[Bp_ipv6] Call for contributions - Preparation (Feedback to questions by: 22nd July)
Michael Oghia
mike.oghia at gmail.com
Tue Jul 26 02:17:28 EDT 2016
Hi all,
Thank you for your leadership on this Izumi, that was a good summary.
Looking forward to the coming months!
Best,
-Michael
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:22 AM, Eduardo Barasal Morales <emorales at nic.br>
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
> <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> <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> <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> <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>
> <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/20160726/7e16705f/attachment.html>
More information about the Bp_ipv6
mailing list