Subject: FW: I-D Action:draft-narten-ipv6-statement-00.txt

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:35:09 -0200

I like this document.

I also think it will be needed to point out that automatic transition
mechanism are already allowing IPv6 traffic to be there, despite the slow
level of deployment in the last mile.

Regarding the ROI, it should be pointed out that the ROI may not be the
"usual" business case, but the ability of just keep running the business and
keep connecting to customers/suppliers.

Regards,
Jordi

------ Mensaje reenviado
De: <[email-masked]>
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:50:02 -0500
Para: <[email-masked]>
Asunto: I-D Action:draft-narten-ipv6-statement-00.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

 Title           : IETF Statement on IPv4 Exhaustion and IPv6 Deployment
 Author(s)       : T. Narten
 Filename        : draft-narten-ipv6-statement-00.txt
 Pages           : 13
 Date            : 2007-11-12

Over the last year, the Internet community has slowly come to realize
that the IANA and RIR IPv4 free address pool will be exhausted within
no more than 3-4 years, and possibly sooner.  At that point, it will
become increasingly difficult for ISPs and end sites to obtain the
public IPv4 address space they need to expand operations.

IPv6 was developed to address the IPv4 address exhaustion problem,
but widespread deployment has barely begun.  This document reiterates
the IETF's support and continued commitment to IPv6.  IPv6 deployment
is still necessary to ensure the continued growth and expansion of
the Internet.  Deployment of IPv6 is needed to preserve important
Internet properties that have made it a success and enable new
generations of applications and services.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-ipv6-statement-00.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to
[email-masked] with the word unsubscribe in the body of
the message.
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the
username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After
logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then
 "get draft-narten-ipv6-statement-00.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
 [email-masked].
In the body type:
 "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-narten-ipv6-statement-00.txt".

NOTE:   The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
 MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
 feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
 command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
 a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
 exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
 "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
 up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
 how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2007-11-12084633.I-D\@ietf.org>

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce

------ Fin del mensaje reenviado

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:30:42 -0500

Hi.

A little more background/context that got me here.

My original thinking was to do something like what ICANN and the RIRs
have done, to bring awareness to the IPv4 situation and call for IPv6
deployment. I think the IETF can say a bit more about why, and the
threats to the internet architecture. (This came out of some
conversations I had at the recent ICANN meeting).

Maybe this could be an IAB statement. Maybe an IETF statement. I'm not
sure. But I think it would be useful to have an "IETF voice" also be
heard in the call for deployment. Especially since there are still
some going around saying "IPv6 is not needed." "IPv6 is still not
done, so don't deploy yet", etc. Does the IETF think that deploying
IPv6 is necessary and in the best interest of the Internet? If so,
reiterating that would be good.

I think though that it needs to be relatively short (which I probably
have already blown), and high-level, since it's really aimed at higher
level than your typical engineer. But the overal message needs to be
"think really hard about IPv4 exhaustion and what it means to your
business", "get serious about IPv6", and "it's done, so don't wait".

To find a good balance between "short" and also include a bit more
detail (especially on the implications of not seeing IPv6 deployed),
perhaps a short executive summary (which I didn't get into -00)
followed by a bit more detail (e.g., up to 3 pages or so) would do the
trick.

Thomas

---

From: "Pars Mutaf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:31:29 +0100

Hello,

A statement about IP addressable mobile nodes may be useful ?
(since we expect billions of them).

Regards,
pars

---

From: "Pars Mutaf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:31:29 +0100

Hello,

Regards,
pars

---

From: Mohsen Souissi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:41:43 +0100

Thomas,

I've read the draft. I find it very well balanced.  It is concise and
goes/gets straight to the point.  I think it should be adopted as an
IAB statement (after stabilisation), and to the minimum an IETF
statement.

With all its imperfections, progressive migration to IPv6
towards/until full deployment appears to be the best (if not the only)
feasable and realistic solution in the the short/medium term.

People who think it is a bad idea to do so, have the right and the
duty to bring up a constructive alternative in the same time frame.

FWIW, my humble comments on the draft in the enclosed document.

Mohsen.

