4 April 2009, 14:15-15:45
Maria Häll introduced the Chairs and the agenda, explained the
preparatory meetings that had been held with government and law
enforcement representatives earlier in the day.
Martin Boyle introduced himself and the panel on IPv6 deployment and
why it is not being adopted.
B. Panel Discussion: Why is IPv6 not being adopted by the business
community?
Chair: Martin Boyle (Nominet)
Tom Wills-Sandford (Intellect UK)
Patrik Fältström (Cisco, Swedish Government advisor)
Kurtis Lindqvist (Netnod)
Tom explained his background and interest in IPv6 deployment.
He noted that much of industry was unaware or poorly informed about
the possible consequences of the depletion of IPv4 address space and
how they might prepare for migration to IPv6.
He suggested the need for a positive marketing program, and noted that
Intellect and organisations like them would find it very valuable if
there existed a standard set of information from which to work. He
suggested that some leadership is required here. Investing in
preparing for IPv6 is well down the list of priorities for most
managers, who have not got the evidence they need to make decisions.
This needed to be in easy-to-understand language and provide some
resource material that could help in preliminary planning - what he
described as "cook books" and case studies.
Martin turned the conversation to Kurtis, on whether there is cause
for concern, and if the RIPE community can assist. Kurtis noted that
the more industry groups identify IPv6 adoption and bring it to the
attention of their members, the better.
The more people preparing these resources (cookbooks etc.) the better,
though coordination is also important, and the RIRs (including RIPE
NCC and the RIPE community) can assist with this. He noted though that
the vendors are helping; there has not been enough of a market to
date, but this will change over time.
Martin asked Patrik how much lead time people need? Patrik noted that
the technical community has only really turned onto the seriousness of
this issue in the last few years, and it is good to see business not
too far behind that. He noted the importance of requiring IPv6 in the
next upgrade cycle, because if you miss one now, it's possible that it
will be 10 years before the next cycle comes around. Tom agreed that
emphasis needs to be placed on the upgrade cycle. Martin noted that it
is the Senior Management who need to get behind these ideas, and this
can be difficult.
Paul Rendek noted that the RIPE NCC will be launching a new IPv6
website, IPv6 Act Now, later in May, which fits the model of a
cookbook that is accessible to the business and government
communities. Rumy Kanis also noted that the RIPE NCC Training Team is
using the RIPE 58 Meeting to shoot video testimonials of people who
have deployed IPv6.
Patrik noted that governments and large organisations can be useful in
developing Request For Proposal (RFP) guidelines to ensure IPv6
incorporation in all government-funded projects.
Jaap Akkerhuis noted that there is demand for information on IPv6, but
that the people who require this information are often not at RIPE
Meetings.
C. Government Updates on IPv6 Policy
Maria Hall (SE): Maria noted that Sweden will shortly take over the EU
presidency, and will be focusing on what is coming after EU's
ICT program, i2010. This will include an IT Policy High Level
conference in November 2009 (Visby Agenda – Creating Impact for an
eUnion 2015), as well as an e-Governance Ministerial Conference. IPv6
adoption is an important part of both of those focus areas. She also
focused on the importance of coordination and communication with other
communities, RIPE being one of the most important in this area.
Kirsten Sanders (DK): Kirsten outlined how the Danish government is
taking the lead in Denmark's IPv6 deployment. The government has
drafted several documents on strategy and an Action Plan to roll out.
She noted that there is a feeling that government is an important
initiator, both through purchasing and also by assisting in
connectivity deployment. International cooperation is also vital.
Constanze Buerger (DE): Constanze described the German government
strategies for IPv6 deployment in government networks.
Jim Reid (UK): Jim outlined the strategies that the British Department
for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) is developing. He
noted the importance of moving from the center of the network out
toward the edge, but noted that government is not going to be funding
a wholesale move to IPv6. He also noted the task force that BERR will
be setting up in the coming months.
D. RIPE NCC Cooperation Activities Update - Paul Rendek, RIPE NCC
Paul outlined the cooperation activities of the RIPE NCC (in many
cases alongside other RIRs).
E. Open Discussion on Issues Raised at Earlier Government and LEA
Meetings.
Marijn Schuubiers presented on what had taken place in the morning
meetings, including the suggestion of a Cybercrime Task Force. This is
still in the planning phase, and will be continued, in discussions at
the meeting or online. Rob Blokzijl agreed that this is a good
initiative, and advised on procedural aspects.
Bill Woodcock noted that the ARIN Government WG is doing similar work
and would be useful to liaise with.
Brian Nisbett noted that there is an Anti-Abuse WG, and that those
involved in this may find this interesting.
Mat Ford of ISOC noted that he supported this initiative.
There was some discussion of a recent program on Radio Four regarding
the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). Paul Hoare, of SOCA, noted
that the program misrepresented the extent of SOCA's knowledge, but
agreed that any additional support from the RIPE community would be
very welcome.
Z. A.O.B.
George Michaelson of APNIC noted the new network deployment being
discussed by the Australian government, and wondered if the government
representatives felt that strong regulation would be appropriate at
this moment in terms of IPv6. Maria noted that there are other ways
than regulation, and that any regulation should be undertaken very
carefully. Jim Reid spoke about the things happening in the UK, and
noted that regulation is not really felt to be required.
Martin agreed with Jim, and noted that government want to stand back,
but need to feel confident that industry is taking up the challenge.
If they do not think that this is happening, then they might decide
that regulation is necessary to avoid serious failure. He noted though
that many countries see the regulatory model as the only model, and
they will increase pressure to use this very soon, while trying to
show the breakdown of the industry-led model. Patrik noted that the
problem is that it is felt that the passive infrastructure should be
open, and whether IPv6 should be included is only a very new topic of
discussion.
Lorenzo Colitti of Google noted that the big step that needs to be
fixed is getting IPv6 to users of large ISPs. He pointed out that the
users don't actually know that they want IPv6, and they don't have the
purchasing power that governments have. He wondered how governments
see this happening? The technical solutions are well understood, but
it's a question of scaling it up to large ISPs.
Moshen Souissi of AFNIC noted that he doesn't want regulation of IPv6
from government, but that government can make these requirements in
their equipment upgrades. Lorenzo noted, however, that "setting an
example" is perhaps not an effective means of promoting IPv6, and that
there are plenty of examples set, but people don't necessarily follow.
Patrik noted that governments should be nervous when there are users
that are ONLY using IPv6, and not IPv4, and that we are not there yet.
Meeting minuted by Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC
Regards,
Martin Boyle
Maria Häll
Co-Chairs, RIPE Cooperation Working Group
