[Bp_ipv6] [Intersessional_2015] BPF on IPv6; Problem Definition

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Tue Jun 2 01:03:31 EDT 2015


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" <izumi at nic.ad.jp> 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: <Deen>, "Glenn (NBCUniversal)"
>>>> <glenn.deen at nbcuni.com<mailto:glenn.deen at nbcuni.com>>
>>>> Date: Saturday, 23 May 2015 2:44 am
>>>> To: Susan Chalmers
>>>> <susan at chalmers.associates<mailto:susan at chalmers.associates>>
>>>> Cc: "bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org<mailto:bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org>"
>>>> <bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org<mailto:bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org>>,
>>>> "intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org<mailto:intersessional_2015 at intgovfo
>>>> rum.org>" 
>>>> <intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org<mailto:intersessional_2015 at intgovfo
>>>> 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
>>>> <susan at chalmers.associates<mailto:susan at chalmers.associates>> 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<mailto:susan at chalmers.associates>
>>>>
>>>> CHALMERS & ASSOCIATES
>>>> http://chalmers.associates
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Bp_ipv6 mailing list
>>>> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org<mailto: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
> 





More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list