[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:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20170220_commercial_incentives_behind_ipv6_deployment/
RIPE:
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/commercial-incentives-of-ipv6-deployment
APNIC:
https://blog.apnic.net/2017/02/23/trends-challenges-igf2016-ipv6-best-practice-document/
Izumi
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