[Bp_ipv6] Call for contributions - Preparation (Feedback to questions by: 22nd July)

Eduardo Barasal Morales emorales at nic.br
Fri Jul 22 19:40:15 EDT 2016


*Hi,*

*

Reading the document again, I think we should put a question about IPv6
deployment. To improve our research we need to know what was their
IPv6’s planning. I would be useful to know  if they have deployed IPv6
on the services, to the costumers or both. For example, a bank might
have put Ipv6 in the Internet banking but not to their employees.


So I suggest:


 1.

    Describe in a few words, what was your IPv6 planning ? What were
    your goals and what have you reached?


Izumi, about other questions:


In Q1 I agree with your comment. But when I created this question I was
thinking in the company side. For example, facebook experienced that
their costumers reached their services much more faster using IPV6.   


In Q2 and Q3  I agree too, it should not be obligated.


Michael and Marco.


I would like to point that IPv6 in IoT is not only an address issue. We
have 6lowpan that can be used for many companies to improve their way of
making business. Unfortunately, I don’t know any company that uses it.

 *

Thanks,

Eduardo Barasal Morales


On 22-07-2016 07:48, Michael Oghia wrote:
> Marco,
>
> No need putting the horse before the cart ;-)
>
> Point taken! And agree with the notion of being data/case study-driven
> (if i am paraphrasing correctly).
>
> -Michael
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh at ripe.net
> <mailto:marcoh at ripe.net>> wrote:
>
>     It is a fair conclusion, but would need to be supported by
>     feedback. Feeling we are jumping to conclusions here.
>
>     In my understanding we set out to explore what motivates people to
>     deploy IPv6, more specially the economic model and commercial
>     incentives that drive the current deployments.
>
>     Now it might be that the opportunity of IoT or other network
>     evolutions are a factor here, but IMHO that is to be found out in
>     this process.
>
>     MarcoH
>     -- 
>     Sent from mobile, sorry for the typos
>
>     On 22 jul. 2016, at 12:11, Michael Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com
>     <mailto:mike.oghia at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>>     Hi Marco, all:
>>
>>     Fair point. I understand what you mean, and I think that even
>>     merely mentioning in the BPF that IPv6 is critical for scaling
>>     IoT as well as for rolling out 5G it will suffice. I don't
>>     necessarily mean that we have to dedicate entire sections to it.
>>
>>     Thoughts?
>>
>>     -Michael
>>
>>     On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Marco Hogewoning
>>     <marcoh at ripe.net <mailto:marcoh at ripe.net>> wrote:
>>
>>         Michael, all,
>>
>>         I'm not in favour of directly steering into this, as it quite
>>         possibly have too much effect of the scope.
>>
>>         Both IoT and 5G are ill defined in terms of technology and
>>         use of protocols and addressing. We can only take an educated
>>         guess that those are unlikely to develop towards IPv4, for
>>         the simple fact there are no addresses available.
>>
>>         But more then definition, we again would be looking future
>>         "what if" scenarios and as history proves, that has not been
>>         a very effective argument to deploy IPv6.
>>
>>         No there might be somebody out there who essentially has a
>>         business case in which investment in IPv6 deployment is made
>>         with an expected return from IoT or a further evolution in
>>         mobile networks.
>>
>>         In such case I hope they come forward and share that with us,
>>         but I would argue and not steer this at this stage by adding
>>         specific questions or sections the the output skeleton.
>>
>>         Keep it simple and seek for current cases that relate to
>>         todays reality of running an access network or providing
>>         content or application services to today's Internet population.
>>
>>         Just my 2 cents,
>>
>>         MarcoH
>>         --
>>         Sent from mobile, sorry for the typos
>>
>>         > On 22 jul. 2016, at 08:06, Michael Oghia
>>         <mike.oghia at gmail.com <mailto:mike.oghia at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>         >
>>         > About 5G and IoT - I was thinking more about the business
>>         aspect (and benefits) of 5G as it connects to IoT. If IoT is
>>         to scale, it will need 5G;
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/attachments/20160722/4ca7964b/attachment.html>


More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list