text:
A few months ago, when I told friends and media colleagues that I was interested in the Common Core State Standards, the most common response was "What's that?"
Now, it seems, everyone has an opinion about the Core.
And right now, opinions about the K-12 learning goals for math and English that have spread nearly nationwide are trending toward the heated.
While the school year is winding down, education policy sure isn't. This past week brought a bunch of front-page news on the Common Core.
On May 30, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley signed a law requiring the state to stop using the Common Core after the upcoming school year. And last week, Oklahoma dropped the standards effective immediately, bringing the total number of states embracing Common Core State Standards down to 42, from a high of 45 (Indiana is the third state to have pulled back).
Those states that adopted, and then dropped, the Core now face spending tens of millions of dollars to create new standards, adopt new materials to go with them and retrain teachers.
Speaking of millions of dollars, the money behind the Common Core was the topic of along story in The Washington Post yesterday that focused on Microsoft founder Bill Gates' role in the creation of the standards and in encouraging their implementation.
The story detailed how the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has spent some $200 million on the development of the standards, political lobbying, and grants to organizations that now support the Core. (The Gates Foundation is also a longtime supporter of NPR, including its coverage of education.)
Education standards are not a new idea. They've been advocated in the United States at least since the 1950s. But our unique system of highly localized control of public schools with limited federal involvement in education has prevented them from getting much traction on a sustained, national level. Until now.
As the piece, by Lyndsey Layton, details, Gates' money helped unite disparate interests behind a single policy in an incredibly short amount of time.
"The Gates Foundation spread money across the political spectrum, to entities including the big teachers unions, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, and business organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — groups that have clashed in the past but became vocal backers of the standards.
"Money flowed to policy groups on the right and left, funding research by scholars of varying political persuasions who promoted the idea of common standards. Liberals at the Center for American Progress and conservatives affiliated with the American Legislative Exchange Council who routinely disagree on nearly every issue accepted Gates money and found common ground on the Common Core."
What has seemed most troubling for critics of the Core, and of the influence of large philanthropies in U.S. policy generally, is the close association between the Gates Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education under the Obama administration. The Common Core are not, strictly speaking, national standards. They were developed independently of the federal government, and states are not under a mandate to adopt them. But the standards received a big boost in the form of funding incentives from the Obama administration.
Behind the alignment of interests, the Post article noted several close ties: Margot Rogers, who was Education Secretary Arne Duncan's chief of staff, and James Shelton, now a deputy secretary, both came directly from the foundation. The administration waived ethics rules to allow the two of them to consult closely with former colleagues. And Chicago received $20 million in Gates funding to reorganize schools while Duncan was that district's CEO before leaving for his Cabinet position.
We reached out to the foundation yesterday for comment on the article and on the developments in Oklahoma and South Carolina, but didn't hear back.
Some of the frustrations with the adoption of the Common Core reflect broader concerns with education policymaking in general.
In an ideal world, policies would be made like this: Practitioners in the field would develop solutions to problems. Disinterested experts would study and test them. Philanthropists would support that research and development phase without picking winners.
And then politicians, through the democratic process, would make the case to the public to support the spread and implementation of the best identified solutions, while giving practitioners the leeway they need to continue to refine and propose new ones.
Many in the ed-policy world agree: The Common Core State Standards skipped a few key steps here.
Critics have long noted that the influence of classroom teachers in writing the standards was limited. They weren't pilot-tested, although, in fairness, it's pretty hard to pilot universal standards — either they're universal or they're not.
They were adopted with little public debate. And their implementation, as we've reported, has been plagued with criticisms: notably that they are top-down, rushed and underfunded so far.
And yet in some states, the Common Core built on earlier foundations of setting high standards for students. Many teachers and communities have embraced them.
The bigger-picture problem may be one that Gates himself outlined to the Post.
"The guys who search for oil, they spend a lot of money researching new tools," Gates said. "Medicine — they spend a lot of money finding new tools. Software is a very R and D-oriented industry. The funding, in general, of what works in education ... is tiny. It's the lowest in this field than any field of human endeavor. Yet you could argue it should be the highest."
And so, the billionaire said, when he was approached with what sounded like a very good idea, he threw his support behind it. But when it comes to conceiving and implementing new education policies, Bill Gates himself says, he is crying out for some competition.
Copyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.


