[Bp_ipv6] BPF IPv6 - final report out !

Alejandro Acosta alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com
Wed Mar 29 23:27:12 EDT 2017

Hello Izumi,

  Great to know this.., thanks for the answer. In case we do, I'll let
you know.


El 29/3/17 a las 9:09 p.m., Izumi Okutani escribió:
> Excellent idea Alejandro! Thank you for the suggestion and of course
> you are more than welcome to print out the copies and distribute.
> Distribution is very much encouraged and welcome!
> Thanks,
> Izumi
> On 2017/03/30 1:04, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list