[discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013
roland at internetpolicyagency.com
Mon Dec 30 15:00:37 UTC 2013
In message <CD2C03E5-67BB-4654-BAD2-22C551F661EC at gmail.com>, at 10:24:49
on Wed, 25 Dec 2013, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> writes
>>> IPv4 -> IPv6 s not a problem to solve, it's just a job to do.
>> With my SME hat on it's a problem because it means replacing just about all my infrastructure (hardware and software), several of which are
>>legacy and will never be updated by their suppliers.
>That is *your* problem, not an Internet problem to be solved at the IG layer.
If IPv6 had been devised as backwards compatible, then my problems (and
those of millions of other business users) would be much less. I believe
that to be an IG issue, under Tunis Agenda #59 (and others).
> How you run your business is out of the scope of the IG and if you expect a solution to *your* problem from that front you will certainly go
>broke pretty fast.
It's not the running on *my* business which causes the problem, but the
running of the businesses that provide my connectivity and the running
of the governance processes in which ISP businesses are by far the most
influential stakeholder. "Users", as a stakeholder, are virtually
invisible, but they are the ones who ultimately pay the bills.
>> As for "Governance" issues, I'm not sure the traceability issues have all been solved (either for users who wish to be less traceable, or law
>>enforcement who wish users to be more traceable). And that's just one aspect
>Privacy and anonymity go way beyond IPv6 address allocations.
Of course they do. IPv6 just promises to make it even harder.
More information about the discuss