timeline for the next phases of our discussion. Tomorrow I will put this information into a shareable/commentable document as well. Please respond to Izumi's email on the mailing list in the meantime. Many thanks and let us know if you have any questions. Sincere regards, Susan Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES http://chalmers.associates -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aaronh at tcp0.com Fri Jun 5 15:20:32 2015 From: aaronh at tcp0.com (Aaron Hughes) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 12:20:32 -0700 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Follow up from the 2nd call: Call for comments until 8th June UTC2:00am In-Reply-To: <5571CD88.8000007@nic.ad.jp> References: <556FAC46.2060208@nic.ad.jp> <5571CD88.8000007@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: <20150605192032.GS27903@services1-scz.tcp0.com> I was able to review and comment on the problem definition, however, I have meetings for the next 4 ours and will be right at the 48 hour mark when I am able to review the Scope and Goals and Timelines. If possible, a few more hours would be very useful for me before we close the 48 hour review window. Apologies, these last two weeks have simply been booked. Cheers, Aaron On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 01:25:44AM +0900, Izumi Okutani wrote: > Hi all, > > > I'd like to re-share the Google doc links where you can make edits to the document directly. > Thanks Susan for setting this up. > > > 1. The Scope and Goals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sGKIzpw8CvR1Gpi7rjXL63OLxk8llHcWn-3K7Bg88hI/edit?usp=sharing > > 2. Timelines > > 3. Contents of the Problem Definition/Introduction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nQe8_Sp-7L17UYIQ81wH5Czz9qg0taGZ_52CyYUYlNo/edit?usp=sharing > > Please also feel free to comment on the e-mail threads per topic, on any point you want to raise and have discussions with the group. > > Call for Comment "Scope and Goals" > http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/2015-June/000046.html > > Call for comment "Timelines" for our group > http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/2015-June/000047.html > > Call for Comment Contents of the "Problem Definition/Introduction" > http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/2015-June/000048.html > > > Thanks, > Izumi > > On 2015/06/04 10:39, Izumi Okutani wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > > > Thank you all who joined the call for the constructive discussions. > > > > We are now calling for your comments in the coming 48 business hours on the following: > > > > 1. The Scope and Goals > > 2. Timelines > > 3. Contents of the Problem Definition/Introduction > > > > I will send seperate e-mails for each. > > > > On 3. Contents of the Problem Definition/Introduction, the exact wording is still to be worked out and we would ike to have your inputs on the contents to be incorporated. > > For 1 and 2, we'll fix it as written as agreed by the Group, so I encourage you call to review the text as well. > > > > > > We will also start calling for comments, in a seperate e-mail for the contents to be covered, as welll as contributions of the contents. > > Thank you all for your great contributions both online and at the calls until now and would like to continue this good work. > > > > > > Regards, > > Izumi > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Aaron Hughes aaronh at tcp0.com +1-703-244-0427 PGP Public Key ID: 0xF6B1DEC2 Key fingerprint = 6486 43A5 1692 502C DCFC 8446 C714 E317 F6B1 DEC2 http://www.tcp0.com/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 473 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From aaronh at tcp0.com Fri Jun 5 19:49:26 2015 From: aaronh at tcp0.com (Aaron Hughes) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 16:49:26 -0700 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Follow up from the 2nd call: Call for comments until 8th June UTC2:00am In-Reply-To: <5571FEA0.9030304@nic.ad.jp> References: <556FAC46.2060208@nic.ad.jp> <5571CD88.8000007@nic.ad.jp> <20150605192032.GS27903@services1-scz.tcp0.com> <5571FEA0.9030304@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: <20150605234926.GU27903@services1-scz.tcp0.com> On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 04:55:12AM +0900, Izumi Okutani wrote: > Sure Aaron, thanks for letting us know. > > I undertand this is a lot to documents to review infact. > Let us extend another 24 hours to everyone, until 9th June 2:00am UTC for 1-3. > > I hope this works and thank you for taking your time to review the documents. Absolutely. Just needed a couple of more hours today due to being booked up over NANOG. I'll get my comments in in the next few hours. Cheers, Aaron > > > Cheers, > Izumi > > On 2015/06/06 4:20, Aaron Hughes wrote: > > I was able to review and comment on the problem definition, however, I have meetings for the next 4 ours and will be right at the 48 hour mark when I am able to review the Scope and Goals and Timelines. If possible, a few more hours would be very useful for me before we close the 48 hour review window. Apologies, these last two weeks have simply been booked. > > > > Cheers, > > Aaron > > > > On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 01:25:44AM +0900, Izumi Okutani wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> > >> I'd like to re-share the Google doc links where you can make edits to the document directly. > >> Thanks Susan for setting this up. > >> > >>> 1. The Scope and Goals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sGKIzpw8CvR1Gpi7rjXL63OLxk8llHcWn-3K7Bg88hI/edit?usp=sharing > >>> 