[LAC-TF] Summary LAC IPv6 TF ---- 29 July 2009 - 14 August 2009

[Mariela Rocha]

Summary of the e-mails sent to the LAC IPv6 TF mailing list ----- 29 
July 2009 - 14 August 2009

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


Subject: FAQ: Group 3 - Question "b"


(Complete original messages available beginning at: 
_http://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lactf/2009-July/002397.html_)


In order to prepare the answer to this question, Nicolás Antoniello (UY) 
proposed that examples of guidelines or policies applied by governments 
for furthering the development, implementation or promotion of the IPv6 
protocol be submitted to the list.

By way of example, Mariela Rocha (AR) mentioned the actions taken by the 
governments of Japan, the United States, Malaysia, and the IPv6 TF of 
France.

Guillermo Cicileo (AR) proposed that these examples be used for 
preparing the answer, but also including the recent actions promoted by 
Cuba.

Expanding the answer even more, Jorge Villa (CU) contributed further 
examples such as the actions taken by South Korea, India, and Australia, 
in addition to the information that had already been requested regarding 
Cuba.

In view of the large number of examples that had been mentioned, Mariela 
Rocha (AR) proposed considering this answer complete and adding at the 
end of the answer a link to the LAC IPv6 Transition Portal where more 
information can be found.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 



Subject: IPv6 Videos ...


(Complete original messages available beginning at: 
_http://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lactf/2009-August/002404.html_)


Considering RIPE's initiative to publish videos containing IPv6-related 
interviews, Jorge Amodio (AR) proposed exploring the possibility of 
carrying out a similar activity, interviewing people from our region 
involved in the issue of IPv6.

Jorge Villa (CU) supported this initiative and suggested taking into 
consideration the videos and interviews generated by the Mexican IPv6 TF 
during the Global IPv6 Summit 2009 held in Guadalajara.

Antonio Moreiras (BR) also supported the idea of conducting this 
activity within the framework of LACNIC, commenting on what was done in 
this sense during the past GTER meeting and that the videos that were 
generated will be published on a CGI.Br video portal towards the end of 
this month.

Mariela Rocha (AR) proposed that the videos be accessed through the IPv6 
Transition Portal for Latin America and the Caribbean. Raul Echeberría 
(UY - LACNIC) added that the idea had been noted by LACNIC.

Jorge Amodio (AR) stated that he is pleased by the initiatives that are 
being undertaken in the region and seconded the idea of using the IPv6 
Transition Portal for publishing videos for Latin America and the 
Caribbean, stating that he considers that the benefits of IPv6 
implementation are not limited to solving the problem of IPv4 address 
exhaustion. He added that a white paper is being prepared on the 
importance of IPv6 and observed that if anyone was interested in 
participating in its revision they should please let him know. In reply, 
Antonio Moreiras (BR) offered his cooperation.


This message was followed by an intense debate on the additional 
advantages of IPv6 over IPv4 other than the greater number of addresses. 
The following is a brief summary of the main opinions that were stated. 
We have attempted to maintain the context within which they were 
expressed, as well as the main phrases that identified each 
participant's point of view.


Quoting the interview offered by Randy Bush, Fernando Gont (AR) stated 
that, beyond the 96 bits added to IPv6 addresses, virtues are often 
sought in terms of QoS, security, etc. and it all becomes more a 
question of "marketing" than a technical issue.


Jorge Amodio (AR) validated Fernando's comment regarding the 96 bits and 
mentioned improvements in the protocol such as auto-configuration, 
recovering IPv4's original peer-to-peer connectivity which was lost as a 
result of the introduction of NAT, etc.


Fernando Gont (AR) expressed his opinion on autoconfiguration, NAT and 
peer-to-peer communications. He also inquired about the technical 
advantages of IPv6, stating that "IPv4 also had router-discovery. In 
fact, systems such as XP send router-discovery messages when booting... 
ICMPv4 was, in its time, a version of autoconfiguration (ICMP address 
mask request, etc.)." "In the world we live in this (peer-to-peer) 
connectivity does not exist. And the applications we use do not depend 
on it. We will also have NAT in v6."


As an example, Jorge Amodio (AR) mentioned that headers are more 
compact/simpler and have a fixed length.


Ariel Sabiguero Yawelak (UY) argued that the combination header + 
options does not have a fixed length, but that there /is/ a difference 
in the forwarding of known and unknown options. He also manifested his 
opinion regarding the length of IPv6 addresses (128 bits) and the use of 
NAT.


