[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?
Thanks,
Alejandro,
[1]
http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/3407/458
‘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