[Bp_ipv6] BPF IPv6 - final report out !

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Wed Mar 29 23:56:40 EDT 2017

Sure that would be appreciated Alejandro. It may be useful enough to 
distribute the blog posts, which are short and summarised versions of 
the paper.

Circle ID: 




On 2017/03/30 12:27, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
> Hello Izumi,
>   Great to know this.., thanks for the answer. In case we do, I'll let
> you know.
> Alejandro,
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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