[Bp_ipv6] "Suggested different stages of adoption" (was: Re: Update: Scope & Goals; Problem Definition)

Marco Hogewoning marcoh at ripe.net
Mon Jun 15 06:27:51 EDT 2015


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 <izumi at nic.ad.jp> 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





More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list