text:
When writer Jenny Studenroth Gerson– the blogger mom behind "Born to be a Bride," was pregnant, everyone wanted to "warn" her. From giving her the typical heads-up about the lack of sleep to come to painting a daunting picture of her post-baby body, Jenny's friends thoroughly prepared her for the mess to come with this next chapter of life.
Just like the mom who wrote "Dear Single Friends: Marriage Doesn't Suck" after constant "warnings" robbed her of the joy of being a bride, Jenny wants to readers to know that the warnings weren't really that big of a help… because they didn't warn her about the biggest surprise: the joy she would experience raising her newborn.
Check out her words below.
They Should've Warned Me.
When I was pregnant, everyone was all about "warning"me about what was coming next. I walked around much of those 10 months (let's face it, pregnancy is 10, not nine, months) absolutely terrified. The warnings flew at me from every angle – in the checkout line at Target, on the street, slipping my shoes on and walking out of the yoga studio. Warnings, warnings everywhere about what was to come – from the excruciating, mind-numbing pain of childbirth to the shell of my former self I was about to become once I had her.
There were times I felt like a prisoner on death row, trying to force myself to enjoy some tiny luxury despite my size and discomfort, because if you asked around, apparently, my petty joys would be ending pretty soon!
Huffington Post
"Enjoy your husband now – you'll be so consumed by the baby you won't spend any time alone together when she's here!""Invest in a cute one-piece for next summer – your body will never be the same."Or WORSE, from one of my female doctors, when I expressed concern about staying sexy for my husband, "You'll lose the weight this time, but with the second one forget it. You'll be so tired by then, you won't care.â€
AND you all know my personal favorite, "Sleep now while you still can!"(And its sister statements, "Enjoy the quiet now!,""Get your nails done – you won't be doing that again any time soon,"and the good old, "You'll never have time to shower.â€)
But with all these scary warnings that made me feel like the end of the world was coming, they forgot to warn me about what was really ahead.
Huffington Post
They should've warned me that after all those hours of labor (half of which was with an epidural, which made things totally bearable), the first time I saw her face my heart would burst out of my chest and shatter onto the floor.
They should've warned me that crying because you're happy is actually a thing, and it's a thing you can't control when you're a mommy and you behold the beauty in your arms. So you'd better keep tissues on hand at all times, and stock up on the waterproof eyeliner.
They should've warned me that I would love my husband so much more once he was the father of my bundle of perfection, that I wouldn't remember what the old love had felt like. That we'd have challenges, and arguments, mostly bickers, sure – but that we would also create goofy ways to spend time together like driving around the city with her snoozing in the backseat. That we'd come up with ridiculous names for her and laugh our heads off. That he'd finally learn to make sure there was wine in the house at all times for me and that that would be the most romantic thing ever. That I'd overhear him while he changed her diaper saying, "I'm Dada. Da-da. You'll say Dada first.â€
And that my heart, molten lava, would melt right out of my chest and all over the floor again.
Huffington Post
They should've warned me that eating healthy, proper portions of food would create enough of the nourishing milk that my daughter needs to grow. That I wouldn't even want to diet at first, at all. That hearing at her two-week doctor appointment that she'd gained enough weight, all from my body feeding her, would make me feel prouder than anything ever had. That the weight I would now become obsessed with was hers, and it would be all about health. That my body would actually fit back into my jeans in six weeks, but that I would be way too comfy in leggings to bother with actual pants. And that my husband would tell me I'm sexy. Like, very often and with conviction.
They should've warned me that despite the exhaustion, waking up to tenderly care for her needs would be the most rewarding thing I've ever done. That when it was just the two of us awake at 4 in the morning, I would cherish the soft quietness of the whole world, cat at my feet and baby nursing in my lap and cry because these days are fleeting.
They should've warned me that watching her start to grow out of her newborn clothes would break my heart. That some days, I would just stare at her for hours and not care about the deadlines I was missing. That her little cries and screams wouldn't piss me off, but would make me rise to action, that when I calmed and soothed her, I would feel like a rockstar.
That I would sleep. Maybe not every night and maybe not many hours in a row. But that my biggest upset about sleep would be that every time she napped on my chest, I would worry that it would be the last time. That savoring her newbornness would become a full-time job and the best one I'd ever had.
Huffington Post
They should've warned me that I would indeed get my nails done, but that I would sit in the pedicure chair texting her father compulsively because I missed them. That I would pick up a discarded Elle and watch a tear fall onto its table of contents. So much for relaxing, these postpartum pedicures!
Huffington Post
They should've warned me that becoming a mommy would absolutely change every single thing, but that I would never want to go back and visit the "old"me, not even for a second.
They should've warned me that my life was about to become so rich and beautiful and fulfilling, that I'd look back on what it was before and think, "Poor me. I didn't know her yet.â€
Huffington Post
What beautiful words of encouragement.
Share this mom's heartwarming "warnings" today!
Want to be happier in just 5 minutes a day? Sign up for Morning Smile and join over 455,000+ people who start each day with good news.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Network Working Group M. Lind Request for Comments: 4029 TeliaSonera Category: Informational V. Ksinant Thales Communications S. Park SAMSUNG Electronics A. Baudot France Telecom P. Savola CSC/Funet March 2005 Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6 into ISP Networks Status of This Memo This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). Abstract This document describes different scenarios for the introduction of IPv6 into an ISP's existing IPv4 network without disrupting the IPv4 service. The scenarios for introducing IPv6 are analyzed, and the relevance of already defined transition mechanisms are evaluated. Known challenges are also identified. Table of Contents 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Goal and Scope of the Document. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Brief Description of a Generic ISP Network. . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Transition Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Identification of Stages and Scenarios. . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Stages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2.1. Stage 1 Scenarios: Launch . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2.2. Stage 2a Scenarios: Backbone. . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.3. Stage 2b Scenarios: Customer Connection . . . . 6 3.2.4. Stage 3 Scenarios: Complete . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2.5. Stages 2a and 3: Combination Scenarios. . . . . 7 3.3. Transition Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4. Actions Needed When Deploying IPv6 in an ISP's Network. 8 4. Backbone Transition Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1. Steps in the Transition of Backbone Networks. . . . . . 9 4.1.1. MPLS Backbone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. Configuration of Backbone Equipment . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3. Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3.1. IGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.3.2. EGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.3.3. Transport of Routing Protocols. . . . . . . . . 12 4.4. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. Customer Connection Transition Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1. Steps in the Transition of Customer Connection Networks 13 5.1.1. Small End Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.1.2. Large End Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.2. User Authentication/Access Control Requirements . . . . 15 5.3. Configuration of Customer Equipment . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.4. Requirements for Traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.5. Ingress Filtering in the Customer Connection Network. . 17 5.6. Multihoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.7. Quality of Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6. Network and Service Operation Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7. Future Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8. Requirements for Follow-On Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9. Example Networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 9.3. Example 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 12. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Authors' Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 1. Introduction 1.1. Goal and Scope of the Document When an ISP deploys IPv6, its goal is to provide IPv6 connectivity and global address space to its customers. The new IPv6 service must be added to an existing IPv4 service, and the introduction of IPv6 must not interrupt this IPv4 service. An ISP offering IPv4 service will find different ways to add IPv6 to this service. This document discusses a small set of scenarios for the introduction of IPv6 into an ISP's IPv4 network. It evaluates the relevance of the existing transition mechanisms in the context of these deployment scenarios and points out the lack of essential functionality in these methods. The document is focused on services that include both IPv6 and IPv4 and does not cover issues surrounding IPv6-only service. It is also outside the scope of this document to describe different types of access or network technologies. 2. Brief Description of a Generic ISP Network A generic network topology for an ISP can be divided into two main parts: the backbone network and customer connection networks. In addition, it includes building blocks such as network and service operations. The additional building blocks used in this document are defined as follows: "CPE" : Customer Premises Equipment "PE" : Provider Edge Equipment "Network and service operation" : This is the part of the ISP's network that hosts the services required for the correct operation of the ISP's network. These services usually include management, supervision, accounting, billing, and customer management applications. "Customer connection" : This is the part of the network used by a customer when connecting to an ISP's network. It includes the CPE, the last hop link, and the parts of the PE interfacing to the last hop link. "Backbone" : This is the rest of the ISP's network infrastructure. It includes the parts of the PE interfacing to the core, the core routers of the ISP, and the border routers used to exchange routing information with other ISPs (or other administrative entities). "Dual-stack network" : A network that natively supports both IPv4 and IPv6. In some cases (e.g., incumbent national or regional operators), a given customer connection network may have to be shared between or among different ISPs. According to the type of customer connection network used (e.g., one involving only layer 2 devices or one involving non-IP technology), this constraint may result in architectural considerations relevant to this document. The basic components in the ISP's network are depicted in Figure 1. ------------ ---------- | Network and| | | | Service |--| Backbone | | Operation | | |\ ------------ ---------- \ / | \ \ / | \ \_Peering (Direct and / | \ exchange points) / | \ / | \ ---------- / ---------- \ ---------- | Customer | / | Customer | \ | Customer | |Connection|--/ |Connection| \--|Connection| | 1 | | 2 | | 3 | ---------- ---------- ---------- | | | ISP's Network ------------------------------------------------------- | | | Customers' Networks +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | | | | | | |Customer| |Customer| |Customer| | | | | | | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ Figure 1: ISP Network Topology 3. Transition Scenarios 3.1. Identification of Stages and Scenarios This section describes different stages an ISP might consider when introducing IPv6 connectivity into its existing IPv4 network and the different scenarios of what might occur in the respective stages. The stages here are snapshots of the ISP's network with respect to IPv6 maturity. Because the ISP's network is continually evolving, a stage is a measure of how far along the ISP has come in terms of implementing the functionality necessary to offer IPv6 to its customers. It is possible for a transition to occur freely between different stages. Although a network segment can only be in one stage at a time, the ISP's network as a whole can be in different stages. Different transition paths can be followed from the first to the final stage. The transition between two stages does not have to be instantaneous; it can occur gradually. Each stage has different IPv6 properties. Therefore, based on its requirements, an ISP can decide which set of stages it will follow and in what order to transform its network. This document is not aimed at covering small ISPs, hosting providers, or data centers; only the scenarios applicable to ISPs eligible for at least a /32 IPv6 prefix allocation from an RIR are covered. 3.2. Stages The stages are derived from the generic description of an ISP's network in Section 2. Combinations of different building blocks that constitute an ISP's environment lead to a number of scenarios from which the ISP can choose. The scenarios most relevant to this document are those that maximize an ISP's ability to offer IPv6 to its customers in the most efficient and feasible way. The assumption in all stages is that the ISP's goal is to offer both IPv4 and IPv6 to the customer. The four most probable stages are as follows: o Stage 1 Launch o Stage 2a Backbone o Stage 2b Customer connection o Stage 3 Complete Generally, an ISP is able to upgrade a current IPv4 network to an IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack network via Stage 2b, but the IPv6 service can also be implemented at a small cost by adding simple tunnel mechanisms to the existing configuration. When a new network is designed, Stage 3 might be the first or last step because there are no legacy concerns. Nevertheless, the absence of IPv6 capability in the network equipment can still be a limiting factor. Note that in every stage except Stage 1, the ISP can offer both IPv4 and IPv6 services to its customers. 3.2.1. Stage 1 Scenarios: Launch The first stage is an IPv4-only ISP with an IPv4 customer. This is the most common case today and is the natural starting point for the introduction of IPv6. From this stage, the ISP can move (undergo a transition) from Stage 1 to any other stage with the goal of offering IPv6 to its customer. The immediate first step consists of obtaining a prefix allocation (typically a /32) from the appropriate RIR (e.g., AfriNIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, RIPE) according to allocation procedures. The ISP will also need to establish IPv6 connectivity to its upstream providers and peers; it is of utmost importance to require IPv6 transit when negotiating IP transit deals with the upstream ISPs. If the upstream is not providing IPv6 connectivity at the moment, it may be possible to obtain temporary connectivity from a nearby ISP, possibly using a short configured tunnel. However, the longer-term goal must be to require and to obtain IPv6 connectivity from the transit ISPs, because otherwise the quality of IPv6 connectivity will likely be poor. Connectivity to peers can typically be established either directly or at Internet Exchange Points (IX). Most IXs use techniques where IPv6 is easy to use, and many IXs already provide infrastructure for IPv6 peerings. Such peerings can be done natively by using IPv6. Peerings over IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnels is also possible but not recommended, at least in the long term. Direct connectivity to peers may be feasible when there is direct connectivity to the peer for IPv4. 3.2.2. Stage 2a Scenarios: Backbone Stage 2a deals with an ISP with IPv4-only customer connection networks and a backbone that supports both IPv4 and IPv6. In particular, the ISP has the possibility of making the backbone IPv6- capable through software upgrades, hardware upgrades, or a combination of both. Since the customer connections have not yet been upgraded, a tunneling mechanism has to be used to provide IPv6 connectivity through the IPv4 customer connection networks. The customer can terminate the tunnel at the CPE (if it has IPv6 support) or at some set of devices internal to its network. That is, either the CPE or a device inside the network could provide global IPv6 connectivity to the rest of the devices in the customer's network. 3.2.3. Stage 2b Scenarios: Customer Connection Stage 2b consists of an ISP with an IPv4 backbone network and a customer connection network that supports both IPv4 and IPv6. Because the service to the customer is native IPv6, the customer is not required to support both IPv4 and IPv6. This is the biggest difference from the previous stage. The need to exchange IPv6 traffic still exists but might be more complicated than in the previous case because the backbone is not IPv6-enabled. After completing Stage 2b, the original IPv4 backbone is unchanged. This means that the IPv6 traffic is transported either by tunneling over the existing IPv4 backbone, or in an IPv6 overlay network more or less separated from the IPv4 backbone. Normally, the ISP will continue to provide IPv4 connectivity by using private (NATted by the ISP) or public IPv4 address. In many cases, the customer also has a NAT of his/her own; if so, this likely continues to be used for IPv4 connectivity. 3.2.4. Stage 3 Scenarios: Complete Stage 3 could be considered the final step in introducing IPv6, at least within the scope of this document. This stage consists of ubiquitous IPv6 service with native support for IPv6 and IPv4 in both backbone and customer connection networks. From the customer's perspective, it is identical to the previous stage because the customer connection network has not changed. The requirement for exchanging IPv6 traffic is identical to that of Stage 2. 3.2.5. Stages 2a and 3: Combination Scenarios Some ISPs may use different access technologies of varying IPv6 maturity. This may result in a combination of the Stages 2a and 3: some customer connections do not support IPv6, but others do; in both cases the backbone is dual-stack. This scenario is equivalent to Stage 2a, but it requires support for native IPv6 customer connections on some access technologies. 