2. Timelines > >>> 3. Contents of the Problem Definition/Introduction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nQe8_Sp-7L17UYIQ81wH5Czz9qg0taGZ_52CyYUYlNo/edit?usp=sharing > >> > >> Please also feel free to comment on the e-mail threads per topic, on any point you want to raise and have discussions with the group. > >> > >> Call for Comment "Scope and Goals" > >> http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/2015-June/000046.html > >> > >> Call for comment "Timelines" for our group > >> http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/2015-June/000047.html > >> > >> Call for Comment Contents of the "Problem Definition/Introduction" > >> http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/2015-June/000048.html > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Izumi > >> > >> On 2015/06/04 10:39, Izumi Okutani wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> > >>> Thank you all who joined the call for the constructive discussions. > >>> > >>> We are now calling for your comments in the coming 48 business hours on the following: > >>> > >>> 1. The Scope and Goals > >>> 2. Timelines > >>> 3. Contents of the Problem Definition/Introduction > >>> > >>> I will send seperate e-mails for each. > >>> > >>> On 3. Contents of the Problem Definition/Introduction, the exact wording is still to be worked out and we would ike to have your inputs on the contents to be incorporated. > >>> For 1 and 2, we'll fix it as written as agreed by the Group, so I encourage you call to review the text as well. > >>> > >>> > >>> We will also start calling for comments, in a seperate e-mail for the contents to be covered, as welll as contributions of the contents. > >>> Thank you all for your great contributions both online and at the calls until now and would like to continue this good work. > >>> > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Izumi > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >> > > > -- Aaron Hughes aaronh at tcp0.com +1-703-244-0427 PGP Public Key ID: 0xF6B1DEC2 Key fingerprint = 6486 43A5 1692 502C DCFC 8446 C714 E317 F6B1 DEC2 http://www.tcp0.com/ From aaronh at tcp0.com Mon Jun 8 10:40:13 2015 From: aaronh at tcp0.com (Aaron Hughes) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:40:13 +0200 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Update: Scope & Goals; Problem Definition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6B0A40D5-1D3C-4736-B33B-40D3CC656137@tcp0.com> FWIW I have completed my reviews and submitted all changes and comments to the docs for this revision. Cheers, Aaron -- Aaron Hughes aaronh at tcp0.com +1-703-244-0427 Key fingerprint = 6486 43A5 1692 502C DCFC 8446 C714 E317 F6B1 DEC2 http://www.tcp0.com/ > On Jun 8, 2015, at 04:43, Susan Chalmers wrote: > > Greetings, > > I am following up on Izumi's recent emails to confirm that comments/edits are invited on these documents by 9th June 2:00am UTC: > > Scope & Goals (introduces the BPF, outlines its scope, goals, guiding principles, and working methodology) > > I have taken the moderator's prerogative and edited the Scope & Goals for structure and readability, whilst preserving the integrity of all substantive points offered by the discussants to date. The suggested structure is: Introduction, Scope, Goals, Guiding Principles, Working Methodology. > Tracked changes version: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nQe8_Sp-7L17UYIQ81wH5Czz9qg0taGZ_52CyYUYlNo/edit?usp=sharing > Clean version: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JM-ChD-0zmWOpYoCqmMDTuWUvnf_4vzV5EgDuVJ96uY/edit?usp=sharing > May I suggest that, unless there are substantive/structural objections to the proposed edits, all look to the clean version to make further refinements before the June 9th due date. > > 'Problem Definition' (explains common challenges to IPv6 adoption and the help that the BPF seeks to provide; can serve as the basis for our background paper, in addition to an introduction to the final paper) > > Tomorrow, EST, I will seek to create a second draft of the document for ease of commenting purposes. The draft will reflect the discussion that has unfolded thus far on the mailing list. > The current Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sGKIzpw8CvR1Gpi7rjXL63OLxk8llHcWn-3K7Bg88hI/edit?usp=sharing > Please contribute your thoughts in the meantime, if you have not done so. I will acknowledge them in the new draft. > > Finally, Izumi has circulated a suggested timeline for the next phases of our discussion. Tomorrow I will put this information into a shareable/commentable document as well. Please respond to Izumi's email on the mailing list in the meantime. > > Many thanks and let us know if you have any questions. > > Sincere regards, > Susan > > > Susan Chalmers > susan at chalmers.associates > > CHALMERS & ASSOCIATES > http://chalmers.associates > -- > 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: From susan at chalmers.associates Mon Jun 8 23:30:31 2015 From: susan at chalmers.associates (Susan Chalmers) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 23:30:31 -0400 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Update: Scope & Goals; Problem Definition In-Reply-To: <6B0A40D5-1D3C-4736-B33B-40D3CC656137@tcp0.com> References: <6B0A40D5-1D3C-4736-B33B-40D3CC656137@tcp0.com> Message-ID: Many thanks, Aaron. I look forward to reading them. All, please do have a review in the next day, if possible. Our primary focus is on the Scope & Goals but we are also asking for your thoughts on the "Problem Definition" and "Timeline." Based upon our discussion, I think that the exercise in front of us could really benefit from further thoughts on the following aspects of "Scope:" *Audience - Who are we writing to? * I sense general agreement that the paper should focus on policy & business best practices for IPv6 adoption. This suggests a target audience composed primarily of policymakers in government and in business. The latter can include business of different sizes and types, from small to large, from non-Internet industry-related, to core Internet businesses. Would this be an okay way to describe the scope in terms of audience? If not, why not and what would you suggest? *Adopters - Who do we want to adopt IPv6?