[menog] Fwd: BPF IPv6 - final report out

Michael Oghia mike.oghia at gmail.com
Wed Feb 1 11:31:41 UTC 2017

Dear colleagues,

Below is a summary of the IPv6 BPF, shared by Izumi Okutani and Sumon
Sabir, the two MAG co-coordinators for the BPF. Take note of the challenges
for IXPs:

*"On the other hand, challenges are observed in sectors such as IXPs,
datacenters, and IPv6 capability in local contents. Furthermore vender
support is needed in specific areas such as security features and
functionality which needs consistent enhancements for both IPv4 and IPv6.
IPv6 adoption cases for corporate networks are not large in number but
global corporation such as BMW and Sony have deployed IPv6."*


Michael J. Oghia
iGmena <http://igmena.org/> communications manager
Independent #netgov consultant & editor

Belgrade, Serbia
Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>
Date: Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Bp_ipv6] BPF IPv6 - final report out !
To: Wim Degezelle <wdegezelle at drmv.be>, IGF BPFs <bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org>

* General Trends*

As general trend on commercial deployment of IPv6, several major global
players are commercially deploying IPv6 as well as local players in
different regions of the world. The map showing the IPv6 deployment rates
learns that there are big differences between countries, and that these
differences cannot always be explained by traditional economic variables
(e.g., GDP or the state of development of the Internet in a country). For
example, Ecuador, Peru, Greece, and Trinidad and Tobago are top 20
countries in the world of IPv6 deployment rate, with no correlation with
GDP. It is also noted that while the world average deployment rate of IPv6
is a little less than 8% as of the end of 2016, deployment rates per
countries and individual players vary -- where some countries or players
show much higher deployment rate than the world average and some countries
or players with zero deployment rate.

2016 had several notable developments around IPv6. In the area of mobile,
Apple has made an announcement  that starting June 1, 2016 all apps
submitted to the App Store must support IPv6-only networking. This is
expected to result in a jump in direct native IPv6 traffic.  One of the
reasons for this requirement was the decision by a major mobile operator in
the US to eventually cut off all IPv4 underlying connectivity on Apple
iPhones. In the area of standards development, the Internet Architecture
Board (IAB) has announced a statement  that the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF) will stop requiring IPv4 compatibility new or extended
protocols. Future IETF protocol work will then optimize for and depend on
IPv6.This means vendors do not need to support IPv4 in future protocols
developed by the IETF, to comply with the IETF standards.

In terms of customer demands, most users are not aware of what IP version
they are using, however they might see their user experience degrading if
their provider does not move to IPv6, as a study showed. In a world where
IPv4 connectivity goes through a CGNat box, it loses the end‑to‑end
connectivity and applications degrade and become difficult to use, such as
gaming, video streaming and downloading large files. Therefore, your
customers may not explicitly request for IPv6 but you may receive customer
complaints in such circumstances.

Further, the end-user environment is also getting IPv6 ready without them
being conscious of it.  Major global contents, such as Google, YouTube,
Facebook, Wikipedia, LinkedIn are IPv6 ready, Recent versions of both
Windows and MAC OSs are IPv6 supported. Major cloud/content delivery
network (CDN) service providers support IPv6. Therefore, if an ISP turns on
IPv6 by default, without asking its customers to apply for IPv6 service,
substantial volume of traffic is expected to be observed in IPv6,
Projection of IPv6 %-age of IPv6-Enabled Web Browsers (courtesy Google) in
World Wide as of the end of 2015 shows that it is approximately 15% now but
if the rate of current growth continues, it is extrapolated to be 20% by
the end of 2017 and around 35% by the end of 2019.

More than 20 case studies collected from different regions by the BPF
showed key motivations behind IPv6 deployment as below.

1.      Declining availability and raising cost of IPv4 addresses;
2.      Corporate image;
3.      Migrating to IPv6 without further IPv4 growth is the most
cost-effective solution;
4.      Significant customer base growth;
5.      Business opportunity.

* Observation per Industry Sector*
Observation per industry sector shows that there are several commercial
IPv6 deployment by ISPs for access line across different regions and there
is substantial experience of commercial deployment in this sector. For
ISPs, nearly all current routers and access equipment support IPv6. At the
same time, although it is technical ready and several commercial IPv6
deployment are observed, there is still room for improvement in this
sector. According to calculation in May 2015 by Geoff Huston, APNIC’s Chief
Scientist, the 30 largest ISPs serviced 42% of the entire Internet user
population. The effect of an IPv6 deployment by one or more of these large
providers on the global IPv6 deployment rate is immediately visible to be
20%, at the time of its calculation.

Major cloud services and CDNs provide IPv6 by default. Up to date OS for
both windows and mac are IPv6 supported. Major global contents providers
have their contents available in IPv6. In other words, environment for
end-users are getting ready, without users being aware of IPv6. Therefore
if an ISP turns on IPv6 by default, substantial volume of IPv6 traffic is
expected to be observed. Rapid growth in IPv6 traffic is observed by some
mobile operators, with over 70% traffic observed in IPv6 for T-Mobile and
Verizon Wireless in the US, and Reliance Jio in India.

IPv6 adoption is observed in some applications outside the conventional
global Internet connections. Some examples are use in nationwide Smart
Meter for electricity supplies, IPv6 multicast services as infrastructure
platform for image streaming in nationwide scale by its largest Telecom in
Japan with over 19 million subscribers, which they see benefit in IPv6 for
large scale multicast service. BMW  is IPv6 ready for their website, and
they have presented about their idea of IPv6 transition steps as being
ready in network infrastructure, then devices and services, and for
innovation. There are several banks and financial services firms which have
adopted IPv6, such as Banrisul, Banco do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul,
Rabobank and Wells Fargo. Sony has its corporate network deployed in IPv6.
It also provides commercial TV which can be connected with IPv6.