3.3. Transition Scenarios Given the different stages, it is clear that an ISP has to be able to make a transition from one stage to another. The initial stage in this document is an IPv4-only service and network. The end stage is a dual IPv4/IPv6 service and network. The transition starts with an IPv4 ISP and then moves in one of three directions. This choice corresponds to the different transition scenarios. Stage 2a consists of upgrading the backbone first. Stage 2b consists of upgrading the customer connection network. Finally, Stage 3 consists of introducing IPv6 in both the backbone and customer connections as needed. Because most ISP backbone IPv4 networks continually evolve (firmware replacements in routers, new routers, etc.), they can be made ready for IPv6 without additional investment (except staff training). This transition path may be slower but still useful, as it allows for the introduction of IPv6 without any actual customer demand. This approach may be superior to doing everything at the last minute, which may entail a higher investment. However, it is important to consider (and to request from vendors) IPv6 features in all new equipment from the outset. Otherwise, the time and effort required to remove non-IPv6-capable hardware from the network may be significant. 3.4. Actions Needed When Deploying IPv6 in an ISP's Network Examination of the transitions described above reveals that it is possible to split the work required for each transition into a small set of actions. Each action is largely independent of the others, and some actions may be common to multiple transitions. Analysis of the possible transitions leads to a small list of actions: * Actions required for backbone transition: - Connect dual-stack customer connection networks to other IPv6 networks through an IPv4 backbone. - Transform an IPv4 backbone into a dual-stack one. This action can be performed directly or through intermediate steps. * Actions required for customer connection transition: - Connect IPv6 customers to an IPv6 backbone through an IPv4 network. - Transform an IPv4 customer connection network into a dual- stack one. * Actions required for network and service operation transition: - Set up IPv6 connectivity to upstream providers and peers. - Configure IPv6 functions into network components. - Upgrade regular network management and monitoring applications to take IPv6 into account. - Extend customer management (e.g., RADIUS) mechanisms to be able to supply IPv6 prefixes and other information to customers. - Enhance accounting, billing, and so on to work with IPv6 as needed. (Note: If dual-stack service is offered, this may not be necessary.) - Implement security for network and service operation. Sections 4, 5, and 6 contain detailed descriptions of each action. 4. Backbone Transition Actions 4.1. Steps in the Transition of Backbone Networks In terms of physical equipment, backbone networks mainly consist of high-speed core and edge routers. Border routers provide peering with other providers. Filtering, routing policy, and policing functions are generally managed on border routers. In the beginning, an ISP has an IPv4-only backbone. In the end, the backbone is completely dual-stack. In between, intermediate steps may be identified: Tunnels Tunnels Dual Full IPv4-only ----> or ---> or + Stack --> Dual Stack dedicated IPv6 dedicated IPv6 routers links links Figure 2: Transition Path The first step involves tunnels or dedicated links but leaves existing routers unchanged. Only a small set of routers then have IPv6 capabilities. The use of configured tunnels is adequate during this step. In the second step, some dual-stack routers are added, progressively, to this network. The final step is reached when all or almost all routers are dual-stack. For many reasons (technical, financial, etc.), the ISP may progress step by step or jump directly to the final one. One important criterion in planning this evolution is the number of IPv6 customers the ISP expects during its initial deployments. If few customers connect to the original IPv6 infrastructure, then the ISP is likely to remain in the initial steps for a long time. In short, each intermediate step is possible, but none is mandatory. 4.1.1. MPLS Backbone If MPLS is already deployed in the backbone, it may be desirable to provide IPv6-over-MPLS connectivity. However, setting up an IPv6 Label Switched Path (LSP) requires signaling through the MPLS network; both LDP and RSVP-TE can set up IPv6 LSPs, but this might require upgrade/change in the MPLS core network. An alternative approach is to use BGP for signaling or to perform; for example, IPv6-over-IPv4/MPLS, as described in [BGPTUNNEL]. Some possibilities are preferable to others, depending on the specific environment under consideration. The approaches seem to be as follows: 1) Require that MPLS networks deploy native IPv6 routing and forwarding support. 2) Require that MPLS networks support native routing and setting up of IPv6 LSPs, used for IPv6 connectivity. 3) Use only configured tunneling over IPv4 LSPs. 4) Use [BGPTUNNEL] to perform IPv6-over-IPv4/MPLS encapsulation for IPv6 connectivity. Approaches 1) and 2) are clearly the best target approaches. However, approach 1) may not be possible if the ISP is not willing to add IPv6 support in the network, or if the installed equipment is not capable of high performance native IPv6 forwarding. Approach 2) may not be possible if the ISP is unwilling or unable to add IPv6 LSP set-up support in the MPLS control plane. Approach 4) can be used as an interim mechanism when other options are unfeasible or undesirable for the reasons discussed above. Approach 3) is roughly equivalent to approach 4) except that it does not require additional mechanisms but may lack scalability in the larger networks, especially if IPv6 is widely deployed. 4.2. Configuration of Backbone Equipment In the backbone, the number of devices is small, and IPv6 configuration mainly deals with routing protocol parameters, interface addresses, loop-back addresses, access control lists, and so on. These IPv6 parameters need to be configured manually. 4.3. Routing ISPs need routing protocols to advertise reachability and to find the shortest working paths, both internally and externally. Either OSPFv2 or IS-IS is typically used as the IPv4 IGP. RIPv2 is not usually used in service provider networks, as OSPF and IS-IS are superior IGPs. BGP is the only IPv4 EGP. Static routes also are used in both cases. Note that it is possible to configure a given network so that it has an IPv6 topology different from its IPv4 topology. For example, some links or interfaces may be dedicated to IPv4-only or IPv6-only traffic, or some routers may be dual-stack whereas others may be IPv4- or IPv6-only. In this case, routing protocols must be able to understand and cope with multiple topologies. 4.3.1. IGP Once the IPv6 topology has been determined, the choice of IPv6 IGP must be made: either OSPFv3 or IS-IS for IPv6. RIPng is not appropriate in most contexts, due to RIPv2 not being appropriate for IPv4 either, and is therefore not discussed here. The IGP typically includes the routers' point-to-point and loop-back addresses. The most important decision is whether one wishes to have separate routing protocol processes for IPv4 and IPv6. Separating them requires more memory and CPU for route calculations, e.g., when the links flap. But separation provides a measure of assurance that should problems arise with IPv6 routing, they will not affect the IPv4 routing protocol. In the initial phases, if it is uncertain whether joint IPv4-IPv6 networking is working as intended, running separate processes may be desirable and easier to manage. The possible combinations are as follows: - With separate processes: o OSPFv2 for IPv4, IS-IS for IPv6 (only) o OSPFv2 for IPv4, OSPFv3 for IPv6, or o IS-IS for IPv4, OSPFv3 for IPv6 - With the same process: o IS-IS for both IPv4 and IPv6 Note that if IS-IS is used for both IPv4 and IPv6, the IPv4/IPv6 topologies must be "convex", unless the multiple-topology IS-IS extensions [MTISIS] have been implemented (using IS-IS for only IPv4 or only IPv6 requires no convexity). In simpler networks or with careful planning of IS-IS link costs, it is possible to keep even incongruent IPv4/IPv6 topologies "convex". The convexity problem is explained in more detail with an example in Appendix A. When deploying full dual-stack in the short-term, using single- topology IS-IS is recommended. This may be particularly applicable for some larger ISPs. In other scenarios, choosing between one or two separate processes often depends on the perceived risk to the IPv4 routing infrastructure, i.e., whether one wishes to keep them separate for the time being. If this is not a factor, using a single process is usually preferable for operational reasons: not having to manage two protocols and topologies. The IGP is typically only used to carry loopback and point-to-point addresses and doesn't include customer prefixes or external routes. Internal BGP (iBGP), as described in the next section, is most often deployed in all routers (PE and core) to distribute routing information about customer prefixes and external routes. Some of the simplest devices (e.g., CPE routers) may not implement routing protocols other than RIPng. In some cases, therefore, it may be necessary to run RIPng in addition to one of the above IGPs, at least in a limited fashion, and then, by some mechanism, to redistribute routing information between the routing protocols. 4.3.2. EGP BGP is used for both internal and external BGP sessions. BGP with multiprotocol extensions [RFC2858] can be used for IPv6 [RFC2545]. These extensions enable the exchange of IPv6 routing information and the establishment of BGP sessions using TCP over IPv6. It is possible to use a single BGP session to advertise both IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes between two peers. However, the most common practice today is to use separate BGP sessions. 4.3.3. Transport of Routing Protocols IPv4 routing information should be carried by IPv4 transport and, similarly, IPv6 routing information by IPv6 for several reasons: * IPv6 connectivity may work when IPv4 connectivity is down (or vice-versa). * The best route for IPv4 is not always the best one for IPv6. * The IPv4 and IPv6 logical topologies may be different because the administrator may want to assign different metrics to a physical link for load balancing or because tunnels may be in use. 4.4. Multicast Currently, IPv6 multicast is not a major concern for most ISPs. However, some of them are considering deploying it. Multicast is achieved by using the PIM-SM and PIM-SSM protocols. These also work with IPv6. Information about multicast sources is exchanged by using MSDP in IPv4, but MSDP is intentionally not defined for IPv6. Instead, one should use only PIM-SSM or an alternative mechanism for conveying the information [EMBEDRP]. 5. Customer Connection Transition Actions 5.1. Steps in the Transition of Customer Connection Networks Customer connection networks are generally composed of a small set of PEs connected to a large set of CPEs and may be based on different technologies depending on the customer type or size, as well as the required bandwidth or even quality of service. Small unmanaged connection networks used for public customers usually rely on different technologies (e.g., dial-up or DSL) than the ones used for large customers, which typically run managed networks. Transitioning these infrastructures to IPv6 can be accomplished in several steps, but some ISPs, depending on their perception of the risks, may avoid some of the steps. Connecting IPv6 customers to an IPv6 backbone through an IPv4 network can be considered a first careful step taken by an ISP to provide IPv6 services to its IPv4 customers. Some ISPs may also choose to provide IPv6 service independently from the regular IPv4 service. In any case, IPv6 service can be provided by using tunneling techniques. The tunnel may terminate at the CPE corresponding to the IPv4 service or in some other part of the customer's infrastructure (for instance, on IPv6-specific CPE or even on a host). Several tunneling techniques have already been defined: configured tunnels with tunnel broker, 6to4 [RFC3056], Teredo [TEREDO], and so on. Some of these are based on a specific addressing plan independent of the ISP's allocated prefix(es), while others use a part of the ISP's prefix. In most cases, using the ISP's address space is preferable. A key factor is the presence or absence of NATs between the two tunnel end-points. In most cases, 6to4 and ISATAP are incompatible with NATs, and UDP encapsulation for configured tunnels has not been specified. Dynamic and non-permanent IPv4 address allocation is another factor a tunneling technique may have to deal with. In this case, the tunneling techniques may be more difficult to deploy at the ISP's end, especially if a protocol including authentication (like PPP for IPv6) is not used. This may need to be considered in more detail. However, NAT traversal can be avoided if the NAT supports forwarding protocol-41 [PROTO41] and is configured to do so. Firewalls in the path can also break tunnels of these types. The administrator of the firewall needs to create a hole for the tunnel. This is usually manageable, as long as the firewall is controlled by either the customer or the ISP, which is almost always the case. When the CPE is performing NAT or firewall functions, terminating the tunnels directly at the CPE typically simplifies the scenario considerably, avoiding the NAT and firewall traversal. If such an approach is adopted, the CPE has to support the tunneling mechanism used, or be upgraded to do so. 5.1.1. Small End Sites Tunneling considerations for small end sites are discussed in [UNMANEVA]. These identify solutions relevant to the first category of unmanaged networks. The tunneling requirements applicable in these scenarios are described in [TUNREQS]. The connectivity mechanisms can be categorized as "managed" or "opportunistic". The former consist of native service or a configured tunnel (with or without a tunnel broker); the latter include 6to4 and, e.g., Teredo -- they provide "short-cuts" between nodes using the same mechanisms and are available without contracts with the ISP. The ISP may offer opportunistic services, mainly a 6to4 relay, especially as a test when no actual service is offered yet. At the later phases, ISPs might also deploy 6to4 relays and Teredo servers (or similar) to optimize their customers' connectivity to 6to4 and Teredo nodes. Opportunistic services are typically based on techniques that don't use IPv6 addresses from the ISP's allocated prefix(es), and the services have very limited functions to control the origin and the number of customers connected to a given relay. Most interesting are the managed services. When dual-stack is not an option, a form of tunneling must be used. When configured tunneling is not an option (e.g., due to dynamic IPv4 addressing), some form of automation has to be used. Basically, the options are either to deploy an L2TP architecture (whereby the customers would run L2TP clients and PPP over it to initiate IPv6 sessions) or to deploy a tunnel configuration service. The prime candidates for tunnel configuration are STEP [STEP] and TSP [TSP], which both also work in the presence of NATs. Neither is analyzed further in this document. 5.1.2. Large End Sites Large end sites usually have a managed network. Dual-stack access service is often a possibility, as the customer network is managed (although CPE upgrades may be necessary). Configured tunnels, as-is, are a good solution when a NAT is not in the way and the IPv4 end-point addresses are static. In this scenario, NAT traversal is not typically required. If fine-grained access control is needed, an authentication protocol needs to be implemented. Tunnel brokering solutions have been proposed to help facilitate the set-up of a bi-directional tunnel. Such mechanisms are typically unnecessary for large end-sites, as simple configured tunneling or native access can be used instead. However, if such mechanisms would already be deployed, large sites starting to deploy IPv6 might benefit from them in any case. Teredo is not applicable in this scenario, as it can only provide IPv6 connectivity to a single host, not the whole site. 6to4 is not recommended due to its reliance on the relays and provider- independent address space, which makes it impossible to guarantee the required service quality and manageability large sites typically want. 5.2. User Authentication/Access Control Requirements User authentication can be used to control who can use the IPv6 connectivity service in the first place or who can access specific IPv6 services (e.g., NNTP servers meant for customers only). The former is described at more length below. The latter can be achieved by ensuring that for all the service-specific IPv4 access lists, there are also equivalent IPv6 access lists. IPv6-specific user authentication is not always required. An example would be a customer of the IPv4 service automatically having access to the IPv6 service. In this case, the IPv4 access control also provides access to the IPv6 services. When a provider does not wish to give its IPv4 customers automatic access to IPv6 services, specific IPv6 access control must be performed parallel with the IPv4 access control. This does not imply that different user authentication must be performed for IPv6, but merely that the authentication process may lead to different results for IPv4 and IPv6 access. Access control traffic may use IPv4 or IPv6 transport. For instance, RADIUS [RFC2865] traffic related to IPv6 service can be transported over IPv4. 5.3. Configuration of Customer Equipment The customer connection networks are composed of PE and CPE(s). Usually, each PE connects multiple CPE components to the backbone network infrastructure. This number may reach tens of thousands of customers, or more. The configuration of CPE is difficult for the ISP, and it is even more difficult when it must be done remotely. In this context, the use of auto-configuration mechanisms is beneficial, even if manual configuration is still an option. The parameters that usually need to be provided to customers automatically are as follows: - The network prefix delegated by the ISP - The address of the Domain Name System server (DNS) - Possibly other parameters (e.g., the address of an NTP server) When user identification is required on the ISP's network, DHCPv6 may be used to provide configurations; otherwise, either DHCPv6 or a stateless mechanism may be used. This is discussed in more detail in [DUAL-ACCESS]. Note that when the customer connection network is shared between the users or the ISPs and is not just a point-to-point link, authenticating the configuration of the parameters (especially prefix delegation) requires further study. As long as IPv4 service is available alongside IPv6, it is not required to auto configure IPv6 parameters in the CPE, except the prefix, because the IPv4 settings may be used. 5.4. Requirements for Traceability Most ISPs have some kind of mechanism to trace the origin of traffic in their networks. This also has to be available for IPv6 traffic, meaning that a specific IPv6 address or prefix has to be tied to a certain customer, or that records must be maintained of which customer had which address or prefix. This also applies to the customers with tunneled connectivity. This can be done, for example, by mapping a DHCP response to a physical connection and storing the result in a database. It can also be done by assigning a static address or prefix to the customer. A tunnel server could also provide this mapping. 