* Following Alejandro's point, it may be helpful to consider the different policies/best practices which focus on particular 'uptake target groups' (for lack of a more graceful term): e.g., what are the best practices to encourage ________ to adopt IPv6? (end users, governments, the agricultural sector.....whatever we can collect information on from discussants). Would this be an okay way to describe the scope in terms of target adopters? If not, why not and what would you suggest? Many thanks all, and it would be nice to have your thoughts in this week if possible. Sincerely. Susan Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES http://chalmers.associates On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Aaron Hughes wrote: > FWIW I have completed my reviews and submitted all changes and comments to > the docs for this revision. > > Cheers, > Aaron > > > -- > > Aaron Hughes > aaronh at tcp0.com > +1-703-244-0427 > Key fingerprint = 6486 43A5 1692 502C DCFC 8446 C714 E317 F6B1 DEC2 > http://www.tcp0.com/ > > > On Jun 8, 2015, at 04:43, Susan Chalmers > wrote: > > Greetings, > > I am following up on Izumi's recent emails to confirm that comments/edits > are invited on these documents by 9th June 2:00am UTC: > > *Scope & Goals* (introduces the BPF, outlines its scope, goals, guiding > principles, and working methodology) > > I have taken the moderator's prerogative and edited the *Scope & Goals* for > structure and readability, whilst preserving the integrity of all > substantive points offered by the discussants to date. The suggested > structure is: Introduction, Scope, Goals, Guiding Principles, Working > Methodology. > > - Tracked changes version: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nQe8_Sp-7L17UYIQ81wH5Czz9qg0taGZ_52CyYUYlNo/edit?usp=sharing > - Clean version: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JM-ChD-0zmWOpYoCqmMDTuWUvnf_4vzV5EgDuVJ96uY/edit?usp=sharing > > *May I suggest that, unless there are substantive/structural objections to > the proposed edits, all look to the clean version to make further > refinements before the June 9th due date.* > > *'Problem Definition' *(explains common challenges to IPv6 adoption and > the help that the BPF seeks to provide; can serve as the basis for our > background paper, in addition to an introduction to the final paper) > > Tomorrow, EST, I will seek to create a second draft of the document for > ease of commenting purposes. The draft will reflect the discussion that has > unfolded thus far on the mailing list. > > - The current Google doc: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sGKIzpw8CvR1Gpi7rjXL63OLxk8llHcWn-3K7Bg88hI/edit?usp=sharing > > Please contribute your thoughts in the meantime, if you have not done so. > I will acknowledge them in the new draft. > > *Finally*, Izumi has circulated a suggested timeline for the next phases > of our discussion. Tomorrow I will put this information into a > shareable/commentable document as well. Please respond to Izumi's email on > the mailing list in the meantime. > > Many thanks and let us know if you have any questions. > > Sincere regards, > Susan > > > Susan Chalmers > susan at chalmers.associates > > *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES > http://chalmers.associates > > -- > 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: From izumi at nic.ad.jp Tue Jun 9 01:14:58 2015 From: izumi at nic.ad.jp (Izumi Okutani) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 14:14:58 +0900 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] "Suggested different stages of adoption" (was: Re: Update: Scope & Goals; Problem Definition) In-Reply-To: <6B0A40D5-1D3C-4736-B33B-40D3CC656137@tcp0.com> References: <6B0A40D5-1D3C-4736-B33B-40D3CC656137@tcp0.com> Message-ID: <55767652.9020605@nic.ad.jp> Hi all, I'd like to share the latest status of "Suggested different stages of adoption" which has been discussed on this mailing list. This is now moved to a new section as "Acknowledging different stages of IPv6 adoption" of "Problem Definition". *Question* Does this sufficiently cover the points expressed by everyone on "Suggested different stages of adoption"? *Next step* I'd like to give it until the end of this week, to continue discussions on "Suggested different stages of adoption", in case there are other thoughts. For other contents to be incorporated as the Problem Definition, we will fix the contents now, as it has passed UTC2:00am 9th June. Expanding on the points being raised and improving the text continues to be welcome! *Overview of the suggested change* The point here is to make an observation that there are differen stages in IPv6 adoption, and clarifying that sharing its best practices is outside the scope of this document. It is based on taking into account of the feedback received on this mailing list and directly to the Google Docs. Feeback on the ML: http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/2015-June/000061.html - Concerns have been expressed about covering this as the scope of this group, and defining it a problem definition - Based on an observation