 On 12 Nov, Thomas Narten wrote:
 | Hi.
 | 
 | A little more background/context that got me here.
 | 
 | My original thinking was to do something like what ICANN and the RIRs
 | have done, to bring awareness to the IPv4 situation and call for IPv6
 | deployment. I think the IETF can say a bit more about why, and the
 | threats to the internet architecture. (This came out of some
 | conversations I had at the recent ICANN meeting).
 | 
 | Maybe this could be an IAB statement. Maybe an IETF statement. I'm not
 | sure. But I think it would be useful to have an "IETF voice" also be
 | heard in the call for deployment. Especially since there are still
 | some going around saying "IPv6 is not needed." "IPv6 is still not
 | done, so don't deploy yet", etc. Does the IETF think that deploying
 | IPv6 is necessary and in the best interest of the Internet? If so,
 | reiterating that would be good.
 | 
 | I think though that it needs to be relatively short (which I probably
 | have already blown), and high-level, since it's really aimed at higher
 | level than your typical engineer. But the overal message needs to be
 | "think really hard about IPv4 exhaustion and what it means to your
 | business", "get serious about IPv6", and "it's done, so don't wait".
 | 
 | To find a good balance between "short" and also include a bit more
 | detail (especially on the implications of not seeing IPv6 deployed),
 | perhaps a short executive summary (which I didn't get into -00)
 | followed by a bit more detail (e.g., up to 3 pages or so) would do the
 | trick.
 | 
 | Thomas
 | 
 | _______________________________________________
 | Ietf mailing list
 | [email-masked]
 | https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

-- 
--
//===================================================================\\
| Mohsen Souissi             		             	              |
| AFNIC - Responsable R&D                                             |
| [email-masked]  | Tél./Fax : 01 39 30 83 40 / 01 39 30 83 01 |
\\===================================================================//
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:46:54 +0100

> IAB statement (after stabilisation), and to the minimum an IETF

Note that outside I* circles few people know who or what the IAB is,  
while the IETF has at least some notoriety.

---

From: "Tom.Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:37:10 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Narten" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: FW: I-D Action:draft-narten-ipv6-statement-00.txt
> business", "get serious about IPv6", and "it's done, so don't wait".

Trouble is, I am not convinced that the last statement is true.  Some WGs
produce a set of RFC and then say that's it, let's deploy, let's learn and come
back in a year or two if we need to.  Others, like ipng, seem to have
tinkeritis; it is always possible to improve - or at least to change things - so
let's go on changing.  The name may change - now it's 6man - but the
discussions, - DHCP, ULA, routing header, RA, ND, compression, it's more than
IPv4(128) - rumble on. I understand the discussions but do not have the relevant
experience to judge whether they are material changes or not, and so long as
that remains the case, then the number of fresh I-Ds leads me to conclude, it's
not done, better wait.

On the other hand, I do understand well that there is a problem looming with
ipv4 and that lack of action could turn that into a crisis and drama over which
the IETF will have little or no control.

Tom Petch
<snip>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:32:13 +0100

Tom.Petch wrote:
> [tinkeritis]

> the IETF will have little or no control.

The message here should be plain and simple.  No large words.

Eliot

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:24:04 -0500

> Trouble is, I am not convinced that the last statement is true.

It is true. The core IPv6 work is done. And has been for a number of
years.

True, there are still WGs doing work on IPv6-related technologies (or
is that technologies that happen to be IPv6-enabled?) But the same is
true for IPv4 as well.

But the idea that IPv6 is not yet "done", and folk should wait for the
IETF to finish one more key piece of work before deploying is not
true, and that message needs to go out loud and clear.

IPv6 is what it is. People may not like it, or wish it also did a
number of things that it doesn't, but that is not the same thing as
saying that the IETF is still doing key work on IPv6 that needs to
complete before it is ready for deployment.

> Some WGs produce a set of RFC and then say that's it, let's deploy,
> let's learn and come back in a year or two if we need to.  Others,
> like ipng, seem to have tinkeritis; it is always possible to improve
> - or at least to change things - so let's go on changing.  The name
> may change - now it's 6man - but the discussions, - DHCP,

what aspect of DHCv6 is not stable and ready to deploy? 

> ULA,

No apparent consensus to do this. But is it needed to deploy IPv6? A
lot of people say absolutely not. (And people seem to forget that
RFC4193 covers 90% of what ULAs do.)