5.5. Ingress Filtering in the Customer Connection Network Ingress filtering must be deployed toward the customers, everywhere, to ensure traceability, to prevent DoS attacks using spoofed addresses, to prevent illegitimate access to the management infrastructure, and so on. Ingress filtering can be done, for example, by using access lists or Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding (uRPF). Mechanisms for these are described in [RFC3704]. 5.6. Multihoming Customers may desire multihoming or multi-connecting for a number of reasons [RFC3582]. Mechanisms for multihoming to more than one ISP are still under discussion. One working model would deploy at least one prefix per ISP and choose the prefix from the ISP to which traffic is sent. In addition, tunnels may be used for robustness [RFC3178]. Currently, there are no provider-independent addresses for end-sites. Such addresses would enable IPv4-style multihoming, with associated disadvantages. Multi-connecting more than once to one ISP is a simple practice, and this can be done, for example, by using BGP with public or private AS numbers and a prefix assigned to the customer. 5.7. Quality of Service In most networks, quality of service in one form or another is important. Naturally, the introduction of IPv6 should not impair existing Service Level Agreements (SLAs) or similar quality assurances. During the deployment of the IPv6 service, the service could be best effort or similar, even if the IPv4 service has an SLA. In the end, both IP versions should be treated equally. IntServ and DiffServ are equally applicable to IPv6 and IPv4 and work similarly regardless of IP version. Of the two, typically only DiffServ has been implemented. Many bandwidth provisioning systems operate with IPv4 assumptions, e.g., taking an IPv4 address or (set of) prefixes for which traffic is reserved or preferred. These systems require special attention when introducing IPv6 support in the networks. 6. Network and Service Operation Actions The network and service operation actions fall into different categories as listed below: - Set up IPv6 connectivity to upstream providers and peers - IPv6 network device configuration: for initial configuration and updates - IPv6 network management - IPv6 monitoring - IPv6 customer management - IPv6 network and service operation security Some of these items will require an available IPv6 native transport layer and others will not. As a first step, network device configuration and regular network management operations can be performed over an IPv4 transport, because IPv6 MIBs are also available. Nevertheless, some monitoring functions require the availability of IPv6 transport. This is the case, for instance, when ICMPv6 messages are used by the monitoring applications. On many platforms, the current inability to retrieve separate IPv4 and IPv6 traffic statistics from dual-stack interfaces for management purposes by using SNMP is an issue. As a second step, IPv6 transport can be provided for any of these network and service operation facilities. 7. Future Stages At some point, an ISP may want to change to a service that is IPv6 only, at least in certain parts of its network. This transition creates many new cases into which continued maintenance of the IPv4 service must be factored. Providing an IPv6-only service is not much different from the dual IPv4/IPv6 service described in stage 3 except for the need to phase out the IPv4 service. The delivery of IPv4 services over an IPv6 network and the phaseout of IPv4 are issues left for a subsequent document. Note that there are some services which will need to maintain IPv4 connectivity (e.g., authorative and some recursive DNS servers [DNSGUIDE]). 8. Requirements for Follow-On Work This section tries to summarize the potential items requiring specification in the IETF. Work items for which an approach was not yet apparent as of this writing are as follows: - A tunnel server/broker mechanism, for the cases where the customer connection networks cannot be upgraded, needs to be specified [TUNREQS]. - An IPv6 site multihoming mechanism (or multiple ones) needs to be developed. Work items which were already fast in progress, as of this writing, are as follows: - 6PE for MPLS was identified as a required mechanism, and this is already in progress [BGPTUNNEL]. - IS-IS for Multiple Topologies was noted as a helpful mechanism in certain environments; however, it is possible to use alternative methods to achieve the same end, so specifying this is not strictly required. 9. Example Networks This section presents a number of different example networks. These will not necessarily match any existing networks but are intended to be useful even when they do not correspond to specific target networks. The purpose is to exemplify the applicability of the transition mechanisms described in this document to a number of different situations with different prerequisites. The sample network layout will be the same in each network example. This should be viewed as a specific representation of a generic network with a limited number of network devices. A small number of routers have been used in the examples. However, because the network examples follow the implementation strategies recommended for the generic network scenario, it should be possible to scale the examples to fit a network with an arbitrary number, e.g., several hundreds or thousands of routers. The routers in the sample network layout are interconnected with each other and with another ISP. The connection to another ISP can be either direct or through an exchange point. A number of customer connection networks are also connected to the routers. Customer connection networks can be, for example, xDSL or cable network equipment. ISP1 | ISP2 +------+ | +------+ | | | | | |Router|--|--|Router| | | | | | +------+ | +------+ / \ +----------------------- / \ / \ +------+ +------+ | | | | |Router|----|Router| | | | | +------+ +------+\ | | \ | Exchange point +------+ +------+ \ +------+ | +------+ | | | | \_| | | | |-- |Router|----|Router|----\|Router|--|--|Switch|-- | | | | | | | | |-- +------+ /+------+ +------+ | +------+ | / | | +-------+/ +-------+ | | | | | |Access1| |Access2| | | | | +-------+ +-------+ ||||| ||||| ISP Network ----|-----------|---------------------- | | Customer Networks +--------+ +--------+ | | | | |Customer| |Customer| | | | | +--------+ +--------+ Figure 3: ISP Sample Network Layout 9.1. Example 1 Example 1 presents a network built according to the sample network layout with a native IPv4 backbone. The backbone is running IS-IS and IBGP as routing protocols for internal and external routes, respectively. Multiprotocol BGP is used to exchange routes over the connections to ISP2 and the exchange point. Multicast using PIM-SM routing is present. QoS using DiffServ is deployed. Access 1 is xDSL connected to the backbone through an access router. The xDSL equipment, except for the access router, is considered to be layer 2 only, e.g., Ethernet or ATM. IPv4 addresses are dynamically assigned to the customer with DHCP. No routing information is exchanged with the customer. Access control and traceability are performed in the access router. Customers are separated into VLANs or separate ATM PVCs up to the access router. Access 2 is "fiber to the building or home" (FTTB/H) connected directly to the backbone router. This connection is considered layer-3-aware, because it uses layer 3 switches and performs access control and traceability through its layer 3 awareness by using DHCP snooping. IPv4 addresses are dynamically assigned to the customers with DHCP. No routing information is exchanged with the customer. The actual IPv6 deployment might start by enabling IPv6 on a couple of backbone routers, configuring tunnels between them (if not adjacent) and connecting to a few peers or upstream providers (either through tunnels or at an internet exchange). After a trial period, the rest of the backbone is upgraded to dual- stack, and IS-IS, without multi-topology extensions (the upgrade order is considered with care), is used as an IPv6 and IPv4 IGP. During an upgrade until IPv6 customers are connected behind a backbone router, the convexity requirement is not critical: The routers will just not be reachable with IPv6. Software supporting IPv6 could be installed even though the routers would not be used for (customer) IPv6 traffic yet. That way, IPv6 could be enabled in the backbone as needed. Separate IPv6 BGP sessions are built similarly to IPv4. Multicast (through SSM and Embedded-RP) and DiffServ are offered at a later phase of the network, e.g., after a year of stable IPv6 unicast operations. Offering native service as quickly as possible is important. In the meantime, however, a 6to4 relay may be provided for optimized 6to4 connectivity and may also be combined with a tunnel broker for extended functionality. Operating as bridges at Layer 2only, xDSL equipment does not require changes in CPE: IPv6 connectivity can be offered to the customers by upgrading the PE router to IPv6. In the initial phase, only Router Advertisements are used; DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation can be added as the next step if no other mechanisms are available. The FTTB/H access has to be upgraded to support access control and traceability in the switches, probably by using DHCP snooping or a similar IPv6 capability, but it also has to be compatible with prefix delegation, not just address assignment. This could, however, lead to the necessity to use DHCPv6 for address assignment. 9.2. Example 2 In example 2, the backbone is running IPv4 with MPLS and is using OSPF and IBGP for internal and external routes, respectively. The connections to ISP2 and the exchange point run BGP to exchange routes. Multicast and QoS are not deployed. Access 1 is a fixed line, e.g., fiber, connected directly to the backbone. Routing information is in some cases exchanged with CPE at the customer's site; otherwise static routing is used. Access 1 can also be connected to a BGP/MPLS-VPN running in the backbone. Access 2 is xDSL connected directly to the backbone router. The xDSL is layer 2 only, and access control and traceability are achieved through PPPoE/PPPoA. PPP also provides address assignment. No routing information is exchanged with the customer. IPv6 deployment might start with an upgrade of a couple of PE routers to support [BGPTUNNEL], as this will allow large-scale IPv6 support without hardware or software upgrades in the core. In a later phase, native IPv6 traffic or IPv6 LSPs would be used in the whole network. In this case, IS-IS or OSPF could be used for the internal routing, and a separate IPv6 BGP session would be run. For the fixed-line customers, the CPE has to be upgraded, and prefix delegation using DHCPv6 or static assignment would be used. An IPv6 MBGP session would be used when routing information has to be exchanged. In the xDSL case, the same conditions for IP-tunneling apply as in Example 1. In addition to IP-tunneling, a PPP session can be used to offer IPv6 access to a limited number of customers. Later, when clients and servers have been updated, the IPv6 PPP session can be replaced with a combined PPP session for both IPv4 and IPv6. PPP has to be used for address and prefix assignment. 9.3. Example 3 A transit provider offers IP connectivity to other providers, but not to end users or enterprises. IS-IS and IBGP are used internally, and BGP is used externally. Its accesses connect Tier-2 provider cores. No multicast or QoS is used. As this type of transit provider has a number of customers, who have a large number of customers in turn, it obtains an address allocation from an RIR. The whole backbone can be upgraded to dual-stack in a reasonably short time after a trial with a couple of routers. IPv6 routing is performed by using the same IS-IS process and separate IPv6 BGP sessions. The ISP provides IPv6 transit to its customers for free, as a competitive advantage. It also provides, at the first phase only, a configured tunnel service with BGP peering to the significant sites and customers (those with an AS number) who are the customers of its customers whenever its own customer networks are not offering IPv6. This is done both to introduce them to IPv6 and to create a beneficial side effect: A bit of extra revenue is generated from its direct customers as the total amount of transited traffic grows. 10. Security Considerations This document analyzes scenarios and identifies transition mechanisms that could be used for the scenarios. It does not introduce any new security issues. Security considerations of each mechanism are described in the respective documents. However, a few generic observations are in order. o Introducing IPv6 adds new classes of security threats or requires adopting new protocols or operational models than those for IPv4; typically these are generic issues, to be discussed further in other documents, for example, [V6SEC]. o The more complex the transition mechanisms employed become, the more difficult it will be to manage or analyze their impact on security. Consequently, simple mechanisms are preferable. o This document has identified a number of requirements for analysis or further work that should be explicitly considered when adopting IPv6: how to perform access control over shared media or shared ISP customer connection media, how to manage the configuration management security on such environments (e.g., DHCPv6 authentication keying), and how to manage customer traceability if stateless address autoconfiguration is used. 11. Acknowledgments This document has greatly benefited from input by Marc Blanchet, Jordi Palet, Francois Le Faucheur, Ronald van der Pol, and Cleve Mickles. Special thanks to Richard Graveman and Michael Lambert for proofreading the document. 12. Informative References [EMBEDRP] Savola, P. and B. Haberman, "Embedding the Rendezvous Point (RP) Address in an IPv6 Multicast Address", RFC 3956, November 2004. [MTISIS] Przygienda, T., Naiming Shen, Nischal Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in IS-IS", Work in Progress. [RFC2858] Bates, T., Rekhter, Y., Chandra, R., and D. Katz, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2858, June 2000. [RFC2545] Marques, P. and F. Dupont, "Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing", RFC 2545, March 1999. [RFC3704] Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, March 2004. [RFC3582] Abley, J., Black, B., and V. Gill, "Goals for IPv6 Site-Multihoming Architectures", RFC 3582, August 2003. [RFC3178] Hagino, J. and H. Snyder, "IPv6 Multihoming Support at Site Exit Routers", RFC 3178, October 2001. [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001. [RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson, "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June 2000. [BGPTUNNEL] De Clercq, J., Gastaud, G., Ooms, D., Prevost, S., Le Faucheur, F., "Connecting IPv6 Islands across IPv4 Clouds with BGP", Work in Progress. [DUAL-ACCESS] Shirasaki, Y., Miyakawa, S., Yamasaki, T., Takenouchi, A., "A Model of IPv6/IPv4 Dual Stack Internet Access Service", Work in Progress. [STEP] Savola, P., "Simple IPv6-in-IPv4 Tunnel Establishment Procedure (STEP)", Work in Progress. [TSP] Blanchet, M., "IPv6 Tunnel Broker with Tunnel Setup Protocol (TSP)", Work in Progress. [TUNREQS] Palet, J., Nielsen, K., Parent, F., Durand, A., Suryanarayanan, R., and P. Savola, "Goals for Tunneling Configuration", Work in Progress, February 2005. [UNMANEVA] Huitema, C., Austein, R., Satapati, S., van der Pol, R., "Evaluation of Transition Mechanisms for Unmanaged Networks", Work in Progress. [PROTO41] Palet, J., Olvera, C., Fernandez, D., "Forwarding Protocol 41 in NAT Boxes", Work in Progress. [V6SEC] Savola, P., "IPv6 Transition/Co-existence Security Considerations", Work in Progress. [DNSGUIDE] Durand, A., Ihren, J., "DNS IPv6 transport operational guidelines", Work in Progress. [TEREDO] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through NATs", Work in Progress. Appendix A: Convexity Requirements in Single Topology IS-IS The single-topology IS-IS convexity requirements could be summarized, from IPv4/6 perspective, as follows: 1) "any IP-independent path from an IPv4 router to any other IPv4 router must only go through routers which are IPv4-capable", and 2) "any IP-independent path from an IPv6 router to any other IPv6 router must only go through routers which are IPv6-capable". As IS-IS is based upon CLNS, these are not trivially accomplished. The single-topology IS-IS builds paths which are agnostic of IP versions. Consider an example scenario of three IPv4/IPv6-capable routers and an IPv4-only router: cost 5 R4 cost 5 ,------- [v4/v6] -----. / \ [v4/v6] ------ [ v4 ] -----[v4/v6] R1 cost 3 R3 cost 3 R2 Here the second requirement would not hold. IPv6 packets from R1 to R2 (or vice versa) would go through R3, which does not support IPv6, and the packets would get discarded. By reversing the costs between R1-R3, R3-R2 and R1-R4,R4-R2 the traffic would work in the normal case, but if a link fails and the routing changes to go through R3, the packets would start being discarded again. Authors' Addresses Mikael Lind TeliaSonera Vitsandsgatan 9B SE-12386 Farsta, Sweden EMail: email@example.com Vladimir Ksinant Thales Communications 160, boulevard de Valmy 92704 Colombes, France EMail: email@example.com Soohong Daniel Park Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics. 416, Maetan-3dong, Paldal-Gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do, Korea EMail: firstname.lastname@example.com Alain Baudot France Telecom R&D Division 42, rue des coutures 14066 Caen - FRANCE EMail: email@example.com Pekka Savola CSC/FUNET Espoo, Finland EMail: email@example.com Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- email@example.com. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.EID 194 (Verified) is as follows: Section: 9.1 Original Text: Offering native service as quickly as possible is important. In the meantime, however, a 6to4 relay may be provided in the meantime for optimized 6to4 connectivity and may also be combined with a tunnel broker for extended functionality. Corrected Text: Offering native service as quickly as possible is important. In the meantime, however, a 6to4 relay may be provided for optimized 6to4 connectivity and may also be combined with a tunnel broker for extended functionality.Notes:
In Section 12, it says:
[UNMANEVA] Huitema, C., Austein, R., Satapati, S., van der Pol,
R., "Evaluation of Transition Mechanisms for Unmanaged
Networks", Work in Progress.
[DNSGUIDE] Durand, A., Ihren, J., "DNS IPv6 transport operational
guidelines", Work in Progress.
It should say:
[UNMANEVA] Huitema, C., Austein, R., Satapati, S., and R. van der Pol,
"Evaluation of IPv6 Transition Mechanisms for Unmanaged
Networks", RFC 3904, September 2004.
[DNSGUIDE] Durand, A. and J. Ihren, "DNS IPv6 Transport Operational
Guidelines", BCP 91, RFC 3901, September 2004.


