[Bp_ipv6] BPF on IPv6; Problem Definition

Miwa Fujii miwa at apnic.net
Thu May 28 04:24:23 EDT 2015


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: <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 intgovforum.org>" <intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org<mailto: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 <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=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<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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/attachments/20150528/f77d314a/attachment.html>


More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list