On the other hand, challenges are observed in sectors such as IXPs,
datacenters, and IPv6 capability in local contents. Furthermore vender
support is needed in specific areas such as security features and
functionality which needs consistent enhancements for both IPv4 and IPv6.
IPv6 adoption cases for corporate networks are not large in number but
global corporation such as BMW and Sony have deployed IPv6.

* Common Challenges*

Common challenges of those who have implemented IPv6 are observed as below:

●       Bugs and technical issues

This is a common challenge which most of the case studies have shared, and,
especially when being an early adopter in a certain service sector. There
are several other case studies which expresses that debugging IPv6
supported product was the challenging part of IPv6 deployment in areas with
specific features. This may vary per service sector, for example in area
where there are more deployment cases such as and from late adopters, we
hear less of such issues such as for ISPs. Several companies in the US have
explicitly stated more need for more vendor support IPv6

●       Cost of staff training and human resources for commercial deployment
For small/medium ISPs/Data centers - cost of training staff to have
sufficient knowledge on running IPv6 network

●       ISP infrastructure is IPv6 ready but CPEs in customer premises do
not support IPv6

●       As related issue, consumers are allowed to buy their own modems and
gateways, and there is no incentive for those retail manufacturers to
include IPv6 support: unlike ISPs, most consumers don’t know anything about
IP, and therefore IPv6 does not drive sales.

●       Some ISPs require customers to apply for IPv6 service, to enable
IPv6 (From fear of getting customer complaints by making IPv6 available by
default). This often comes from fear through the conception of
deterioration in service quality compared to IPv4.
However, technical issues often perceived to be caused by IPv6 deployment
could be due to misconfiguration by engineers, which can be addressed by
training engineers. Further, it can also be addressed by preparing the same
environment in both IPv6 and IPv4 in areas such as CDN cache and routing.

●       It requires additional costs to or limitation for small businesses

The absence of economies of scale and scope typically result in higher
investment costs for small businesses. While rural carriers often include
IPv6 capability in their specifications when seeking to procure new
products, rural carriers’ purchase patterns and needs are often different
from larger carriers. Smaller companies’ lack of market power limits their
ability to enhance the demand for, or drive specific development of,
IPv6-capable hardware and software.

* Common challenge for cases where IPv6 deployment is not taking off is:*

●       Certain challenges specific to developing countries are observed
such as bandwidth do not support both IPv4 and IPv6, or some rural areas
use second hand equipment which are no longer used by major ISPs which are
often not IPv6 supported.

●       On the other hand, common challenges seem to be how to convince
business decision makers about the need of IPv6 deployment. What may be a
difference between the cases which have deployed IPv6 and those which have
not, seem to be on what they see as motivation factor: Cases which have
deployed IPv6 often lists reason for IPv6 deployment as long term business

* Potential for Further analysis*

Further professional analysis is needed to understand the factors which has
led to IPv6 deployment by industry players, whether it was strictly due to
individual decisions or any external factors involved. For example, cases
in the Asia Pacific region observe more tendencies to have external factors
such as government encouragement and/or joint community initiative,
compared to cases in Europe and the US. Similar observation is made for
Latin America, such as Peru and Ecuador which some working with government
is explained to have involved . Further, an observation is made by KISA
from Korea, which conducted hearing to several European operators during
RIPE72 meeting, that in Europe, voluntary activities in. Network Operator
Group (NOG)   was noted in most of countries with high IPv6 adoption rate,
which is worth noting as an external factor.  In short, what is the success
story behind those with high IPv6 deployment rate and why are some
countries so falling behind through looking at the environment in
comprehensive manner?

Additionally, presentation at RIPE72 meeting which analyzed “IPv6 as
Related to GDP per Capita”  brings questions such as why certain courtiers
observe high IPv6 deployment rate, while other countries with similar
economic scale, Internet development do not observe high deployment rate,
or there is no correlation in deployment rate per country of other
technologies which are encouraged in operational community, such as DNSSEC.
There are countries with low penetration rate but observes high usage rate,
vice versa and what are the reasons behind it? Do operators with less
existing IPv6 network have better chance to have higher IPv6 capability
than those with large IPv4 networks, in which case, do new comers to the
industry have a better chance to have high IPv6 deployment rate, if they
build networks which support IPv6? Is there correlation between operators
with high IPv6 deployment rate and high cycle of equipment upgrade?

Could more details be shared on cases which common challenges were observed
but overcame those challenges? Case studies collected could have enriched
if further follow up and interviews were conducted.

On 2017/01/31 18:37, Wim Degezelle wrote:

> Dear All,
> The report of the 2016 IGF Best Practice Forum on IPv6 - Understanding the
> Commercial and Economic Incentives behind a Successful IPv6 Deployment - is
> out !
> At the end of this process, I’d like to thank you all for your
> contributions and the great cooperation !
> Please help us to distribute the document. Don’t hesitate to make use the
> output when reaching out to stakeholders.
> Downloads : http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/bpf-ipv6
> Kind Regards,
> Wim
> _________________________
> Wim Degezelle
> Consultant
> wdegezelle at drmv.be
> www.duermovo.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.menog.org/pipermail/menog/attachments/20170201/10ee05c6/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Menog mailing list