> routing header,

The IETF just deprecated an unused feature (due to potential security
issues). In the overall scheme of things, that doesn't make IPv6 any
more or less ready to deploy. 

> RA

They work fine and are part of the long-stable core.

Sure, people continue to (and likely will forever) debate adding yet
another option. That is is fine and expected. Indeed, that is exactly
what people do for DHCPv4 (and other protocols) as well.

> ND

Sure, people propose yet more extensions and features. Do not confuse
that with "ND is not stable and is still changing".

>  compression, it's more than IPv4(128) -
> rumble on. I understand the discussions but do not have the relevant
> experience to judge whether they are material changes or not, and so
> long as that remains the case, then the number of fresh I-Ds leads
> me to conclude, it's not done, better wait.

If the criteria for a technology being "mature" and "done" is how may
IDs are being submitted, then a whole lot of IETF technology must be
pretty unstable!

All that said, work will continue on IPv6 tweaking/revising/etc. in
response to deployment experience/feedback. That is exactly as it
should be. But that is no different than for any other IETF
technology, and it does not mean that the technology is not "ready" or
"done".

In terms of new work, the only thing I'd like to see is that driven by
a clear and compelling need from folk that are seriously trying to
deploy IPv6 and can identify a real gap in available standards. I
don't doubt there is some work to be done here, but it needs to be
driven by a real, concrete need, not just be yet more "tinkeritus".

Thomas

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:46:24 -0000

> > ULA,
> 
> No apparent consensus to do this. But is it needed to deploy 
> IPv6? A lot of people say absolutely not. 

And if, during the next year or so of larger scale deployment
of IPv6, we discover that ULA-C is needed, then it can be made
available relatively quickly because it doesn't require upgrades
to any existing IPv6 devices or software.

Don't forget NAT-PT.

Deprecated by the IETF because its not a good long-term idea,
but it has already been deployed and if people can get some
short term use out of it, the IETF only deprecates, it doesn't
ban.

> In terms of new work, the only thing I'd like to see is that 
> driven by a clear and compelling need from folk that are 
> seriously trying to deploy IPv6 and can identify a real gap 
> in available standards. I don't doubt there is some work to 
> be done here, but it needs to be driven by a real, concrete 
> need, not just be yet more "tinkeritus".

Spot on!

--Michael Dillon

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 05:52:20 +0100

> short term use out of it, the IETF only deprecates, it doesn't
... I'd be even happier if the people who have deployed it come to the
IETF and tell us where they have had to depart from the specs/add to the
specs to get things to work properly (and whether or not some of those
were in the areas worried about in the "deprecation"), so that we can
have a spec for NAT-PT that is both useful and corresponding to
someone's reality....

                    Harald, admitting to spinning out subthreads...

---

From: Greg Skinner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:27:35 +0000

> reiterating that would be good.

Clarification is important here.  By "done", do you mean the
specifications (mostly agreed), the implementations (a point of
some controversy) or the migration path (even more controversial)?

> business", "get serious about IPv6", and "it's done, so don't wait".

As I read the draft, a thought occurred to me that it's probably the
right level of detail for the Director of IT, Operations, or the
equivalent, but perhaps not for someone higher up in a management
chain.  Such persons may not be familiar with the CIDR terminology,
for example.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:23:43 +0200

Tom,

> Others, like ipng, seem to have

You have to separate the sometimes wild discussion, the regular
maintenance, and new features (some which aren't even IPv6
specific).

As Thomas wrote, indeed the IPv6 core specifications are done. I
do not expect or plan to charter work relating to significant changes.
I believe what the world needs with regards to IPv6 is that we allow
vendors to implement, improve existing implementations, people to
deploy, etc. -- not continuous redesign of the core parts, or the
suggestions that IPv6 should have features X, Y, and Z to make it
more appealing to deploy. For better or worse, the train has left
the station.

This is not to say that we will not do anything. In particular:

*Maintenance*: We are committed to fix bugs etc as we discover
them. This is not at all different from what we do for other
IETF protocols. Case in point: routing header. We deprecated
type 0 routing header due to concerns relating to its use in
amplification attacks. But there are similar issues in IPv4 source
routing functionality. I have a document on my table suggesting
revision of some of the existing default settings and processing
rules. We'll deal with that, too.

