[Bp_ipv6] Feedback for zero draft (Re: Action Items for IPv6 BPF)

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Mon Sep 12 09:44:55 EDT 2016

Dear Colleagues,

As a follow up on the action item on zero draft -

> 2) Feedback for zero draft
>    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GTH8A5veAMMNjmxtvRmV3ruV31UCHk9a1NhW_glJV9I/edit#heading=h.nwr9mbmv5efr
>    In particular:
>     -Sections 3 and 4
>     - From countries with low IPv6 deployment Section 5.1

We welcome your contributions to have richer the contents.
Below is some very preliminary extract of text from zero draft.

For latest draft including other sections, see:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GTH8A5veAMMNjmxtvRmV3ruV31UCHk9a1NhW_glJV9I/edit#heading=h.nwr9mbmv5efr


4.2. Findings and conclusions
4.2.1. General Observations

Common  Motivation
* The imminent shortage of global IPv4
* Being ready for the future and recognising IPv6 as the long term solution

Other Motivation
* High cost of other solutions
* Service benefit such as :
  - Will be easier to manage a real e2e -network without middle-ware. New services like VoLTE, IoT/M2M will be extremely hard to deploy in full scale without IPv6. Lots of performance benefits for the end-user.
  - Ensure that the quality of service for users is not affected by CGNAT and other techniques that will be used to deal with the IPv4 exhaustion
* By deploying early, wanted to create momentum for others to deploy and use as well.
* Government & regulatory mandatory standard for ISPs to adopt IPv6 by a certain timeline, as well as to ensure business continuity in view of global IPv4 address exhaustion.

As factors affecting motivation, most European cases stated that there is no external factor. In other regions, there are factors such as stimulus from NIC.BR(Brazil), regulatory factor requiring ISPs to meet certain deadline (Malaysia).

Economic/Business Factor:
Common Economic/Business Factor
* Sustainability of business in the long term. “If you don't do IPv6 now you will run into a brick wall at some point”.

Other Economic/Business Factor
* Better competition
  - Being competitive, showing our customers we know what we do
  - Ability to offer IPv6 services give competitive edge amongst local ISP
* Save cost
  - By comparing the cost of "buying" IPv4 addresses VS enabling IPv6 and DS-Lite, the former one was not going to help support customer growth
  - Need to build a more complicated solution without IPv6
  - Prepared at the timing of deploying new service, to save money for future when transition to IPv6 becomes needed
* Customers started to ask for ipv6 as a new requirement.
* Service quality
   - To assure that all users can access our content from any kind of device and network
4.2.2. ISPs
Several commercial deployment confirmed both in developing and developed countries, as well as deployment cases in both large scale and small scale networks. The notable feature about providing access line to home users is that customers do not care whether they have IPv4 or IPv6 connection, as long as they are provided with stable good internet access. Therefore, the decision is up to ISPs. The cost recovery model has been shared in Section x.x.x (Marco/LACNIC region paper simulation).
Some remaining challenges observed with legacy CPE on customers side and/or customers needing to apply for IPv6 service. Some cases demonstrate that they can be addressed by planning ahead at the timing of large scale network upgrade or starting new service, to make sure equipment will be IPv6 supported including CPE, and designing commercial IPv6 service, which does not require additional cost/procedures from customers end. The approach of not making customers conscious of IPv4/IPv6 works was common position taken by ISPs (in Japan) which have deployed IPv6. (Refer to http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2015-05-14-ipv6-stats.pdf here or at next steps?)

4.2.3. Data centers
There are some commercial deployment observed for long term business preparation. OTOH, in short term, data centers still need globally unique IPv4 until there demand decreases from its customers.

4.2.4. Content Providers
Several contents providers at global level supports IPv6 such as Google, Yahoo, Facebook, LinkedIn. Their motivation is xxxx. Users accessing with IPv6 are observed to be increasing, for example, users accessing Google website with IPv6 is increasing by 1% every three month and over 10% in total, in Jan 2016.  OTOH, the web service availability with IPv6 of the Alexa top one million websites is about 5.8% (https://aprigf2016.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/ipv6_measurement20160726-shian-shyong-tseng.pdf) and there is still room for imporvements. Having local contents available in IPv6 in each country/economy is another area to be addressed.

4.2.5. Vendors

4.2.6. Mobile networks
Expected need to accommodate large numbers of subscribers in coming years. <IPv6 provides advantage from xxx aspect…>Several mobile vendors have recently started deployment in IPv6. In the US, <refer to the link shared by Michael>. Android supports IPv6 from ...Apple have IPv6 supported handsets from ...Challenges observed are…

4.2.7 Other Cases
IPv6 adoption is observed in some applications outside the conventional global Internet connections. Some examples are use in nation wide Smart Meter for electricity supplies, IPv6 multicast services for image streaming. <Rabobank?BMW: http://d2zmdbbm9feqrf.cloudfront.net/2016/eur/pdf/CCSIP6-2006.pdf?> (Would be good to be able to confirm what are the benefits they have observed in IPv6 if possible)

5.1.  Challenges for regions where where deployment is not taking off
Rural areas in some developing countries use second hand equipment, hence needs another cycle to upgrade to IPv6 supported equipment
ISP infrastructure is IPv6 ready but CPEs in customer premises do not support IPv6
Some ISPs require customers to apply for IPv6 service, to enable IPv6 (From fear of getting customer complaints by making IPv6 available by default)
For small/medium ISPs/Data centers - cost of training staff to have sufficient knowledge on running IPv6 network


On 2016/09/08 0:52, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> Many thanks to everyone who attended Call # 5.
> Doodle poll will be circulated for the next call #6.
> (The date is 28th Sep - The poll will be for the time of the call)
> Below are action items of our work between now and the next call.
> Thanks all for your continued contributions!
> 1) More collection of contributions
>    See attached PDF for the general status: http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/2016-September/000582.html
>    We are interested to hear in particular from:
>     - Comcast, Telefonica, Google, Youtube,  Facebook, Yahoo, LinkedIn, Verizon Wireless
> 2) Feedback for zero draft
>    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GTH8A5veAMMNjmxtvRmV3ruV31UCHk9a1NhW_glJV9I/edit#heading=h.nwr9mbmv5efr
>    In particular:
>     -Sections 3 and 4
>     - From countries with low IPv6 deployment Section 5.1
> 3) Background information for contributions collected
>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/15HP5OkTPfnWkK4z4Z5qNbyuqNmAAP1o_xlxuZjrkt28/edit#heading=h.jsc8flc49hm4
>     We would like to have a better understanding of stories behind the cases collected.
>     From the case studies collected, we welcome background/stories/references you can share.
>     @Wim, do you have a suggestion on how people can share such additional information?
> Izumi

More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list