[Bp_ipv6] BPF IPv6 - final report out !

Michael Oghia mike.oghia at gmail.com
Wed Feb 1 06:23:36 EST 2017

Dear Izumi and Sumon,

Wow! This summary is fantastic, thank you for putting it together.


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

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

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:

> Dear all,
> Thank you Wim for the great efforts and work in putting the document
> together and letting us know about the publication.
> I would like to take this opportunity, together with my Co-Coordinator,
> Sumon Ahmed Sabir, to thank everyone who has contributed to the work of
> this group.
> This document is a result of these wonderful joint efforts.
>  - Everyone who have attended our calls
>  - Everyone who is subscribed on this ML and provided feedback online
>  - Volunteers who helped us collect the case studies
>  - All individuals and organisations who contributed to share their case
> studies
>  - Individuals who have taken their time for face to face interviews
>  - All contributors to the online platform,and
>  - The panelists and all participants at the IGF2016 IPv6-BPF session
> Please do help us spread the words about this document, especially to
> policy makers and business decision makers.
> Below are the key messages from our document.
> ---
> General Trend:
> 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 come 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 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 CGN 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/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.
> Over 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 Contents Delivery Networks(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 Wellsfargo. 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. Further, more 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 note 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
> sustainability.
> 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.
> ---
> Best Regards,
> Sumonn & Izumi
> 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 <mailto:wdegezelle at drmv.be>
>> mobile +32 475390185
>> www.duermovo.com <http://www.duermovo.com/>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bp_ipv6 mailing list
>> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org
> _______________________________________________
> Bp_ipv6 mailing list
> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/attachments/20170201/80908332/attachment.html>

More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list