We will continue to maintain and further develop both DHCPv4
and DHCPv6. One of the questions on the table is whether DHCPv6
has sufficient support for managed networks, and whether additional
features are needed. We'll deal with that, just like any other extension.

I have a hard time seeing major changes in ND. I don't know what
you referred to with "Compression". Maybe the work that we're
doing with progressing the IPv6 over PPP specs on the standards
track? This is normal IETF RFC status updates as we gain more
documented interop experience.

*Transition*: This is one particular area of concern, and we're
considering whether something new (or revised) is needed.
I think we do, but I also think that it will not change significantly
what networks commonly do. I certainly don't plan on changing
anything in the networks that I deal with, because existing
transition mechanisms work quite well for them.

*New functionality*: This is also business as usual. Some of
these things are IPv6 specific. Others are not; a good example
of that is the work done for scalable routing which is something
that we are going to need first in the IPv4 routing table, as
it continues to fragment.

Jari

---

From: "Tom.Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:07:44 +0100

<at the bottom>
Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Narten" <[email-masked]>
To: "Tom.Petch" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: FW: I-D Action:draft-narten-ipv6-statement-00.txt

Thomas

Your reply is all very reasonable but I remain unpersuaded (and I suspect that
others will too). Have the discussions on m and o bits really finished?  Has the
right balance been struck between RA and DHCP(see 6man in September)?  Has NATPT
got a role to play (current discussions on this list seem to be reopening that
one)?

To quote Michael Dillon from the 6man list,

'Indeed. I'm not looking for a book at all, but an RFC which summarizes
the current state of IPv6 that can be used as an authoritative source to
win arguments with people who are still stuck in IPv4 thinking. At this
point, I have to trawl through dozens of RFCs looking for this
information, or else use one of the books Brian recommended and hope
that the fact of his recommendation holds some weight'

It's that "dozens of RFCs" that grabs my attention (and makes me think, how many
more?)  For me, it's not enough to say 'we are done'; we need to do more, like
produce the that ultimate RFC as well (well, ultimate until the experience of
deployment demands a change).

Tom Petch

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:23:45 +0200

Tom,

> At this
> information
There is one good starting point. RFC 4294 lists the different
components that are part of IPv6. Yes, there are a few RFCs
that have been updated since RFC 4294 was published, but
if you retrieve these through the usual tools site, its easy
for you to find the last revision.

> Have the discussions on m and o bits really finished?  Has the

Again, the basics are done and we will not be redesigning
ND periodically to suit the fashion of the month or the opinion
of the latest participant on the list ;-) We do seriously consider
adding things, however. NATPT being one such issue.
Possible additional support for managed DHCP networks
being another one.

It will also never be the case the entire set of specifications
for IPv6 (or IPv4 for that matter) is completely free of issues.
Learn to live with it.

Jari

---

From: "philemon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:46:48 +0100

Hi All,

Sorry for leading IPv4/IPv6 issues/debats back to the Africa context. 
indeed, it is important for us who live in this area to undesrtand what is 
our specific fate, what are our expectations in connection with the 'coming' 
IP protocol ( I mean IP v6).
One note a king of hypocrisy, even in Africa, about the extent of the 
CURRENT importance or necessity of IPv6 in Africa. Hereupon, i want to share 
with you my analyze.

The keen interest for IPv6 is very very weak throughout the continent 
http://www.afrinic.net/statistics/ipv6_resources.htm
The cause of this fact are numerous:

- People are not aware on additional benefits IPv6 should bring in their 
life; thereby no thing is motivating them sustain to dynamic towars IPv6. 
The main cause is the fact that there is no active e-strategy program in the 
different governement political/policy agenda.
- Many organisations including afrinic try to initiate some capacity 
building programs upon IPv6 for the attention of mainly some technical 
bodies (ISPs...). Since then, not sure that things are going ahead at the 
exepected speed. We can therefore wonder: Was it strategic to beging the 
consciousness-raising compaign focusing on those specific bodies? If so why 
things are not moving upon in Africa?
I work in a local ISP in my country, we have some meetings with our 
competitors but no ISP here refer to IPv6 issues as if it was not a very 
tipical matter as it is! Here again many ISPs in Africa are not yet aware on 
the technical/business benefits of IPv6. According to some ISPs/africans), 
as IPv4 is working well why should us change/remove it? Some one can answer 
by refering to the exhaustion matter. Thereupon, some one add new arguments 
so that to remain with IPv4 by well coming in the same time IPv6. They 
argue:
- Moving towards the exclusive IPv6 is very expensive for African 
governments, operators and users as well... and we cannot.
- Why both IPv4 and IPv6 cannot 'collaborate' together forever?

