j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
[pacnog] Fwd: BPF IPv6 - final report out
(apologies for duplicates)
Saw this shared in other NOG lists and distributing in PacNOG list now. Hope some will find useful.
“The report of the 2016 IGF Best Practice Forum on IPv6 - Understanding the Commercial and Economic Incentives behind a Successful IPv6 Deployment”
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Izumi Okutani email@example.com Date: Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:28 AM Subject: Re: [Bp_ipv6] BPF IPv6 - final report out ! To: Wim Degezelle firstname.lastname@example.org, IGF BPFs email@example.com
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 some 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 Internet Engineering Task Force (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 CGNat 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/content delivery network (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.
More than 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 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 Wells Fargo. 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. Furthermore 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 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 not 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.
On 2017/01/31 18:37, Wim Degezelle wrote:
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%5Bintgovforum.org]
Kind Regards, Wim
Wim Degezelle Consultant DUERMOVO - DRMV
- 2232 days inactive
- 2232 days old
- 1 participants
- 0 comments