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

奥谷 泉 izumiokutani at yahoo.co.jp
Fri Jul 29 03:48:43 EDT 2016


Hi Eduardo,



Thanks for your comment. 

It's nice to know we share and agree on what questions we want to ask and it looks like the rest is wording/phrasing. I am fine either way. 

Given it is now beyond the comment period and we agree on contents and intention of the question,  I would like to suggest we leave it to Wim as the IGF consultant to finalise the editing of the questions, including how we word this question.


I think it would be good if we can start concentrating on collecting contents, while some of us may have already started.


Wim, 
Please kindly help us clean up the document and share on this list as soon as the editing is completed.

 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hzk0c_HAvtv1V4uURNWJhFmRNL7NpJGgcoTEtWGHRP8/edit?pref=2&pli=1

To all,
I welcome everyone to continue collecting contributions. The questions still look messy on the google doc, but the essence is fixed and hopefully gives ideas on what kind of information we are looking for, in heads up for asking for contributions.


Thanks,

Izumi




----- Original Message -----
>From: Eduardo Barasal Morales <emorales at nic.br>
>To: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>; bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org 
>Date: 2016/7/29, Fri 09:53
>Subject: Re: [Bp_ipv6] Call for contributions - Preparation (Feedback to questions by: 22nd July)
> 
>
>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 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20160729/2ced33d6/attachment.html>


More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list