that this may be narrow and deep in the scope and the efforts made by a particular group will lead to duplicate work; a suggestion was made to focus the problem on bridging the gaps where there are interdepenencies between different players, Feedback on Google Docs: - Acknowledging the above points, an observation was made that it is worth noting that these are not intuitive and will need to be clearly described if those are the stages we want to use. *Current text on Google Docs* https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sGKIzpw8CvR1Gpi7rjXL63OLxk8llHcWn-3K7Bg88hI/edit?usp=sharing --- Acknowledging different stages of IPv6 adoption There are different stages of IPv6 adoption as described below. The decision is upto each individual network to make, depending on what suits their business, service and and network environment. * available * preferred * exclusive Describing the best practices for each of the stages are outside the scope of this Best Practices document, as it has more specific technical elements and there is no one size fit all solution. IPv6 adoption in each network has lots of individual and unique elements to be considered. This could fit in a document that would describe technical behaviours/deployments of IPv6 (which we share as references in this document). --- Thanks, Izumi From susan at chalmers.associates Sat Jun 13 14:26:04 2015 From: susan at chalmers.associates (Susan Chalmers) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 14:26:04 -0400 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Scheduling Mtg 3 during ICANN53 Message-ID: Greetings all, I hope that this email finds you all well. We will hold our third virtual meeting during ICANN53. Please participate in the doodle poll, here: http://doodle.com/eeve6mbpzqvffyhd. Many thanks and we hope that you will join us! More information on the current state of our documents, and the meeting agenda, is forthcoming. Warm regards, Susan Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES http://chalmers.associates -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marcoh at ripe.net Mon Jun 15 06:27:51 2015 From: marcoh at ripe.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 11:27:51 +0100 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] "Suggested different stages of adoption" (was: Re: Update: Scope & Goals; Problem Definition) In-Reply-To: <55767652.9020605@nic.ad.jp> References: <6B0A40D5-1D3C-4736-B33B-40D3CC656137@tcp0.com> <55767652.9020605@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: Dear Izumi, others, Apologies for the late reply, still following the discussions and development of the drafts, but my schedule made it very hard to contribute in a meaningful manner. I realise that I missed the deadline, so if text is considered closed please use this as a way forward. The Scope & Goals now contains an explicit statement regarding duplication of work done in the technical community. While I welcome and strongly support this, it strikes me as odd that we use such a specific scope. May I suggest we remove the ?technical community? and replace it with a more generic ?any stakeholder [community][group]?. If you don?t want to open up text, then maybe we can make a stronger statement in the introduction text that urges all participants to not replicate work and discussions already taking place in other communities and rather share the outcomes of that work with the global MSH community. As for the "Acknowledging different stages of IPv6 adoption?, it still doesn?t feel right. I support the current text in that details about this stages are out of scope as to prevent this running away into something too big to handle. However I also have the feeling that including the options removes a bit of urgency from our message. There are many ways ?available? can be interpreted and as we all seem to agree that IPv6 is the preferred way forward, why not say so? Going back a bit into the archives, my feeling is that this stages argument is rooted in what appears a deficiency in awareness raising and understanding, that I also often encounter. To a large group it is not fully clear that the deployment of IPv6 does not interfere with the Internet as they currently use it. They think in terms of it being a immediate replacement rather than an addition to the existing environment. While I realise this introduces some creep in scope, may I suggest the following text to replace the ?stages? section in the problem statement: ?[Myths and perceptions] While there is general awareness of IPv6 as a technology and broad understanding that it is the only feasible way forward to grow the Internet beyond its current limits and applications, there are still a lot of misconceptions about the actual deployment process. For instance many believe that the introduction of IPv6 into a network will be an immediate replacement of IPv4 technology and as such will break interoperability or communication with other networks. In describing existing succesful deployments as best current practice, the output of this process should address these concerns [and clarify any effects the deployment of IPv6 has on existing interoperability and communications].? Looking forward on feedback wether people feel this addresses the core issue that got us to the stages approach. Doei, MarcoH > On 09 Jun 2015, at 06:14, Izumi Okutani wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I'd like to share the latest status of "Suggested different stages of adoption" which has been discussed on this mailing list. > > This is now moved to a new section as "Acknowledging different stages of IPv6 adoption" of "Problem Definition". > > *Question* > Does