[ipv6-wg] Request for approval of the minutes for wg session RIPE 59 (20100207)

Please find below the minutes from the IPv6 WG session at RIPE 59.

The minutes will be declared final if no objections, except for minor
editorial corrections that will be fixed before publication, will be
received by the end of Sunday February 7, 2010 in a timezone of your
choice.

Finally, I would like to thank Alex Band for the excellent minutes!

Thanks,

David Kessens
---

RIPE Meeting: 59
Working Group: IPv6
Chair: David Kessens
Date: Tuesday October 6, 2009, 16:00-18:00

David welcomed the attendees and opened the session.

A. Administrative Matters

o Welcome
o Select scribe: Alex Band
o Select Jabber Monitor: Rumy Kanis
o Finalize agenda
o Approval of minutes from previous working group meeting

B. RIPE NCC IPv6 Update
James Aldridge, RIPE NCC
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-59/presentations/aldridge-ncc-update-v6.pdf

There were no questions.

C. Future of the Working Group: Charter Discussion
Shane Kerr, David Kessens. Input from the audience
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-59/presentations/kessens-v6-wg-future.pdf

Shane mentioned that the initial idea for an IPv6 Working Group
came from looking at the statistics Geoff Huston publishes. "Make IPv6
Happen", was the summary of the charter of the WG. Most of the
discussion on IPv6 is actually in the Address Policy WG, so he proposed
to shut down the WG and move on to a bigger and better thing.

David asked the audience for input.

Olaf Kolkman (NLNetlabs) asked how the activities of the WG tied into 
the IPv6ActNow website.

Shane said that there is not really any tie in, and that he thought that 
is was a shame that something like IPv6ActNow is necessary at all.

Rob Blokzijl (RIPE Chair) mentioned that the message that is coming
out of the WG is heard by the community at large, however, it doesn't
seem to be received and digested by the industry on a wide scale. He
proposed that the WG is not shut down, because there is important work 
to be done, especially in the coming two years and when IPv4 has run out.

Gert Doering (Spacenet) commented that the WG is not the place where 
people go nowadays to learn about IPv6. At the RIPE Meeting, those kinds 
of discussions are held in the Plenary.

Rob gave an example: there were two presentations about the
general implementations of IPv6 at customer premises. In one case, the 
CPE worked fine, in the other it didn't. He would have liked to have 
seen a technical presentation in the IPv6 WG session on why that is.

Shane responded there are definitely opportunities for the WG in that 
capacity, and even other topics related to IPv6, like Multi-layer NAT.

Denesh Babutha (Aexiomus//Cyberstrider) agreed that the WG had reached 
the end of its useful life as originally envisaged. He said that, as 
such, the WG needs to evolve, and he thought that this needed to happen 
through the the charter. Denesh added that the WG needed to move away 
from repeating the IPv6 situation in every single meeting and move onto 
more useful discussions. The new charter should be inclusive of other 
industry areas too.

David said that there were many topics covered by the WG that were not 
originally in the charter.

Bernard Tuy said that there is an enormous need for technical training
and that kind of knowledge can come from the WG.

David asked the audience how to move forward with the WG and whether it 
should continue in it's current form?

Ruediger Volk (Deutsche Telekom) commented that the current form seems 
to be "quasi-plenary".

Rob commented that the WG should be modest in its aims and not try to 
reach the end goal without some intermediate steps. He said that the WG
should focus on real world implementations.

Shane commented that the WG did not need to come up with a new charter 
here and now.

Rob proposed that a new draft charter is written.

David summarized the feedback for a new charter as more focus on 
education and outreach activities.

Maarten Botterman said that not all of those activities have to be 
within the WG.

David asked the audience if preparing for a hybrid IPv4/IPv6 world 
should be part of the charter.

Rob commented that outreach should lie with the RIPE NCC efforts, such 
as the IPv6ActNow initiative. He said that training is a sensitive issue 
because the RIPE NCC does not want to compete with its members.

Rumy Kanis (RIPE NCC Training Services Manager) commented that the RIPE 
NCC offers IPv6 training, but careful steps were taken to ensure the 
RIPE NCC does not compete with the membership.

Marco Wertejuk (Binconsult) said that he believes the focus for the new 
charter should be "how to encourage conservation of IPv4 and deployment 
of IPv6".

David said that he assessed from the audience feedback that there isn't 
much support for the WG to focus on non-technical outreach activities. 
David asked Rob for a time line.

Rob said that the WG should take things slowly, and propose a new 
charter at the next RIPE Meeting and that further discussions should 
continue on the mailing list.

D. Future RIPE Network Experiments - David Kessens. Input from the audience

David asked the audience if there was further interest in IPv6
network experiments during a RIPE Meeting.

Gert said that forcing IPv6 on people is actually a good idea. He said 
we should even go as far as making the RIPE Meeting network IPv6 only 
for the whole week. He added that we should do the experiment without 
NAT-PT.

David said that he would like to see a completely new experiment.

