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

Eduardo Barasal Morales emorales at nic.br
Thu Jul 28 20:53:22 EDT 2016


**

*Hi,*

*

Izumi,


You understand my point well, but I think the first question should be
written this way (is the same idea but in other words):


Choose one or more options that represents your activities related to
your network and describe in a few words what was your IPv6 planning?


What do you think? Does anyone have another idea?

**

Regards,

Eduardo Barasal Morales

*


On 26-07-2016 13:29, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> Wim,
>
> Would you help us clean up the google doc for the questions? Thanks
> for your help.
>
>
> To colleagues,
> In the meantime, please feel free to spread the questions to potential
> contributors. The document with questions are not yet clean but the
> contents are fixed.
>
>
> Eduardo and all.
>
>> I do agree that we don’t have to study cases that are not representative
>> to today’s reality. But there are some implementations using 6lowpan in
>> market which any company can afford it. For example, Texas Instruments
>> products.
>> http://www.ti.com/lsds/ti/wireless_connectivity/6lowpan/overview.page.
>>
>>
>> Maybe if we contact them, they could give some ideas to improve our
>> research. Anyway, I am just spreading ideas.
>
>
> Sure! Thanks for bringing it up - Sharing and spreading ideas are
> certainly welcome.
>
> The point you made that there are affordable IoT products available is
> worth considering to incorporate in our document IMO perhaps not as
> case studies of the best practices(as we want to be careful in
> introducing untested cases as best practices) at the end of the paper
> for example, to describe as future possibilities and status of
> readiness of IPv6 usage outside conventional Internet.
>
>
> Any thoughts, everyone?
>
>  
>>
>> Izumi
>>
>>
>> I agree that the question might sound too technical. But if you only put
>>   “ Did you achieve what you planned in the deployment? “ you might
>> receive a short answer, like “yes we achieved”. And it will be useless.
>> That’s why i wrote “Describe in a few words, what was your IPv6 planning
>> ? What were your goals and what have you reached?”. Do you have other
>> ideas?
>
> OK, I have incorporated them as Q1 and Q2d below.
>
> I would like to be specific in "what was your IPv6 planning" and avoid
> duplicates with Q1 (if I understood your intention correctly).
> I reflected your second part of your question as it is, to taken in
> your concern.
>
> ---
> 1.    Describe in a few words, what was your IPv6 planning ?(Multiple
> options can be chosen)
> a.Corporate network infrastructure (Web server, mail server, Internet
> connectivity to corporate network users)
> b.Service Infrastructure (Specify the service you
> provide:                                 )
> c.Customer base for service(s) you provide (Specify the service you
> provide:   )
> d.Other
> (                                                                                    
> )
>
> 2.    IPv6 deployment?
> a.   When did you start the planning and how long did it take?
> b.    When did you start the deployment and how long did it take?
> c.     When did you complete IPv6 deployment?
> d.   What were your goals and what have you reached?”
> ---
>
> Izumi
>
>
>
>
> On 2016/07/26 10:22, Eduardo Barasal Morales wrote:
>> **
>>
>> *Hi,*
>>
>> *
>>
>> I do agree that we don’t have to study cases that are not representative
>> to today’s reality. But there are some implementations using 6lowpan in
>> market which any company can afford it. For example, Texas Instruments
>> products.
>> http://www.ti.com/lsds/ti/wireless_connectivity/6lowpan/overview.page.
>>
>>
>> Maybe if we contact them, they could give some ideas to improve our
>> research. Anyway, I am just spreading ideas.
>>
>>
>> Izumi
>>
>>
>> I agree that the question might sound too technical. But if you only put
>>   “ Did you achieve what you planned in the deployment? “ you might
>> receive a short answer, like “yes we achieved”. And it will be useless.
>> That’s why i wrote “Describe in a few words, what was your IPv6 planning
>> ? What were your goals and what have you reached?”. Do you have other
>> ideas?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Eduardo Barasal Morales
>>
>> *
>>
>> On 25-07-2016 12:09, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>>> Eduardo,
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>> If I understood your comment correctly (you would like to confirm
>>> whether a contributor has deployed IPv6 in their own service
>>> infrastructure or customer base), I agree this information is needed
>>> as basic background information and this is at least the intention of
>>> Q1, and the planning part is also covered in Q2.
>>>
>>> I have added the second part of your suggested question as 2d, Did you
>>> achieve what you planned in the deployment?
>>> Please let me know if I didn't quite capture what you meant.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just to share with everyone that for our best practices this year, we
>>> would like to focus in understanding the business motivation behind
>>> the decision. For the purpose our work, we do not need to know how
>>> well they did in their planning in technical aspect.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Understood.  How about phrasing the question as:
>>>
>>> Did your organisation experience any financial/business impact when
>>> your organisation deployed IPv6, including benefit to customers?
>>>
>>> The point is that it explicitly asks "including benefit to
>>> customers".  I reflected it in Q5a.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In Q2 and Q3 I agree too, it should not be obligated.
>>>
>>> I added them in 5.b and c.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to give it another 24 hours before we finalise it.
>>>
>>> Wim,
>>>
>>> Would you kindly help us clean up the Google doc?
>>> There currently are total of 15 questions. It's a lot and could put
>>> off some organisations from helping if they think they must respond to
>>> all.
>>> Perhaps create separate sections for required questions (Q1, Q3a, Q4b)
>>> and optional ones (all other questions) helps reduce that impression.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Eduardo for your feedback.
>>>
>>>
>>> Izumi
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2016/07/23 8:40, Eduardo Barasal Morales wrote:
>>>> *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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20160728/f59dfded/attachment.html>


More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list