this sufficiently cover the points expressed by everyone on "Suggested different stages of adoption"? > > > *Next step* > I'd like to give it until the end of this week, to continue discussions on "Suggested different stages of adoption", in case there are other thoughts. > > For other contents to be incorporated as the Problem Definition, we will fix the contents now, as it has passed UTC2:00am 9th June. > Expanding on the points being raised and improving the text continues to be welcome! > > > > > > *Overview of the suggested change* > The point here is to make an observation that there are differen stages in IPv6 adoption, and clarifying that sharing its best practices is outside the scope of this document. > It is based on taking into account of the feedback received on this mailing list and directly to the Google Docs. > > Feeback on the ML: > http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/2015-June/000061.html > - Concerns have been expressed about covering this as the scope of this group, and defining it a problem definition > - Based on an observation that this may be narrow and deep in the scope and the efforts made by a particular group will lead to duplicate work; a suggestion was made to focus the problem on bridging the gaps where there are interdepenencies between different players, > > Feedback on Google Docs: > - Acknowledging the above points, an observation was made that it is worth noting that these are not intuitive and will need to be clearly described if those are the stages we want to use. > > > *Current text on Google Docs* > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sGKIzpw8CvR1Gpi7rjXL63OLxk8llHcWn-3K7Bg88hI/edit?usp=sharing > --- > Acknowledging different stages of IPv6 adoption > > There are different stages of IPv6 adoption as described below. The decision is upto each individual network to make, depending on what suits their business, service and and network environment. > * available > * preferred > * exclusive > > Describing the best practices for each of the stages are outside the scope of this Best Practices document, as it has more specific technical elements and there is no one size fit all solution. IPv6 adoption in each network has lots of individual and unique elements to be considered. This could fit in a document that would describe technical behaviours/deployments of IPv6 (which we share as references in this document). > --- > > > > > Thanks, > Izumi > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bp_ipv6 mailing list > Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org From susan at chalmers.associates Wed Jun 17 15:43:59 2015 From: susan at chalmers.associates (Susan Chalmers) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:43:59 -0400 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Problem definition > Background Paper; next virtual meeting Message-ID: Dear colleagues, I hope that this email finds you all well. A few things, rather briefly as I appreciate that everyone is busy: - *Scope and Goals* - Wim is finalizing this document and we will publish and circulate it - and would appreciate your circulating it to your networks - before our next meeting, held during ICANN53. It has turned out to be a very nice piece of work which should help orientate all newcomers to the discussion henceforth. - *Problem Definition*, also known as *Background Paper *- Special thanks to Aaron H and Marco H for your contributions. I've set my mind to organising the document and have developed a general outline. Editing work is ongoing, and whilst the document is open I'd like to re-invite all interested to share their thoughts here . We intend to finalize a penultimate draft during our next meeting. Please note that your contributions will be accounted for and incorporated on a rolling basis. - *Next Meeting - *Please do join us for our next meeting. The Doodle poll is available here . I will close the poll on the 19th at 22h00 ART, or the 20th at 1h00 UTC. - *Share your Publications* - With thanks to Nathalie T, Paul W, and Miwa F's submission of documents. If you work for or within an RIR community, or anywhere else for that matter, we warmly invite you to share resources on IPv6 adoption to be published at the IGF Secretariat repository, here . The resources you share will become helpful reference material for not only the Background Document, but the final paper as well. Many thanks all! Warm regards, Susan Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES http://chalmers.associates -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From susan at chalmers.associates Sat Jun 20 16:26:34 2015 From: susan at chalmers.associates (Susan Chalmers) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 17:26:34 -0300 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Meeting set for Tuesday at 13h00, Argentina time Message-ID: Dear colleagues, The greatest number of participants were available for a meeting on Tuesday at 13h00, Argentina time. Please save the date and time. Further details are forthcoming. Warm regards, Susan Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES http://chalmers.associates -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aaronh at tcp0.com Mon Jun 22 08:51:03 2015 From: aaronh at tcp0.com (Aaron Hughes) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 05:51:03 -0700 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Meeting set for Tuesday at 13h00, Argentina time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150622125103.GP8321@services1-scz.tcp0.com> I will be just getting off of a plane so only available via audio. Cheers, Aaron On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 