text:
Infused with silver studded fittings, a glittery collection of sparkly white rhinestones coalesce into a dramatic pendant at the bottom of a lengthened silver chain. Capped in a rhinestone dotted frame, a shimmery silver tassel streams out from the blinding pendant for a flirtatious finish. Features an adjustable clasp closure.
Sold as one individual necklace. Includes one pair of matching earrings.


text:
Does anyone know if the ASME GDTP technician test covers the 1994 or 2009 standard?
I don' want to study the wrong standard. Thanks!
The ASME web site states over and over that the test is to the current version of the standard. Then I found one blurb that stated the committee is working on updating the test to the 2009 standard. So, the test is still written to the 1994 standard.
So now the question, for me, becomes to wait for the test to be updated or not. My understanding is that once the test is updated one will not be able to renew their certification to the old standard and would have to retake the test to the new standard. Am I wrong about this? I could not find anything about this on the AMSE website. Being that the 2009 standard has been out for at least 6 years one would think the updated test would be available soon. Or, does it mean that the test might never be updated?
I took and passed the senior GDTP test back in 1997. I was in the first crowd to so after the test and certification was introduced.
Even though I had significant (10 + years) experience applying GD&T I was more knowledgeable after actually studying the 1994 standard. Regardless of which standard is most current - you will apply and interpret the standard more accurate after your preparation for the ASME test. You will learn something...
Moreover, the 2009 standard is not much different than the 1994 standard.. If you can pass the ASME certification for the 1994 standard, when and if the 2009 certification test comes out preparation to pass the test should be easy.
To me - if you're serious about about the ASME certification just do it..
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
My understanding is that once the test is updated one will not be able to renew their certification to the old standard and would have to retake the test to the new standard.