Thanks

Philemon

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:04:39 -0000

> > driven by a real, concrete need, not just be yet more "tinkeritus".

I do see that clear and compelling need, not to tinker, but
to document the current state of IPv6 in order to assist operational
deployment in both network operators and enterprises. The fact that
IPv4 addresses are heading towards exhaustion in two to three years
from now is one of those exceptional situations that demands some
support from the IETF. For those people who believe that IPv6
deployment is the best answer to this crisis, what do they need
to know about IPv6 in order to make good deployment decisions?

> 'Indeed. I'm not looking for a book at all, but an RFC which 
> summarizes the current state of IPv6 that can be used as an 
> authoritative source to win arguments with people who are 
> still stuck in IPv4 thinking. At this point, I have to trawl 
> through dozens of RFCs looking for this information, or else 
> use one of the books Brian recommended and hope that the fact 
> of his recommendation holds some weight'
> 
> more?)  For me, it's not enough to say 'we are done'; we need 
> to do more, like produce the that ultimate RFC as well (well, 
> ultimate until the experience of deployment demands a change).

For example, RFC 4294 was produced to give an overview of IPv6
targetted at implementers. It is terse and leaves most of the
details to the RFCs that it references which is reasonable since
an implementer MUST read all those RFCs in order to get everything
right. But for operations folks who are deploying IPv6, they should
not need to read through a dozen or more RFCs to understand the
current state of IPv6. If you look at V6OPS
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/v6ops-charter.html
there are already 27 RFCs and more on the way.

The root of the problem is IPv4 thinking and that is rooted in
the IPv4 addressing architecture. Since the IPv6 addressing
architecture is poorly documented (scattered among several RFCs)
the IETF does not have an authoritative source that describes
the IPv6 addressing architecture. This is absolutely fundamental
to IPv6 deployment because early on in the planning stage you
need to understand IPv6 addressing, and develop your own IPv6
addressing plan that forms the architecture of your deployment.
The RFCs on addressing talk about site-local addresses or 
TLAs which cause people to mistrust them.

The solution is to publish an RFC targetted at operational
deployment that serves as an authoritative overview of IPv6.

--Michael Dillon

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:41:42 +0100

> deployment that serves as an authoritative overview of IPv6.

Maybe it would be an idea to get together for a bar BOF or some such  
in Vancouver and see if we can come up with an outline of such a  
document. It would be especially useful if both people with questions  
and people with answers could get together.

I'm not even sure that if we know what needs to be in there we'll have  
to actually write all of it, there is a lot of information available  
in a lot of places, at least some of that should be reusable. For  
instance, publishers, and therefore authors, are always happy to make  
excerpts available if proper credit is given, so it should be possible  
to get some good stuff together from various IPv6 books.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:38:13 -0600

Hi Philemon,

I'm not sure if I'm missing something from your email, but what I can tell
you is:

1) Africa is not in a so bad situation looking at other regions with IPv6,
considering also the actual level of broadband deployment with IPv4.

2) Many people in other regions is also not aware of what IPv6 means, not
just as a protocol, but also from the perspective of future applications and
services. So no big difference here with the rest of the world, in general.

3) I've very closely worked with AfriNIC in the IPv6 capacity building
programs and the results are VERY visible, as the number of commercial IPv6
services, pilots and related activities has been continuously increasing
since them, showing the positive results of those actions.

4) Nobody is telling "remove IPv4". We talk about transition and coexistence
NOT migration, at least not at the time being. Against this is the same
problem in other regions, lack of enough education about this matter.
Competitors often don't talk openly about what they do, right ? I work with
many African ISPs and enterprises, and the situation doesn't look the same
you see.

5) Moving to IPv6 is *NOT*, in general, so expensive as perceived. In fact,
if you need help, I will be happy to provide it for free, as I often do in
developing regions.