05:26:34PM -0300, Susan Chalmers wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > The greatest number of participants were available for a meeting on Tuesday > at 13h00, Argentina time. Please save the date and time. Further details > are forthcoming. > > Warm regards, > Susan > > > Susan Chalmers > susan at chalmers.associates > > *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES > http://chalmers.associates > -- > Bp_ipv6 mailing list > Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org -- Aaron Hughes aaronh at tcp0.com +1-703-244-0427 PGP Public Key ID: 0xF6B1DEC2 Key fingerprint = 6486 43A5 1692 502C DCFC 8446 C714 E317 F6B1 DEC2 http://www.tcp0.com/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 473 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From susan at chalmers.associates Mon Jun 22 12:19:25 2015 From: susan at chalmers.associates (Susan Chalmers) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 13:19:25 -0300 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Meeting set for Tuesday at 13h00, Argentina time In-Reply-To: <20150622125103.GP8321@services1-scz.tcp0.com> References: <20150622125103.GP8321@services1-scz.tcp0.com> Message-ID: Dear colleagues, My apologies, but we've had a scheduling conflict, and now we are looking at Wednesday at noon, Argentina time, for our next virtual meeting. Carl, could you kindly circulate the WebEx details? Sincerely, Susan Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES http://chalmers.associates On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Aaron Hughes wrote: > I will be just getting off of a plane so only available via audio. > > Cheers, > Aaron > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 05:26:34PM -0300, Susan Chalmers wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > > The greatest number of participants were available for a meeting on > Tuesday > > at 13h00, Argentina time. Please save the date and time. Further details > > are forthcoming. > > > > Warm regards, > > Susan > > > > > > Susan Chalmers > > susan at chalmers.associates > > > > *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES > > http://chalmers.associates > > > -- > > Bp_ipv6 mailing list > > Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org > > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org > > > -- > > Aaron Hughes > aaronh at tcp0.com > +1-703-244-0427 > PGP Public Key ID: 0xF6B1DEC2 > Key fingerprint = 6486 43A5 1692 502C DCFC 8446 C714 E317 F6B1 DEC2 > http://www.tcp0.com/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From IGF at unog.ch Tue Jun 23 04:07:01 2015 From: IGF at unog.ch (IGF) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:07:01 +0200 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Next Virtual Call - Registration link Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From susan at chalmers.associates Wed Jun 24 09:57:17 2015 From: susan at chalmers.associates (Susan Chalmers) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:57:17 -0300 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Reminder: Call at noon, Argentina time Message-ID: Greetings, colleagues, I hope this email finds you all well. We have our third call today at noon, Argentina time, 15h00 UTC. I've copied the registration details below. For those in BA, I will be joining the call from my room at the Plaza Hotel , given that the network at the ICANN meeting has been touch and go. The Plaza is a very simple 10 minute walk from the Sheraton. You are welcome to join if you like. Please contact me off list. Today we will discuss the background paper and the outline for the outcome document. Based upon the problem definition document, I've pulled together an outline for the background paper here . It will help to have this on hand during the call. Thanks all and speak soon! Cheers, Susan *Virtual Call BPF IPv6*Wednesday, June 24, 201515:00 | UTC | 1 hr *Register* After your request has been approved, you'll receive instructions for joining the meeting. Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES http://chalmers.associates -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sander at steffann.nl Wed Jun 24 11:18:11 2015 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 17:18:11 +0200 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] RIPE best practices links Message-ID: Hi, As promised here are the main IPv6 best practices document from RIPE: RIPE Routing Working Group Recommendations on IPv6 Route Aggregation - https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-532 Requirements for IPv6 in ICT Equipment - https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-501 (old version) - https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-554 IPv6 Troubleshooting for Residential ISP Helpdesks - https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-631 A mix of technical and other docs. Oh, and a link to the RIPE BCOP TF: - https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/bcop Cheers, Sander From ggm at algebras.org Wed Jun 24 12:06:05 2015 From: ggm at algebras.org (George Michaelson) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 18:06:05 +0200 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Reminder: Call at noon, Argentina time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I had problems dialling in. Sorry to have missed all the calls so far. -G On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Susan Chalmers wrote: > Greetings, colleagues, > > I hope this email finds you all well. We have our third call today at > noon, Argentina time, 15h00 UTC. I've copied the registration details below. > > For those in BA, I will be joining