text:
Conference Sessions
The General Track
Papers on any subject within the scope of the conference may be submitted to the General Track. These papers will be reviewed by knowledgeable referees, and if accepted, allocated to oral or poster sessions for presentation at the conference. Authors may submit to the General Track, or to an Invited Session if their paper fits the scope of the session.Invited Sessions
Invited Sessions are organised and chaired by senior researchers who have knowledge of, and a special interest in, the topic of the session.A List of Invited Sessions being organised can be seen ... here ... .
We invite researchers into emerging topics and new areas of investigation within the scope of the symposium to organise invited sessions, or parallel workshops of a half or full day, gathering a minimum of six papers from a wide range of research expertise from around the world.
Organisers of Invited Sessions undertake to:
- Select a topic of interest to themselves and to conference delegates;
- Obtain papers on this topic, normally a minimum of 6 for an invited session, but often more. If there are sufficient papers, the session may become a workshop.
- Ensure the papers are submitted through the PROSE online review system;
- Manage the review process for these papers using PROSE;
- Provide suitable reviewers for the reviews of the papers and enter these on the PROSE system;
- Ensure the final versions of the papers are uploaded before the deadline;
- Attend the conference and chair the session.
Guidance notes for Invited Session Chairs are available .. here ..
Call for Invited Sessions
Researchers who would like to organise one or more Invited Sessions on topics falling within the scope of the conference are invited to submit a proposal for consideration. This should include:- The title of the session;
- A paragraph describing the theme of the session - all invited sessions must be within the scope of the symposium;
- A short-form CV for the proposed Invited Session Chair(s).
- Contact details for the Chair(s).
Click here to download an MS Word template that can be used for Invited Session details.
Invited Session Chairs are ex-officio members of the International Programme Committee. We thank them for the valuable contribution they make to the conference.
Invited Sessions Chairs Registration
Where an invited session attracts 5 or more paid registrations (excluding that of the IS chair themself), if all 5 authors plus the IS chair attend the conference and present at the session, the IS chair may claim free registration at the next conference during the subsequent year. For example, a chair who gets 5 paid registrations at the IDT23 conference can claim free registration at the IDT24 conference.


