[Bp_ipv6] Call for contributions - Preparation (Feedback to questions by: 22nd July)
Izumi Okutani
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Mon Jul 25 11:09:42 EDT 2016
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
>
More information about the Bp_ipv6
mailing list