5-9.10 bo v Lisboni RIPE59 meeting. Tudi tokrat gre na srečanje kar močna ekipa iz Slovenije, poleg mene je pa samo Sebastijan Muc iz Telekoma že bil na vsaj enem od predhodnih RIPE srečanj, ostali trije se bodo pa teh srečanj udeležili prvič…

Moram priznati, da komaj čakam, pa čeprav bom tokrat pogrešal nekaj poznanih; Randy Bush mi je sporočil, da ga ne bo, ker ima takrat Cisco NAG konferenco, kjer je udeležen v enem projektu in oba z Olafom ne smeta manjkati. Prav tako ne bo Jordi Palet Martineza, vodjo EU IPv6TF. Z njim bi morala natančneje definirati na novo nastajajoči Slo IPv6TF (Task Force), tokrat pod pravo TF organizacijo, EU IPv6TF.org.

V Dubaju na RIPE meetingu sem spoznal Shane Kerr-a, ki je prej delal na RIPE-u, potem pa na ISC, kjer je poleg ostalega tudi skrbnik IRR ToolSet-a. Pogovori s Shaneom so večinoma bili zelo zanimivi, zato se nisem preveč začudil, ko je od njega na RIPE IPv6 WG mailinglisto prišla naslednja ideja:

All,

I checked Geoff Huston’s IPv4 estimate again today:

http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html

Assuming he’s correct, we have 4 more RIPE meetings until IANA runs out
of IPv4 addresses:

RIPE 59 (2009 Autumn)
RIPE 60 (2010 Spring)
RIPE 61 (2010 Autumn)
RIPE 62 (2011 Spring)

And… that’s it! IANA is done with IPv4!

Then the real fun begins as we enter the RIR IPv4 run-out period. We
then have 1 or 2 RIPE meetings until the RIRs run out of IPv4 blocks to
hand out:

RIPE 63 (2011 Autumn)
RIPE 64 (2012 Spring… maybe)

So… what is going on in the RIPE IPv6 working group at this critical
phase?

Since the last RIPE meeting there have been messages from the RIPE NCC
about their IPv6ActNow stuff and a survey, and some messages about the
minutes. The only thread with any content has been one about IPv6
minimum allocation sizes (thanks Marco!).

This is not much.

Since this group isn’t actually doing anything, I propose we:

1. Shut down this working group after the next RIPE meeting.
2. Move discussion of IPv6 issues to other working groups (since
“IPv6 issues” will become “IP issues” very soon anyway).

Cheers,

—
Shane

Odgovori so bili burni in na eno vprašanje je Shane še prilil olja na ogenj:

I think you are making a common mistake of management, which is you are
confusing cost with benefit. This confusion is natural, because cost is
often relatively easy to measure, compared to benefit.

The time spent in meetings talking about IPv6 is a cost. I don’t
disagree that there have been rooms full of IPv6 advocates or people who
want to learn about IPv6, talking for hours and hours. What I am unsure
of is the actual benefit of this activity. The suggestion to close the
working group is partially an observation that this discussion between
IPv6-aware people actually works AGAINST the idea of IPv6 adoption.

I had a look at the charter for this working group:

The IPv6 working group follows the progress of specification and
implementation of the new IP version. It coordinates
implementations in Europe and is going to create testbeds.

Based on that I guess the working group is at least partially
successful. I see lots of “following”, although not much “coordinating”
and certainly no testbeds.

Perhaps it is time to move beyond the traditional administrative and
technical co-ordination of RIPE and begin shameless advocacy. Widespread
IPv6 adoption is in the best interests of everyone.

I am sure we can think of a lot of ways that RIPE can use its unique
position to improve IPv6 adoption. The discussion about vendors saying
“no demand” is a good point. Things like petitions signed by a huge
number of ISPs in Europe may have an effect. It may also be possible to
encourage governments in the RIPE region to insist on IPv6 for new
purchases. I doubt there would be a shortage of ideas if people were
asked for them.

However, none of that seems to be happening now. If it is, it is
happening “off-camera”, certainly not on the mailing list. Maybe that is
okay, given the working group seems to be chartered to merely keep track
of what is going on. But honestly, I don’t see the point. Surely we can
find something better to do with our time than see another chart showing
IPv6 traffic rise 20% (*)?

As Gert noted, IPv6 discussion should naturally move to wider forums. I
actually quite like his idea of having an IPv4 working group – or
perhaps we should call it the Post-Exhaustion Working Group.

(*) From 0.000012% to 0.000014% I mean.

V bistvu mu moram dati kar prav, obljubil je pa, da bova v Lisboni malo bolj natančno obdelala to problematiko.

Tako torej, tisti teden pred 2. Slo IPv6 summitom smo odsotni, upam da bomo uspeli vse potrebno urediti v tem in prihajajočem tednu.

Jan Žorž

Vaš IP naslov (ali ste na IPv6 ?):
3.21.100.34

Comments(0)