text: Best-Price.com helps you find and compare the products you want and enjoy the cheapest prices on a wide range of top brand products from leading stores.You can browse a huge choice of products and read objective reviews from industry experts and other shoppers to help make your decision easier. Products are sorted by category to help you find the electronics, computers, cameras, fashion or other products you want. To find exactly what you are looking for, you can simply filter the products by various factors including price, size or color. You can compare prices on leading brands to ensure you always find the best deals. The unrivaled comparison of products, features and excellent prices makes Best-Price.com the number one shopping site for cheap deals, making it easier than ever to find the best prices on the products you want.


text:
These Stay Hard Beaded Cock Rings come in 3 sizes, so you can use them individually or all 3 at once. Perform like the stud you are! The Small Ring is for maximum erections; Medium Ring is for hard erections; Large Ring can be used to encircle the upper part of your scrotum to help prevent premature ejaculation. They are made of Elastomer, a super stretchy, comfortable and Phthalate Free material developed specifically for your safety and hygiene during your intimate play. So, if you're looking for a safe way to increase both in size and stamina, you are your partner are sure to enjoy Blush Novelties Stay Hard Cock Ring and your bigger better erection that lasts even longer.
Wash with soap and water between uses. Air dry.
Stores best in the original packaging.
Color(s): Blue, Black, Clear or Purple
Pack of 3


text:
Get involved
Volunteerism is absolutely essential to fulfill our mission.
In addition to the individuals who donate blood on a voluntary basis, we count on the generous contributions of those people who support Héma-Québec by recruiting donors (telephone recruitment), organizing blood drives or by helping out at the blood donor clinics.
Every volunteer, whether a donor, telephone recruiter or blood drive organizer or helper, is proud to be able to help save the lives of thousands of Quebecers.
Every year, more than a million volunteer hours are devoted to maintaining the collective blood supply. Thank you to everyone involved!
We need new volunteers who will carry on this tradition. You do not need any experience to volunteer with us! We will provide you with the training required for the position you will hold.
Let's make a commitment to save lives—together!
For more information or If you would like to volunteer:
Montréal and Western Québec
514 832-5000, ext. 5162
Québec and Eastern Québec
418 780 4362, ext. 2245
Visit Other ways to give to:


text:
CoolSavings, Inc. (Now known as Q Interactive)
A technology solution that can figure out exactly how much a consumer values a specific brand. CoolSavings®, Inc.'s Coupon Technology is a printable coupon technology and promotional services platform, which is used to power the complete interactive and promotional elements of a manufacturer's brand. This allows manufacturers to collect consumer attitude and usage information through custom surveys and then automatically vary coupon values based on consumers' answers. CoolSavings recruited 45 million registered users and was taken private by a new owner in 2005.


text:
The Upanishads, Part 2 (SBE15), by Max Müller, [1879], at sacred-texts.com
1. May Mitra be propitious to us, and Varuna, Aryaman also, Indra, Brihaspati, and the wide-striding Vishnu! Adoration to Brahman! Adoration to thee, O Vâyu! Thou indeed art the visible Brahman. I proclaimed thee alone as the visible Brahman.
(1-5) I proclaimed the right. I proclaimed the true. It protected me. It protected the teacher. Yes, it protected me, it protected the teacher. Om! Peace! peace! peace!


text:
The TRX40 chipset is designed to support all the current generation AMD Ryzen Threadripper processors including the 3990X which has 64-cores and 128-threads of processing power. On the test bench today is the MSI Creator TRX40 which is its current top-tier offering with a high-end feature set including four full-length PCIe 4.0 slots and supports up to three PCIe 4.0 x4 M.2 drives. With a feature set led by an Aquantia AQC107 10 gigabit Ethernet controller, and an Intel AX200 Wi-Fi 6 wireless adapter, MSI opts for a more content creator and professional theme for its flagship.
The ASUS ROG Zenith II Extreme TRX40 Motherboard Review: The Second Coming
Following on from our launch day AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and 3960X CPU reviews, we are taking a look at the accompanying flagship model from ASUS. The ASUS ROG...
22 by Gavin Bonshor on 12/23/2019AMD Q4: 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X, Threadripper Up To 32-Core 3970X, Coming November 25th
AMD is set to close out the year on a high note. As promised, the company will be delivering its latest 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X processor, built with two...
171 by Dr. Ian Cutress on 11/7/2019


text:
It was the great 19th century American social campaigner Lucretia Mott who stated: "The world has never yet seen a truly great and virtuous nation because in the degradation of women, the very foundations of life are poisoned at their source." Since then, many nations and regions of the world have made great progress. Yet in Africa, the rights of women still need urgent attention, including in my own country Sierra Leone. And many women continue to be subjected to the same injustice and disenfranchisement Mott so abhorred 150 years ago.
As a vice-presidential candidate in Sierra Leone's elections next year—the first woman ever included on a major party ticket in my country—I carry a great responsibility to revive the push for both female political representation and gender equality in my region of Africa. And across our continent there are promising advances. At 49 percent, Rwanda has the world's highest ratio of women in parliament. Women in South Africa and Mozambique have held deputy presidential positions, while in Liberia Ellen Johnson Sirleaf has proved that women can reach the highest office.
Yet these exceptions stand alone in contrast to the situation across Africa as a whole where women remain politically sidelined. In Sierra Leone, warm words by our current President Koroma have remained just that, and his promise of 30 percent representation of women in public office by the end of his presidential term next year simply has not been enacted. President Koroma has displayed a brazen ambivalence towards existing female representatives with his less than generous cabinet appointments. The recommendation of Sierra Leone's National Commission for Democracy and Human Rights—which I was privileged to Chair—of the crucial need for political gender balance, it seems, is not a priority for the incumbent president.
My candidacy is fuelled by a desire to change this state-sanctioned apathy towards women's rights and offer renewed hope to women in the country who have, despite a lack of representation, always been at the forefront of change. In 1996 when Sierra Leone was still under military rule, thousands of my sisters demonstrated despite the risk to their lives in support of restoring democracy. Today, just as then, women remain at the epicenter of any true democratization. And in this upcoming election, I intend to force the issue of female political representation to the forefront of the campaign.
However, there are significant hurdles to overcome—whether they are cultural stereotypes or engrained male-dominated hierarchies. These feed into a dangerous mix of apathy, tension and resentment towards women in Sierra Leone. Women in Africa must constantly challenge what the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance calls the 'masculine model' of politics that still prevails throughout the continent.
The need to engage with those who are under-represented extends beyond the cause of women's rights. The civil war that ravaged my country for over a decade displaced three million, both internally and externally. Some 200,000 Sierra Leoneans now reside in the UK, most having fled during the civil war. As my Sierra Leone People's Party pushes for further stability and democratization in the upcoming campaign, it is imperative that we re-engage with this Diaspora. They are crucial to the future of the country: the funds they send home to friends and family are the largest single source of income for many in Sierra Leone. Their professional expertise, including their experience of living and working in Britain where the rights of women and equality are further advanced, can provide their homeland with a wealth of opportunity. We must tap this reservoir of intellect to re-energize our workforce and bring much needed skills to our fragile economy.
However, I am under no illusion that such a re-engagement won't be a challenge. Despite their love of their country, many in the Diaspora remain disaffected. This has not been helped by the politicization of the current government's Diaspora office. Staffed entirely by members of President Koroma's All-Peoples' Congress party, it has become a largely partisan operation. And continuing accusations of high-level corruption in the Koroma administration has not helped. Only last month, an undercover report by Al-Jazeera implicated the Vice-President in the illegal sale of timber licenses. US Diplomatic cables made known to the world through Wikileaks have shone a light onto the favoritism and protection the President and his administration has given to those guilty of corruption and illegality. And, after five years in power, President Koroma's Sierra Leone ties with Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe in the Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index. So it is understandable that many in the Diaspora are uncertain whether to engage more substantially in investment and support for Sierra Leone under its current government, despite their love for their country.
But help is on the way. My party's presidential candidate Julius Maada Bio was the head of state who handed the country back to multi-party elections in 1996, and for whose decision so many women of Sierra Leone campaigned in the streets to support in that dangerous year. Other leaders, not least the current president, have offered visionary words but few have the track record of Julius Maada Bio of acting on their pledges. If elected, together we will increase the number of women in the cabinet and high office across the country. We will enact in full the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. And we will ensure that contracts and business dealings by the government are made transparently, allowing for members of the Diaspora to have the confidence they can invest in their country knowing it is a nation led by an administration committed to transparency, equality and fairness.
Sierra Leone is still scarred from a painful decade of civil conflict—our economic platform and democracy remain fragile and our people remain wary of those that promise so much and deliver very little. Lucretia Mott was correct when she said a nation's progress can be measured by the status of its women. As a female African politician, now under an increasing spotlight as the election nears, I have a duty to reengage with those that have been left outside of the mainstream, whether through gender discrimination, social exclusion or conflict. Only by opening up civic institutions, government and business to all, and challenging the unwritten rules that exclude so many from political participation, can we ensure lasting change in Sierra Leone.
Read More:


text:
Publication Date: August 2, 2021
Publisher: MindStir Media
A Golden Thread is a human odyssey of redemption, discovery, and revelation. From the beginning, the protagonist, Jonathan, near to rock bottom in his life. He is estranged from his wife and son. He will do anything to reunite his family. As he struggles to cope with his shame and regret, an inexplicable phenomenon has him in its grip; he is slipping back in time at increasing intervals. Along with this experience, there are the vivid nightmares that bring him back to relive recent past lives. Just when it seems there is no way for this situation to get more extraordinary, Jonathan learns the phenomenon is connected to even bigger things than he could have ever imagined, and he, having no memory of his part, is a key part of an epic struggle between two forces that in the end will determine the fate of humanity.
About the Author
Richard Norton grew up in Portland, Maine. He has spent 28 years in social work providing supports to individuals with Intellectual Disabilities. Richard is an artist, musician, and writer. He currently lives in Windham with his wife and son.
Purchase Link