the call from my room at the Plaza > Hotel > , > given that the network at the ICANN meeting has been touch and go. The > Plaza is a very simple 10 minute walk from the Sheraton. You are welcome to > join if you like. Please contact me off list. > > Today we will discuss the background paper and the outline for the outcome > document. > > Based upon the problem definition document, I've pulled together an > outline for the background paper here > . > It will help to have this on hand during the call. > > Thanks all and speak soon! > > Cheers, > Susan > > > *Virtual Call BPF IPv6*Wednesday, June 24, 201515:00 | UTC | 1 hr > *Register* > After > your request has been approved, you'll receive instructions for joining the > meeting. > > > Susan Chalmers > susan at chalmers.associates > > *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES > http://chalmers.associates > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com Wed Jun 24 12:22:24 2015 From: alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com (Alejandro Acosta) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:52:24 -0430 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Reminder: Call at noon, Argentina time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <558AD940.6030404@gmail.com> Me too, sorry. I will try to always attend from now on. Alejandro, El 6/24/2015 a las 11:36 AM, George Michaelson escribi?: > I had problems dialling in. Sorry to have missed all the calls so far. > > -G > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Susan Chalmers > > wrote: > > Greetings, colleagues, > > I hope this email finds you all well. We have our third call today > at noon, Argentina time, 15h00 UTC. I've copied the registration > details below. > > For those in BA, I will be joining the call from my room at the > Plaza Hotel > , > given that the network at the ICANN meeting has been touch and go. > The Plaza is a very simple 10 minute walk from the Sheraton. You > are welcome to join if you like. Please contact me off list. > > Today we will discuss the background paper and the outline for the > outcome document. > > Based upon the problem definition document, I've pulled together > an outline for the background paper here > . > It will help to have this on hand during the call. > > Thanks all and speak soon! > > Cheers, > Susan > > > *Virtual Call BPF IPv6* > Wednesday, June 24, 2015 > 15:00 | UTC | 1 hr > > > > *Register* > > > After your request has been approved, you'll receive instructions > for joining the meeting. > > > > Susan Chalmers > susan at chalmers.associates > > *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES > http://chalmers.associates > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From ocl at gih.com Wed Jun 24 15:41:50 2015 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:41:50 -0300 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Reminder: Call at noon, Argentina time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <558B07FE.9090900@gih.com> Hello all, unfortunately the call clashed with a Session I could not miss as I was speaking. Please be so kind to record my apologies. Kindest regards, Olivier On 24/06/2015 10:57, Susan Chalmers wrote: > Greetings, colleagues, > > I hope this email finds you all well. We have our third call today at > noon, Argentina time, 15h00 UTC. I've copied the registration details > below. > > For those in BA, I will be joining the call from my room at the Plaza > Hotel > , > given that the network at the ICANN meeting has been touch and go. The > Plaza is a very simple 10 minute walk from the Sheraton. You are > welcome to join if you like. Please contact me off list. > > Today we will discuss the background paper and the outline for the > outcome document. > > Based upon the problem definition document, I've pulled together an > outline for the background paper here > . > It will help to have this on hand during the call. > > Thanks all and speak soon! > > Cheers, > Susan > > > *Virtual Call BPF IPv6* > Wednesday, June 24, 2015 > 15:00 | UTC | 1 hr > > > > *Register* > > > After your request has been approved, you'll receive instructions for > joining the meeting. > > > > Susan Chalmers > susan at chalmers.associates > > *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES > http://chalmers.associates > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From aaronh at tcp0.com Fri Jun 26 14:07:50 2015 From: aaronh at tcp0.com (Aaron Hughes) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:07:50 -0700 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Reminder: Call at noon, Argentina time In-Reply-To: <558B07FE.9090900@gih.com> References: <558B07FE.9090900@gih.com> Message-ID: <20150626180750.GB2942@services1-scz.tcp0.com> Looks like several people had issues. Did the call actually happen or does it need rescheduling. After the change in date I was no longer available either. Cheers, Aaron On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 04:41:50PM -0300, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Hello all, > > unfortunately the call clashed with a Session I could not miss as I was > speaking. Please be so kind to record my apologies. > Kindest regards, > > Olivier > > On 24/06/2015 10:57, Susan Chalmers wrote: > > Greetings, colleagues, > > > > I hope this email finds you all well. We have our third call today at > > noon, Argentina time, 15h00 UTC. I've copied the registration details > > below. > > > > For those in BA, I will be joining the call from my room at the Plaza > > Hotel > > , > > given that the network at the ICANN meeting has been touch and go. The > > Plaza is a very simple 10 minute walk from the Sheraton. You