6) IPv6 has been designed to cooperate with IPv4 !

Regards,
Jordi

> De: philemon <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:46:48 +0100
> Para: <[email-masked]>, Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
> CC: <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Africa and IPv6
> 
> Hi All,
> 

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:48:13 -0800

Hi Philemon,
At 01:46 16-11-2007, philemon wrote:
>Sorry for leading IPv4/IPv6 issues/debats back to the Africa 
>context. indeed, it is important for us who live in this area to 
>undesrtand what is our specific fate, what are our expectations in 
>connection with the 'coming' IP protocol ( I mean IP v6).
>One note a king of hypocrisy, even in Africa, about the extent of 
>the CURRENT importance or necessity of IPv6 in Africa. Hereupon, i 
>want to share with you my analyze.
>
>The keen interest for IPv6 is very very weak throughout the 
>continent http://www.afrinic.net/statistics/ipv6_resources.htm
>- People are not aware on additional benefits IPv6 should bring in 
>their life; thereby no thing is motivating them sustain to dynamic 
>towars IPv6. The main cause is the fact that there is no active 
>e-strategy program in the different governement political/policy agenda.

Connectivity is not high on the agenda as Africa faces more pressing 
problems.

>building programs upon IPv6 for the attention of mainly some 
>technical bodies (ISPs...). Since then, not sure that things are 
>going ahead at the exepected speed. We can therefore wonder: Was it 
>strategic to beging the consciousness-raising compaign focusing on 
>those specific bodies? If so why things are not moving upon in Africa?

As Africa looks up North, they don't see significant deployment of 
IPv6.  The exhaustion matter may serve as a wake up call to Africa if 
they plan on significantly expanding their network.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "philemon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:27:54 +0100

Hi sm,

>  The exhaustion matter may serve as a wake up call to >Africa if  they 
> plan on significantly expanding their network.

No doubt there is a total concensus that IPv4 addresses is suffering from 
global exhaustion. However, we also know that the IPv4 addresses IANA/ICANN 
gave to Afrinic for the region are still avaible for a very long time, as 
theiy are in less demand by and for the region. This is to say that may be 
we should have two fears of 'exhaustions' when IPv4 is a concern... :).

Regards

Philemon

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "SM" <[email-masked]>
To: "philemon" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: Africa and IPv6

>>our specific fate, what are our expectations in connection with the 
>>'coming' IP protocol ( I mean IP v6).
>>CURRENT importance or necessity of IPv6 in Africa. Hereupon, i want to 
>>share with you my analyze.
>>
>>The main cause is the fact that there is no active e-strategy program in 
>>the different governement political/policy agenda.
>
>>consciousness-raising compaign focusing on those specific bodies? If so 
>>why things are not moving upon in Africa?
>
> As Africa looks up North, they don't see significant deployment of IPv6. 
> The exhaustion matter may serve as a wake up call to Africa if they plan 
> on significantly expanding their network.
>
> Regards,
> -sm

---

From: "rajesh rajesh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:42:36 -0800

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: rajesh rajesh <[email-masked]>
Date: Nov 19, 2007 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: Africa and IPv6
To: [email-masked]

Hi
 Educating decision making people about IPv6  through capacity building and
training engineers especially  at developing countries will make things
clear about IPv6. IPv4 addresses shortage is being felt ...then IPv6 is
appears to be the solution.

Rajesh

On Nov 16, 2007 7:38 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ < [email-masked]>
wrote:

> > De: philemon < [email-masked]>
> > Para: < [email-masked]>, Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
> > CC: <[email-masked]>
> > Asunto: Africa and IPv6
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> the
> > From: "Thomas Narten" < [email-masked]>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>
>
>
>

---

From: Marc Manthey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:40:38 +0100

hello everybody,

a few days before someone posted this  <http:// 
wirelessafrica.meraka.org.za/wiki/index.php/DIY_Mesh_Guide#Download>
its a nice and simple .pdf  " howto" about meshnetworks , isnt this  
another great idea to prevent loss of copper cable
and step forward with networking in africa ?

Regards

Marc

--
Development is when you know the answer, but not how to get there.
Applied research is when you know the question, but not the answer.
Pure research is when you don't know the question."

web: http://www.let.de