[Bp_ipv6] Call for Comments for Contents of the "Problem Definition/Introduction" [ Before Mon 8th June UTC2:00am]

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Thu Jun 4 06:21:12 EDT 2015

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!


More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list