text:
The European Commission issued formal objections Friday to Bayer's planned $66 billion takeover of Monsanto, according to two people briefed on the case, signaling the deal may be blocked unless the German company makes more significant concessions.
The objections from Brussels represent a stark ultimatum for the agrichemical giant, which has spent at least 12 months trying to bring around EU regulators on the politically charged mega-merger.
When announced, Bayer's tie-up with Monsanto was set to create the world's largest portfolio of pesticides, but Bayer has already sold off some businesses to allay competition concerns. Monsanto is a bête noire among European environmentalists because of its production of genetically modified crops and the ubiquitous pesticide glyphosate, and many nongovernmental organizations are pinning their hopes on European Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager to kill off what has been dubbed by some as the #mergerfromhell.
Given her track record on other tie-ups in the sector, however, it is more likely that she will simply press for divestments. Bayer and Monsanto's merger is the last of the trio of mega-mergers that have dramatically consolidated the agrichemical industry. Two of the deals — Dow's tie-up with DuPont and ChemChina's acquisition of Syngenta — obtained EU clearance at the end of long probes and on the condition they sold off some businesses.
Many nongovernmental organizations are pinning their hopes on Vestager to kill off what has been dubbed by some as the #mergerfromhell | Olivier Hoslet/EPA
The Commission, which has until March 5 to reach a final decision, has the power to either block mergers or demand divestments by the companies.
As was the case with the inquiry into Dow and DuPont, which merged earlier this year, people following the Bayer case say the Commission is running an extremely wide-reaching investigation and is demanding huge amounts of information.
The objections were issued Friday, according to one of the people briefed. The Commission's specific concerns remain confidential. The Commission and Monsanto declined to comment.
"We do not comment on rumors," said Utz Klages, a spokesperson for Bayer.
Bayer already moved to resolve some of Vestager's main concerns after she opened an in-depth probe into the deal in August. Investigators warned then that Leverkusen, Germany-based Bayer was one of only a few companies to produce a genuine alternative to Missouri-based Monsanto's blockbuster herbicide Roundup, based on the controversial herbicide glyphosate. Bayer announced in October that it was selling the product in question — glufosinate-ammonium — to BASF, along with various seeds activities, for €5.9 billion.
It's not clear if regulators were involved in drawing up that deal.
The Commission objections come less than a month after the EU gave a fresh bill of health to Roundup.
Bayer also has tried to allay investigators' concerns that the merger would create the strongest global market force in seeds and traits. In addition to being able to raise prices, the merged firm would have less incentive to invest in developing such products, they said. In addition, investigators are examining how the advent of digital agriculture and the use of big data analyses could reinforce the strong market position a merged Bayer-Monsanto would have.
The Bayer-Monsanto deal has sparked intense opposition in Europe and further afield, with hundreds of thousands of petitioners calling on the Danish commissioner to block it, amid concerns it will put huge levels of power in both the seed and pesticide market in the hands of a single player.
Much of the public furor about glyphosate, however, lies well beyond the scope of Vestager's investigation.
"The other concerns you raise are handled by my colleagues and national authorities and are subject to European and national rules to protect food safety, consumers, the environment and the climate," Vestager wrote in August, in a letter sent to petitioners.
She said she had received more than 50,000 petition emails and more than 5,000 postcards and letters on the case.
The Commission objections come less than a month after the EU gave a fresh bill of health to Roundup, which was renewed for another five years.
That decision triggered uproar among environmentalists and health groups, which claimed the substance not only caused cancer but endangered soil quality and biodiversity. While the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that glyphosate "probably" causes cancer, two EU agencies determined that it was safe.
[contf] [contfnew]
[contfnewc] [contfnewc]
The post Vestager ramps up pressure on Bayer-Monsanto mega-merger appeared first on News Wire Now.


text:
Mysterious ReviewsMysterious Reviews, in partnership with the Hidden Staircase Mystery Books, is your source for current mystery, suspense and thriller book reviews. We are a business unit of the Omnimystery Family of Mystery Websites. Our most recent reviews are listed below, which is also available as an RSS feed. Click on either the book title or the book image to visit the review page. An Updated New and Current Review List Will Be Available Soon!
A list of all reviews on this site includes the year of review as well as our "star" rating (from 1 to 5). Ratings (and reviews) are always subjective, but we believe readers of crime, suspense and thriller novels will likely enjoy any of the books listed here simply because they are mysteries! An outstanding mystery. One of the year's best. A very good mystery. Definitely worth reading. An average mystery. Good, but nothing special. A weak mystery. Could have, should have been better. A poor mystery. Not recommended.
A very small number of books received by us every year are not reviewed, for any of a number of reasons. Sometimes because they didn't capture our interest or attention and we chose not to complete them, but in many cases simply because, due to time constraints, the reviewer selected another mystery to review instead. You can see a list of not reviewed titles on this page. We have also had the opportunity to interview some of the authors whose books we have reviewed, which are listed on our Author Interview index page. Our most recent interviews, however, appear on our blog, OmnimysteryNews.com. Page Author: Lance Wright — Site Publisher: Mysterious Reviews |


text:
It's the question I get asked more often than any other when I'm talking with business owners about content marketing strategy.
And it's the question we see most often from new members in our Authority Q&A sessions.
"How do I get more traffic?"
There's more — a lot more — to content marketing than traffic.
But if you can't attract a critical "minimum viable audience," you're finished before you get started.
Here's how to use content to get the attention of those all-important prospects — the men and women who are in the market to buy what you have to sell.
The content conveyor belt
Before we start talking about traffic, we need to talk about your overall content marketing strategy.
Smart marketing is "salesmanship in print" (or, these days, pixels), to use the classic copywriting definition. And as any good salesperson will tell you, a sale progresses through predictable, natural stages.
First, you have to attract the attention of that prospect. That's the piece we're going to talk about today. No matter how brilliant your sales sequence, if no one knows you exist, you're going to fail.
Then you have to engage that person's interest. This is a particularly risky moment in today's web environment, with millions of distractions competing for our attention.
As you keep delivering strategic content over time, engagement starts to turn into desire for what you have to sell. Whether it's a product, a service, a charitable cause, a political candidate, or even an idea … we all have to spark this desire in our customers.
When it's time to make a sale, you put on your copywriter's hat and provide the opportunity for your prospect to take action, turning a fan into a customer.
Finally, smart content marketers won't stop there — they'll create ongoing customer-focused content so that buyers make repeat purchases and refer you to their friends.
Let's talk traffic
All of that sounds very inviting, but if you're still struggling to build an audience for your content, it's still in the realm of theory.
So, let's get you some audience members.
Strategy #1: Guest posting
Guest posting helps content marketers find a larger audience and build authority within their areas of expertise.
Smart guest posters create the best content they know how to create and look for publications that have thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) of readers.
Intelligently send those new readers back to your site, where you'll have additional terrific content to share with them.
Strategy #2: How-to videos
What do your customers want to know how to do?
Dye their hair pink? Take better portrait photos? Make dinner their kids will eat?
Successful businesses are based around solving customer problems. Figure out some problems that lend themselves to how-to videos.
Launch a series on YouTube on how to solve a problem that interests your customers, and make sure it's extremely easy for viewers (and potential customers) to find by labeling your videos with specific descriptions.
The more competitive your topic, the better your videos have to be. In crowded topics, differentiate yourself with an interesting personality, a more effective technique, better production values, or all three.
Use YouTube videos for entry-level tips and strategies. For more advanced advice, send them to your site where your content discusses your products and services.
Strategy #3: Q&A series
Q&A sessions are inherently interesting, and they're a great vehicle to show off what you know. You can use webinars, teleseminars, or whatever tool is most comfortable for you.
Q&As don't just encourage engagement; they're also a strong traffic builder because they're easy for your fans and network to promote.
They'll give you the opportunity to collect topics for future content.
When you write about your audience's questions, you'll be writing the type of content that gets shared — the type of content that attracts traffic.
Strategy #4: Professional networking
Once you have a content-driven website on your own domain, you're ready to start a little professional networking.
You earn the trust of other content marketers in your niche the same way you earn the trust of readers: be nice, be relevant, be interesting.
Get to know the people who are creating innovative content at all levels — small, medium, and large sites.
Don't start or participate in artificial schemes to promote posts. Instead, share the content you truly think is cool, and explain why. Be friendly and pay attention. It's called social media for a reason.
If you struggle financially, upgrade your social skills. Money flows through people. – Steve Pavlina
Strategy #5: Get real
Explore the possibilities of finding traffic in the offline world. (You know, the part of your life that isn't Facebook or Twitter. I realize this is a weird idea.)
Attend an in-person conference where you can meet new people in your industry, as well as potential clients or customers.
If you're selling business-to-business, pitch articles to trade journals and business newspapers.
However you find them, entice those offline readers to your website and offer a tantalizing incentive to join your email list or a heroically effective email autoresponder sequence.
Speak directly to the people you want to attract
Remember, content marketing only works if you create content that's both entertaining and useful for your audience.
Make it user-friendly. Make it clear.
Write about the problems your potential customers care about.
Editor's note: The original version of this post was published on March 20, 2012.