[Chapter-delegates] ISOC Briefing Papers on IPv6 - FRIENDLY REMINDER

Mon Aug 24 01:05:10 PDT 2009

hi Marcin

Thanks very much for sharing your thoughts prior to the calls this week.

This email serves as a reminder to invite all those interested in  
discussing the two IPv6 related briefing papers, to join the call on  
Marratech (https://marratech.tools.isoc.org:8001) in the large  
auditorium on Wednesday 26th August at UTC 10.30 and UTC 20.00.

The papers can be found at:

http://isoc.org/wp/chapter-meetings/

Please note there is a quorum of 5 chapter delegates per call. Please  
sign up at :

http://tinyurl.com/6k4m3m
(login is required)

Or email <chapter-support at isoc.org>.   If you are new to Marratech and  
would like to try it out before the meeting, please do not hesitate to  
contact us.

Best wishes
Anne
--

On 13/08/2009, at 11:05 PM, Marcin Cieslak wrote:

> Anne Lord wrote:
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> This is just a friendly reminder that the next briefing paper  
>> discussion
>> will be held on 26th August at UTC 10.30 and UTC 20.00 (subject to a
>> quorum of 5 chapter attendees for each call).
>> The papers are on IPv6, specifically:
>>
>> a) IPv6 deployment: State of play and the way forward:
>> http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/ipv6-way-forward.pdf
>>
>> b) IPv6: Why and how Governments should be involved:
>> http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/ipv6-government-role.pdf
>
> I am afraid I might not be able to join the conference, therefore I  
> put
> my first thoughts here, from the point of view of a consultant who
> sometimes tries to "sell" the idea of IPv6 to my customers:
>
> 1. An issue with IPv6 Address Aggregation
>
> During a session on IPv6 with IP community in Poland organized by
> national telecommunications regulator one major issue popped up: it's
> the portability of smaller IPv6 spaces in spite of aggregation. I  
> think
> this is a real problem in the IPv6 take-up - aggregation of addressing
> space that will preclude some players (for example large internet
> portals and content providers) to quickly change their upstream
> providers, as this is possible now with a small PI (Provider
> Independent) space (even /24). I don't know what's the current  
> status of
> IETF work on this and I'd like to find out.
>
> 2. We should put more stress on benefits of NAT-free environment.
>
> - I think there are some applications already there that most of the
> people know. One is VoIP (but everyone uses Skype, so who cares) and
> gaming (and this is causing some pain, salvaged with UPnP). Gaming
> recently takes up also as the instant messaging and voice service,  
> that
> was demonstrated recently as the means of avoiding Internet censorship
> in some countries.
>
> - Another (although niche) example is distributed software revision
> control used to maintain the computer source code for programmers  
> (with
> new models exhibited by git, mercurial, darcs and others) where it's a
> real peer-to-peer mesh of developers machines without any need for
> version control servers. This has been recently a real hit and many  
> (if
> not most) of the open-source projects have already adopted them. I  
> would
> definitely watch this movement since open source development in my
> opinion is the early adopter of any Internet technology. We wouldn't
> have Wikipedia for example if programmers didn't start to put their
> notes on a quickly-editable Wiki site. The benefits of reaching any
> device directly are obvious and no kind of NAT workaround like
> Application Level Gateway or port redirection is likely to work
> effectively.
>
> - Once we have admitted mistake and realized that a dual-stack  
> approach
> won't take us anywhere I think we should start advocating use of IPv6
> instead of the RFC1918 behind NATs. I think this is a subject of a
> recent IETF work and is definitely worth watching. That's more or less
> the way free.fr deployed IPv6 in their infrastructure for customers.
> This the reason why Comcast needs to move (not enough RFC1918 space).
> I think that also many corporations may solve their extranet and  
> access
> segmentation woes with moving into globally-unique IPv6 internally
> (barring crappy applications). I was personally trapped in this  
> problem
> many times trying to coordinate "pseudo-global" RFC 1918 deployments  
> of
> neighboring corporations ("oh, you have 10/8 too? So let's put a small
> 172.16.0.0 network between us and let's double-NAT.").
>
> - Let's have a look at the Google Wave. There is no reason why this
> technology could not break free from the client-server XMPP model and
> move onto peer-to-peer exchange using something like SIP or  
> whatever. We
> just shouldn't be afraid to say the "dirty (p2p) word". I think  
> there is
> tremendous potential in those kind of interactions (regardless whether
> waves will catch on or not).
>
> 3. Security
>
> Lots of people say that using publicly-reachable addresses is a threat
> to security. The false sense of security given by NAT has grown deeply
> into network manager's mindsets. I usually keep saying that addressing
> and routing are not security and too complicated schemes usually
> backfire with security holes resulting from misconfiguration. A quick
> way to demonstrate this are all client-related attacks especially on  
> web
> browsers or via email spam. Botnets operate fine mostly behind NATs,  
> too.
>
> I spoke recently with a top-level technical executive of a huge media
> company that was afraid that some provider is going to use public IP
> addresses to multicast some multimedia content to them. I had to  
> explain
> that there's nothing wrong in using public IP addresses for
> communication. (Unfortunately this was about IPv4, but maybe I will  
> get
> another call from him someday).
>
> 4. Awareness
>
> I seriously think we should run TV ads on IPv6. I have some ideas if
> needed :) I looked recently on YouTube and the only cool thing I could
> find was this:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0
>
> Nice, but this is not enough.
>
> I was recently amazed that middle-level broadband Internet marketing
> staff at one company didn't have a clue what an IPv6 is! They are
> actually preparing itself to deploy an infrastructure that could
> potentially support IPv6 from day one and they  didn't even know they
> could make an IPv6 offering part of the product.
>
> The reason for this is probably because IPv6 is still being considered
> as the toy for techs and it hardly ever leaves the data center  
> basement.
>
> 5. Government involvement
>
> If everything else fails, call the government :) I must admit I am
> really ambivalent on this. On one hand, it's the government that  
> created
> and funded ARPA and the rest is history. One the other hand, it all
> looks all-too-similar to the OSI protocols case. I am having too much
> doubts and trouble on the government possibly regulating IP (call it
> NGN) networks. Sure, the paper does not call for regulation, but some
> gentle methods, but at least in Europe we are in the middle of the
> process for the governments to "crack down" on the evil on the  
> Internet.
> It's hard time to explain that Internet does belong neither to telco  
> nor
> media regulation.
>
> I would say that the IPv6 problem is within marketing department and  
> not
> public policy.
>
> -- 
>              << Marcin Cieslak // saper at saper.info >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Lord, Senior Manager                             <lord at isoc.org>
Chapter & Individual Memberships                  http://www.isoc.org
Internet Society (ISOC)                "The Internet is for everyone"
---------------------------------------------------------------------