Fernando Gont (AR) made the following comments: "In IPv4 it is not 
necessary that all options be known." "To a great extent, the 'lack of 
respect' for NAT has to do with the fact that many feel it has been a 
major obstacle for IPv6 implementation. Personally, I believe that the 
obstacle that IPv6 implementation has faced is related to the lack of 
actual motivations for its adoption." "And let's not forget certain 
things. For example, the problem of routing table size which could 
potentially worsen with the addition of IPv6." "I would like every Latin 
American government that invests money in certain specific technology 
(IPv6, or any other technology) to do so being fully aware of 'why' it 
is being adopted and its ****real**** advantages and disadvantages."


Luis Carlos Solano (CR), added the following: "The only true, defendable 
fact about IPv6 is that 128 > 32 and, therefore, the new space (which 
from a practical point of view can be considered to be infinite) solves 
the problem of improper distribution from which IPv4 suffered in the past.


The following comments were expressed by Jorge Amodio (AR), among 
others: "Undoubtedly, and as Geoff mentioned in his article many years 
ago, since IPv6 was conceived many myths have emerged regarding the 
advantages of the new version of the protocol." "When TCP/IP (IPv4) was 
created it was not clear that the adoption of the protocol and the 
expansion of the Internet would be of such magnitude." "The wonderful 
thing about TCP/IP (IPv4) is that, despite its limitations and problems, 
it is the only communications protocol adopted at global level that has 
survived during all these years." "IPv4 addresses' 32 bits will no 
longer be enough to support the growth of the Internet." "Halfway along 
the process temporary solutions to this problem were conceived." 
"Obviously, one of the basic assumptions when we began to work with IPng 
was having a much broader field of addresses but, on the other hand, 
based on the experience of having IPv4 deployed at such a large scale, 
to introduce new improvements that will transform many of the "patches" 
into something already included in the specifications of the new 
protocol." “Is IPv6 perfect? No, but as long as it is not deployed at a 
large scale we will never know from an operational point of view what 
problems will require solutions or further development."


Regarding TCP/IP, Fernando Gont (AR) argued the following: "The original 
architecture has already been lost. The current architecture includes 
NAT. And the end-to-end principle is not maintained... Not only because 
of NAT, but also because of other devices such as packets scrubbers, 
stateful firewalls, etc." He added: "There are several other essential 
problems for which IPv6 does not provide real solutions. For example, 
multihoming." "v6 included a version of source routing (RHT0) that was 
patched a few years ago." "The motivation for implementing IPv6 is the 
future exhaustion of addresses. Is this motive enough for IPv6 
implementation? -- It probably is."


Christian O´Flaherty (AR) contributed the following comments: "The 
distribution of IPv4 addresses as we now know it will soon come to an 
end. Two scenarios may appear: an IPv4 market and/or greater use of 
IPv6. Our region (all of us) will be at a disadvantage if faced with an 
IPv4 market." "IPv6 not only increases the number of available 
addresses, it also modifies several fields... None of these changes 
result in the protocol being "worse" for the Internet." "We can be very 
effective in showing governments, institutions and companies that they 
do not need to spend $." "Any necessary improvements or changes to the 
protocols will be made using a transparent, participative and open 
mechanism (IETF)"


Fernando Gont (AR) expressed his opinion on changes: "IPv6 RHT0 was 
worse than IPv4 source routing". He also commented on participation in 
the IETF: "What is the level of 'active' Latin American participation in 
the IETF? -- We are no more than four or five individuals."


Christian O´Flaherty (AR) commented the following: "Knowing that source 
routing was a danger in IPv4, I don't know why RH0 was included in 
IPv6." "A couple of years ago it became clear that it needed to be 
disabled in routers just as we do in IPv4." "I just wanted to make it 
clear that IPv6 is not 'worse' and that it is necessary." In addition, 
Christian proposed creating the IETF-Latam list to increase the region's 
participation in the IETF.


Eduardo Suarez (AR) commented the following: "IETF has its times and its 
inertia" "One of the mottos behind the work of the IETF has been 'rough 
consensus and running code'." "If some day the IETF specifications were 
to become irrelevant, we would go back to the times of gatekeeper or 
CUNYVM. History shows that (...) proprietary solutions are the ones that 
have become irrelevant"


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 



Subject: "Call for the Election of the LAC IPv6 TF Moderator"


(Complete original messages available beginning at: 
_http://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lactf/2009-August/002425.html_)


Mariela Rocha (AR) summoned the election of the next LAC IPv6 TF Moderator.

Franciso Arias (MX) nominated the current moderator.

Mariela Rocha (AR) accepted the nomination proposed by Francisco Arias.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------