Marco Hogewoning (XS4all) said that although IPv6 connectivity in 
general is good, tunneling is needed in some places in order to get full 
connectivity.

David Wilson (HEAnet) said that the IPv6 hour should be repeated, and 
that the WG should get new experiences because things have changed since 
the last time it was done.

Izumi from JPNIC that for their experiments, they created different 
testbeds for different kinds of implementations.

David asked the audience if the IPv6 Hour should be rerun at future 
meetings.. There is consensus that it should be.

E. IPv6 Deployment: What are the Remaining Issues and Bottlenecks? - A
panel discussion with interactive input from the audience. Moderator:
Maarten Botterman, GNKS Consult

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-59/presentations/botterman-towards-v6-deployment.pdf


Gert Doering introduced himself and asked the question "What kind of
Internet do we want to have in five years?".

Geoff Huston introduced himself and in a slide set proposed the question 
"Is the IPv6 transition an example of market failure?"
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-59/presentations/huston-ipv6-transition.pdf

Kurtis Lindqvist introduced himself and explained his own experiences 
with IPv6 deployment. He said that doing a slow and gradual 
implementation has been very beneficial.

Maarten Botterman did a live survey, with the question "What would you
gain by postponing, and what would you gain by stepping up to the plate,
earlier rather than later?". 40 votes were cast, most go to:

o By stepping up to the plate I have time and space to do the
transition, which will allow me to do it gradually and well thought through

o By stepping up to the plate I confirm my brand's image as
  'state-of-the-art' or 'top-of-the-wave'

Geoff commented that the respondents are most likely non-representative.

Gert said that he is not surprised with the numbers.

Kurtis said that looking at the responses, he is optimistic.

Maarten said that some people responded with 'none of the above'. He 
asked three of those people to comment:

Ruediger said that for all of the relevant players there is still enough 
time for doing a proper job.

Bernard said that there was no vendor support, so ISPs will never start 
until that happens.

Jan Hugo Prins said that there will never be end user demand. Deployment 
is not picking up because of security issues.

Geoff reiterated that he thought that the situation we are finding 
ourselves in right now is no accident. It is in many companies' 
interests to delay IPv6 adoption.

Shane agreed with Geoff.

Gabriella Paolini (GARR) said that the biggest issue is that middleware 
doesn't support IPv6 and that changes very slowly.

Maarten did another live survey with the following question: "There is
perception and experience of/with a number of hurdles that seem to be
difficult to overcome. Which are important to you?".

o As there is very little customer demand, I cannot justify the
investment to my management, even if I would like to move

o I have the experience that my vendors cannot deliver what I need

o None of the above (highest score)

Ruediger said that the options are very extreme. Slow and gradual
deployment is a real option.

Geoff commented that in his days at a telco, the biggest cost turned out 
to be customer support.  IPv6 could become expensive in that respect 
with end users calling in because of issues.

Maarten asked people to comment:

- Wilfried Woeber (Vienna University) commented that he would have to 
select 'none of the above' for all questions. His issue is that the 
questions are too black or white. The biggest problem from his point of 
view is in layer 7 or 8: infrastructure, applications etc. The backbone 
has been done for years.

- Marco said that he agreed with Geoff, the cost is not in the hardware. 
IPv6 is not a product, don't pay extra for it.

- An attendee said that in a lot of cases, even though the product spec
sheet says that IPv6 is supported, there is no feature parity with IPv4.

Gert said he agreed with most of the comments.

Geoff said that any vendor is willing to give you what you want, as long 
as you put down the money.

Kurtis added that there was also a big push from vendors for MPLS.

Marco added that some IPv6 functionality used to be free, but after 
vendors realized that there was a market for it, they started charging 
for a license.

Maarten did another live survey, the results with the most votes were:

o The deployment of IPv6 is unavoidable for my organization in due time

o Technically, everything is in place to deploy IPv6

Geoff commented that openness is the key in the end. IPv6 is the only
way to guarantee that.

Kurtis added that he was surprised that so many people responded "I will 
deploy in due time", because that is pretty close.

Geoff re-stated that the market is well informed, and that this 
situation is intentional in order to maximize shareholder profits at 
large corporations.

Ruediger agreed that the industry is flooded with information. But he 
asked how enlightened are people?

Geoff responded that it's all about vendor lock in.

Brian Nisbet (HEAnet) said that the WG keeps having the same discussion 
meeting after meeting. He said that he could not believe that people are 
not well informed.

Kurtis said that CFO's cannot be convinced of the urgency of something 
that will happen two years from now. An attendee said that for mobile 
operators, the vendors of mobile terminals are the blockers.

Maarten showed the results of the last survey. The panel shared some 
closing thoughts. The general thought was that the community should stop 
distributing messaging, and start moving packets.

Maarten closed the discussion.

F. Developments/Initiatives Regarding IPv6 in the RIPE Region and Beyond
- Input from the audience

No input was given.

Y. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan - Input from the audience

No input was given.

Z. AOB

None.

David closed the session.

---------