[ipv6-wg] Approval of the minutes for wg session RIPE 59

The deadline for objections regarding the minutes has now passed.
We have received one request from Sander for a correction
(http://ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/ipv6-wg/2010/msg00048.html).

I will consider the minutes now final except for the correction that I
will work out with Sander and the minute taker using the sound
recording.

I don't believe that there is much value in doing an additional call
for approval of this correction as the comment was about the timelines
of the new charter and we already have achieved that milestone. Let me
know if you have a problem with this.

David Kessens
---

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:38:01PM -0800, ext David Kessens wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> ---------

David Kessens
---