IGF review platform

I’m not comfortable with this footnote. I suggest the following instead: “While some took the view that democracy is a well-defined and well-understood term, others were of the view that, for the purposes of this paper, there could not be one single definition of the term”

I suggest inserting the following as the second sentence of this paragraph: “For some, democracy refers to the literal meaning of the term, that is, that decisions should be made by the people or their elected representatives. [Footenote]”

Footnote: See Reflections on making Internet governance democratic and participative: http://www.apig.ch/democratic_and_participative.pdf

received complaint that comments can not be added.

so just checking, on whether comments can still be added.

and it seems they can.

I believe that the internet is such an important aspect to our society. However, it is important to remember that ideas can easily be copied by another without anyone knowing. As a result, the right to information can be argued to cause problems with the internet quality.

As a whole, i think that there should be more control over the freedom of expression in a way that will do more in protecting the right’s of people, in order for it to become more difficult to take other people’s ideas.

Internet Protocol (IP) addresses are a logical level scheme, layered above the physical (Link Layer) addresses (e.g. MAC addresses for Ethernet). Link Layer addresses are usually permanently assigned to physical network interfaces, and are effectively randomly distributed, so cannot be used for routing of traffic outside of the local link. IP addresses are allocated and managed in a hierarchical manner that assures that the Prefix (most significant bits) is unique for a given link, while the Interface Identifier (least significant bits) is unique within the link.

IP addresses are just an ordered sequence of bits, or equivalently an integer value from 0 to (2^N – 1) (where N is the length of the address in bits). For IPv4, N = 32, so there are roughly 4.3B possible addresses. For IPv6, N = 128, so there are 340 trillion, trillion, trillion possible addresses.

Humans cannot easily work with either of these representations, so IPv4 addresses are usually represented in “dotted decimal” – four groups of 8 bits, with each group represented as a decimal value from 0 to 255. Groups are separated with the “dot” (.) character. In each group, leading zeros can be eliminated. For example, 123.45.67.89.

IPv6 addresses are usually represented in “coloned hex” notation – 8 groups of 16 bits, with each group represented as a hex value from 0 to FFFF. Groups are separated by the “colon” (:) character. In each group, leading zeros can be eliminated, and at most one sequence of all zero groups can be replaced with the sequence “::”. For example, 2001:470:ed3a:1000::2:1.

For example, with IPv4, I might have been assigned a public (routable) “/24” block of addresses (254 contiguous, usable addresses). The Prefix would be the first 24 bits (e.g. 123.45.67.00), assigned by my ISP (who got it as part of their allocation from their RIR, who got their allocation from IANA). The Interface Identifier would be the last 8 bits (from 1 to 254). Every node in my link would have the same first 24 bits, but each would have a final 8 bits that is unique within my link.

With IPv6 the concept is the same, except that the Prefix is usually the first 64 bits (e.g. 2001:470:ed3a:1000::) and the Interface Identifier is the last 64 bits (e.g. ::2:1). Every node in my link would have the same first 64 bits, but each would have a final 64 bit that is unique within my link.

The Prefix of an IP address is used to route a packet to the border router of the correct link via IP, while the Interface Identifier is used to deliver that packet to the correct node within link, via some Link Layer protocol (e.g. Ethernet). Within a link, packets are delivered directly between nodes via some Link Layer protocol.

For this addressing scheme to work, an IP address must be mapped onto the correct Link Layer address for delivery within the link. This is called Address Resolution. For IPv4 this is done via ARP (Address Resolution Protocol). For IPv6 this is done via the Address Resolution mechanism of the Neighbor Discovery (ND) protocol (or optionally via the Secure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) protocol).

Nodes can be assigned IP addresses manually, or in an automated (managed) way. With IPv4 this can be done centrally via DHCPv4. With IPv6 this can be done autonomously via Stateless Address Auto-Configuration (SLAAC) or centrally via DHPCv6.

It would be ideal to have a reference to the World IPv6 Day and its outcome as well as the following World IPv6 Launch.

See below.

http://www.worldipv6launch.org

The modification proposal to the last sentence as follows.

The report features expert analysis, outlines key milestones established as industry effort for accelerating IPv6 adoption, and progress report on those previously identified actions along with readout update on the overall IPv6 adoption status in Japan.  The Study group has published periodical update reports to date.

In addition to the Facebook example, the latest movement from Apple’ s guidance to the iOS App developer,  from the iOS9 IPv6 is the App development baseline and 25mSec performance penalty will be applied to IPv4,  would be interest of the audience of this document.

Note that as for the precise reference on the Apple’s iOS9 and 10 Development guideline shall be obtained from Apple.

Regarding the third sentence starting “CGN enables”, the technology solution is more intensively used by Mobile carriers initially.  In fact, wide recognition of the downside of the CGN solution that was initially looked at in order to cope with the increasing address consumption for mobile devices, is indeed becoming key driver for going native IPv6 adoption by Mobile operators lately.

It will be better to have a brief point of reference to not only ISP, but also mobile operator’s use case of the CGN technology solution.

The last paragraph is suggested to be changed as follows in order to reflect the scope of the latest MIC’s study group activity.

The MIC restarted its Study Group in July, 2015. The latest scope includes evaluation of IPv6 adoption status and future plan in mobile while the fixed broadband continues to show steady progress, and evaluating additional measures for the arisen of the Internet of Things (IoT), based on the recognition that IPv6 is one of the essential elements supporting the Internet of Things (IoT).