[discuss] IPv6 Deployment and IG

[Brian E Carpenter]

Hi John,

On 25/12/2013 20:17, John Curran wrote:
> On Dec 24, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 25/12/2013 09:56, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> ...
>>> IPv6 deployment does not having anything like as much as a hard deadline
>>> to deal with.
>> No. It is happening at a natural rate, as operators and content providers
>> see the need arising. Since there is no prospect of the supply of IPv6
>> addresses running out for the next few centuries, there is no issue
>> specific to IPv6 that calls for a governance discussion.
> 
> "IPv6 Deployment" could refer to many different aspects of IPv6, and 
> I am not certain that we can definitely state that there is no need 
> for greater cooperation among all Internet stakeholders regarding its
> deployment.  If you are simply referring to rate of deployment, that
> might be the case, but that isn't the entire picture.

Yes, of course technical coordination is needed, but we've been doing
that for 25 years without calling it 'governance'.

> For example, it is now recognized that IPv6 deployment is going to be 
> both prolonged and asynchronous.  The implication of this is that we
> will have a period of production IPv6 usage while production IPv4 is
> also in use, and many would say this is just fine presuming that it is 
> occurring based on actual market need.  Even so, the opportunity for 
> consumer confusion abounds (does a given Internet service provide IPv4,
> IPv6, or both; how do I distinguish between a website on just IPv4
> versus one fully-connected to both IPv4 and IPv6, etc.)   This type
> of issue is generally considered a "truth in labeling/advertising"
> matter, and while it may not be an issue today, it has high potential
> in the near future (particularly when products like Internet-of-things
> IPv6-only sensors appear, and when connectivity services with CGN-based
> IPv4 compatibility approach scaling limits)   Saying that something is 
> "on the Internet" today when it actually is not IPv6-reachable is likely 
> a form of unintended misrepresentation, since dual-stack is the official
> transition strategy and IPv6 is now in production.

I completely agree, and yes, truth in advertising is an issue. That's
why I very much like RFC 4084, which, by the way, mentions both IP version
support and wiretapping as items that an ISP might cover in its service
description.

I'll concede that this is a governance matter and not just technical
coordination. On the other hand, it's one that is generally subject to
national law.

> Another issue relates to the net neutrality aspects of continued IPv4
> usage via CGN gateways.  As folks may (or may not) be aware, carrier 
> grade nat solutions results in each IPv4 address being used for an 
> ever increasing numbers of user connections, and there are some rather
> interesting implications for services that open large numbers of 
> connections or that require translation at real-time speeds for audio
> or video streaming...  This raises a potential for impact to various
> competing services entirely due to "proper" network management reasons. 
> These same CGN devices also are very problematic for legitimate law 
> enforcement activities, requiring complex log synchronization and new
> retention requirements.

True. But I'm at a loss to see the international aspect of that.
It sounds like a debate for each nation state.

> 
> The IPv6 deployment rate may not be issue (if one accepts market-based 
> deployment model) but "IPv6 deployment" still has significant potential 
> for issues in consumer confusion, indirect net neutrality implications, 
> tracking issues for law enforcement due to widespread CGN use, and more.
> I do not think that "IPv6 Deployment" can be readily dismissed as a
> potential topic rich with Internet governance/coordination implications.

It's that conflation -- "governance/coordination" -- that gives me
heartburn. Technical coordination is one thing, and doesn't need the
intervention of governments. Governance is another thing; it may need
the intervention of governments. Lumping the two things together
is very problematic.

> /John
> 
> Disclaimer: My views alone.

Ditto.

    Brian
> 
>