[Bp_ipv6] BPF IPv6 - final report out !

Alejandro Acosta alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com
Wed Mar 29 12:04:41 EDT 2017

Hello there, I hope this email finds you well,

  I wanted to make you a question, as many of you know in May Lacnic we
will have the first of our two yearly events. Today during a call I was
wondering if we can give (as a take away) the BPF IPv6 final report
(2016) [1], I mean, put dozen of copies of the report in a booth and
then the people can pick it up.

 Is it possible?, is it legal :-)  ?, am I doing something wrong?



‘Understanding the commercial and economic incentives behind a
successful IPv6 deployment’

El 1/2/17 a las 7:23 a.m., Michael Oghia escribió:
> Dear Izumi and Sumon,
> Wow! This summary is fantastic, thank you for putting it together.
> Best,
> -Michael
> __________________
> Michael J. Oghia
> iGmena <http://igmena.org/> communications manager
> Independent #netgov consultant & editor
> Belgrade, Serbia
> Skype: mikeoghia
> Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp
> <mailto: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
>         <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/bpf-ipv6>
>         Kind Regards,
>         Wim
>         _________________________
>         *Wim Degezelle*
>         *Consultant*
>         DUERMOVO - DRMV
>         wdegezelle at drmv.be <mailto:wdegezelle at drmv.be>
>         <mailto:wdegezelle at drmv.be <mailto:wdegezelle at drmv.be>>
>         mobile +32 475390185 <tel:%2B32%20475390185>
>         www.duermovo.com <http://www.duermovo.com>
>         <http://www.duermovo.com/>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Bp_ipv6 mailing list
>         Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org <mailto:Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org>
>         http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org
>         <http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Bp_ipv6 mailing list
>     Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org <mailto:Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org>
>     http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_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/20170329/e7d77484/attachment.html>

More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list