are > > welcome to join if you like. Please contact me off list. > > > > Today we will discuss the background paper and the outline for the > > outcome document. > > > > Based upon the problem definition document, I've pulled together an > > outline for the background paper here > > . > > It will help to have this on hand during the call. > > > > Thanks all and speak soon! > > > > Cheers, > > Susan > > > > > > *Virtual Call BPF IPv6* > > Wednesday, June 24, 2015 > > 15:00 | UTC | 1 hr > > > > > > > > *Register* > > > > > > After your request has been approved, you'll receive instructions for > > joining the meeting. > > > > > > > > Susan Chalmers > > susan at chalmers.associates > > > > *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES > > http://chalmers.associates > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 -- Aaron Hughes aaronh at tcp0.com +1-703-244-0427 PGP Public Key ID: 0xF6B1DEC2 Key fingerprint = 6486 43A5 1692 502C DCFC 8446 C714 E317 F6B1 DEC2 http://www.tcp0.com/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 473 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From susan at chalmers.associates Fri Jun 26 16:00:02 2015 From: susan at chalmers.associates (Susan Chalmers) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 17:00:02 -0300 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Reminder: Call at noon, Argentina time In-Reply-To: <20150626180750.GB2942@services1-scz.tcp0.com> References: <558B07FE.9090900@gih.com> <20150626180750.GB2942@services1-scz.tcp0.com> Message-ID: Dear all, Thank you Aaron and all for your emails. The call did happen - it was a test to hold it during an ICANN meeting and I reckon we won't take that approach again because it was a bit busy for everyone. I will be sending along an update shortly, and Wim will of course provide minutes. Speak soon1 Sincerely, Susan Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES http://chalmers.associates On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Aaron Hughes wrote: > Looks like several people had issues. Did the call actually happen or does > it need rescheduling. After the change in date I was no longer available > either. > > Cheers, > Aaron > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 04:41:50PM -0300, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > unfortunately the call clashed with a Session I could not miss as I was > > speaking. Please be so kind to record my apologies. > > Kindest regards, > > > > Olivier > > > > On 24/06/2015 10:57, Susan Chalmers wrote: > > > Greetings, colleagues, > > > > > > I hope this email finds you all well. We have our third call today at > > > noon, Argentina time, 15h00 UTC. I've copied the registration details > > > below. > > > > > > For those in BA, I will be joining the call from my room at the Plaza > > > Hotel > > > < > https://www.google.com.ar/maps/place/Plaza+Hotel+Buenos+Aires/@-34.5961779,-58.3753851,15z/data=%214m2%213m1%211s0x0:0xe88c409508944453 > >, > > > given that the network at the ICANN meeting has been touch and go. The > > > Plaza is a very simple 10 minute walk from the Sheraton. You are > > > welcome to join if you like. Please contact me off list. > > > > > > Today we will discuss the background paper and the outline for the > > > outcome document. > > > > > > Based upon the problem definition document, I've pulled together an > > > outline for the background paper here > > > < > https://docs.google.com/document/d/15iImIeNBD4GAA9BDE9m-B9M5epzx7p5dUHgxELLI8KE/edit?usp=sharing > >. > > > It will help to have this on hand during the call. > > > > > > Thanks all and speak soon! > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Susan > > > > > > > > > *Virtual Call BPF IPv6* > > > Wednesday, June 24, 2015 > > > 15:00 | UTC | 1 hr > > > > > > > > > > > > *Register* > > > < > https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?RGID=r67532a1e94290139b94aecb6f52dbf37 > > > > > > > > After your request has been approved, you'll receive instructions for > > > joining the meeting. > > > > > > > > > > > > Susan Chalmers > > > susan at chalmers.associates > > > > > > *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES > > > http://chalmers.associates > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > -- > > Aaron Hughes > aaronh at tcp0.com > +1-703-244-0427 > PGP Public Key ID: 0xF6B1DEC2 > Key fingerprint = 6486 43A5 1692 502C DCFC 8446 C714 E317 F6B1 DEC2 > http://www.tcp0.com/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From susan at chalmers.associates Sat Jun 27 18:23:46 2015 From: susan at chalmers.associates (Susan Chalmers) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 19:23:46 -0300 Subject: [Bp_ipv6] RIPE best practices links In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you, Sander! Cheers, Susan Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES http://chalmers.associates On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi, > > As promised here are the main IPv6 best practices document from RIPE: > > RIPE Routing Working Group Recommendations on IPv6 Route Aggregation > - https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-532 > > Requirements for IPv6 in ICT Equipment > - https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-501 (old version) > - https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-554 > > IPv6 Troubleshooting for Residential ISP Helpdesks > - https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-631 > > A mix of technical and other docs. Oh, and a link to the RIPE BCOP TF: > - https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/bcop > > Cheers, > Sander > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: