Saturday, March 08th 2014
| Contact |
We have 2137 guests online
IGF 2014: Istanbul
February Open Consultations Registration
February 19 - IGF Open Consultations and MAG Meeting
February 20 - IGF Consultations and MAG meeting
2013 IGF: Bali
2012 IGF: Baku
2011 IGF: Nairobi
2010 IGF: Vilnius
2009 IGF: Sharm El Sheikh
2008 IGF: Hyderabad
2007 IGF: Rio de Janeiro
2006 IGF: Athens
Tools for Interaction
2013 Social Media hash tags
List of Workshops Reports 2009
Workshop Report 2009
Adopting IPv6: What You Need To Know
Workshop description and list of panelists:
This three-hour workshop featured opening remarks, followed by panel discussions on the following three themes:
- Assigning resources
- Training, outreach activities
- Specific country experiences on adopting IPv6
The workshop room was at full capacity, with standing room only.
The actors involved in the field; various initiatives that people can connect with, and contacts for further information:
Number Resource Organization (NRO)
International Telecommunications Union (ITU)
Patrik Fältström (Cisco, Chair)
Sureswaran Ramadass (NAv6, Chair)
He Baohong (CATR of MIIT, China)
Onur Bektaş (ULAKBİM, Turkey)
Raúl Echeberría (LACNIC)
Mark Elkins (Uniforum SA)
Antonio M. Moreiras (Brazilian Network Information Center)
Tom Wills Sandford (Intellect)
Jonne Soininen (Nokia)
Malcolm Johnson (ITU-T)
Paul Wilson (APNIC)
Salam Yamout (Cisco, Lebanon)
Xiaoya Yang (ITU-TSB)
The panelists represented the following regions:
The actors involved in the field; various initiatives that people can connect with, and further information:
1. Regional Internet Registries (RIRs)
The five RIRs distribute IPv6 addresses to networks in their five regions based on policies developed in a bottom up and transparent process by the community. The RIRs also engage in IPv6 educational and training efforts within their regions.
2. Number Resource Organization (NRO)
The NRO exists to protect the unallocated Number Resource pool, to promote and protect the bottom-up policy development process, and to act as a focal point for Internet community input into the RIR system.
3. International Telecommunications Union (ITU)
All three sectors of the ITU are now working toward promoting IPv6, and the ITU is keen to collaborate with all stakeholders, including the NRO.
4. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
IETF developed IPv6 as a successor to IPv4 and continues to work on specifications related to IPv6 on the Internet.
5. IPv6 Forum
The IPv6 Forum consists of Internet vendors, Internet engineers, research and education networks that aim to increase awareness of IPv6.
NRO IPv6 information - http://www.nro.net/ipv6
ITU IPv6 information - http://www.itu.int/ipv6
IPv6 Forum information - http://www.ipv6forum.com
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were identified:
Below, the issues discussed by panelists and participants from the floor are arranged by theme rather than chronological order.
The Current IPv6 Deployment Situation
While IPv6 growth on the Internet is small, it is currently growing at an exponential rate. It is not necessary for all networks to deploy IPv6 immediately, but networks do need to be prepared for IPv6. For countries that have limited Internet penetration in IPv4 — for example, within Africa — it was suggested that networks could go straight to deploying IPv6 without worrying about the expense of legacy systems that more developed nations are grappling with.
The ITU has recently conducted some studies into IPv6, which have showed a general lack of IPv6 readiness amongst ITU Member States. IPv6 progress happening in 2009 is less visible, however: it is now possible to build and operate IPv6 networks with less effort, so people are not making press releases about it any more when they deploy IPv6.
How IPv6 Addresses Are Distributed
The policies governing how IPv6 is distributed are developed and adapted over time in a bottom-up process by the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) communities. Refinements made through the policy cycle over time have made it easier to obtain IPv6 from the RIRs. One participant at the workshop confirmed that although their network had initially not met the AfriNIC criteria for an IPv6 allocation, the affected organisation had proposed policy changes, and the community had adopted a policy that helped smaller networks obtain IPv6. It was acknowledged that a very few IPv6 requests may have not met the criteria set by RIR communities; in the Asia Pacific region, however, under a new APNIC policy, anyone who qualifies for IPv4 automatically qualifies for IPv6.
Current Discussion About the Distribution Model
The ITU Secretariat and some of its Member States have expressed concerns about the uneven distribution of IPv6 allocated to date, and that due to a lack of human and/or financial resources, developing countries are under-represented in RIR processes. Some ITU Member States believe that the best way to safeguard equitable IPv6 distribution and secure assistance in deploying IPv6 is to move IPv6 address space management into the public sector. The ITU is launching a project to pursue the objectives laid out in WTSA Resolution 64, which encouraged the deployment of IPv6, but also instructed the ITU-T study groups to look at whether they could allocate and register addresses, and report to the Council 2009.
A study conducted by the National Advanced IPv6 Centre of Excellence (NAv6), Malaysia, has proposed maintaining the current ICANN/IANA/RIR structure, but expanding the RIR system to include an additional registry, empowered to delegate to a series of country registries. It was posited that local organizations could be better placed to ensure address conservation. The author of the study noted that the current RIR system provides fair distribution of IPv6 addresses, and that the proposed change will only work if address holders can still go to the existing RIRs for addresses.
There was discussion about how this form of alternative Internet Registry could affect the Internet. The proposal’s author noted that under the RIR system, an organization operating in one particular region could only request resources from the RIR servicing that region. He commended APNIC on the job it had done to date, but suggested that once a network was denied an allocation by an RIR, there is currently no alternative source for addresses. A participant from the floor noted that the study treats IP addresses as a commercial resource, but that, IP addresses are a managed resource that they should not be subject to competition and must be managed to ensure the Internet's stability. Another participant noted that while collaboration between the RIRs and ITU was to be welcomed, competition in the distribution of IP addresses was not in the technical interest of the Internet. Another view was expressed that an end user cares only about quality of service, and having two Internet registry options will not automatically provide better choice or quality of service. Another participant from the floor noted that economists express skepticism about the private sector competing against the public sector. It was explained that the country-based registries in the proposal would not necessarily be publicly owned.
There was discussion about country registries within the current RIR structure. In the APNIC region, there are National Internet Registries (NIRs), but many organizations in those economies choose to request resources from APNIC directly. The RIPE NCC has discussed a country-based registry system in the past. The Russian and Middle East communities have discussed setting up separate registries but on both occasions this option was discounted, partially because setting up a separate registry risked limiting knowledge transfer with the global Internet community.
Supporting IPv6 Deployment
It was agreed that the biggest problem in deploying IPv6 is lack of knowledge.
Governments play a vital role in promoting IPv6 to industry within their country and encouraging IPv6 deployment by requiring IPv6 compatibility where possible (similar to how some governments have supported digital TV rollout).
The technical community also has a vital role in promoting IPv6 and educating network operators and business and government decision makers about the technical needs for IPv6. The IPv6 Forum has and continues to do a lot of work encouraging IPv6 deployment. At the workshop, it was acknowledged that there was some concern in developing regions about timely deployment of IPv6, but that this was to be contrasted with a note of optimism that the groundwork for IPv6 deployment was in place, including the human resources that the RIRs have helped to train. While the RIRs' core responsibility is the registration of Internet number resources, they also exist to serve the interests of their membership and communities. IPv6 adoption has become a priority for these communities, which has led to all five RIRs now being involved in promoting IPv6 adoption. The example of AfriNIC was given, where the goal is to deliver IPv6 training events in all countries in the AfriNIC service region by the end of 2010.
It was suggested that a more specific IPv6 campaign might be needed to correct a lack of awareness in the business community. This could include certain "tipping points", such as major services being made available only over IPv6, or an award presented at the IGF for the organisation that has done the most to promote IPv6. It was suggested that the RIRs could take responsibility for coordinating such a program. Those within the business community with an existing awareness of IPv6 are also working to encourage IPv6. ISOC presented an award to Google for their IPv6 adoption program at the recent IETF meeting.
Learning From Others: Specific Country Experiences of Deploying IPv6
Below is a summary of how four countries have been handling IPv6 adoption.
China began the CNGI project to promote IPv6 in 2003. The first phase of the project is complete. Phase 2, which began in 2009, moves the focus from IPv6 on academic networks to IPv6 on industry networks.
The project has funded development of the largest IPv6 network in the world. About one million students in China are already using this IPv6 network. The government has also funded large ISPs in China to encourage their IPv6 deployment and it is expected that the full commercial IPv6 network in China will be completed by 2020.
China has found the requirements for transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 in academic networks is quite different to transitioning in commercial networks. Change is required not only at the network layer, but the transition also requires changes to desktop applications that use the Internet.
China is also investigating IPv6 security issues for the mobile Internet and pursuing further technical work to smooth the transition.
There has been an IPv6-capable National Academic Network (ULAKNET) in Turkey since 2003. The IPv6 Forum of Turkey was established in 2007. Nineteen Turkish ISPs now have IPv6 blocks from RIPE, but only two or three of those ISPs currently have visible IPv6 routes in the global routing table.
The Turkish project to make the transition to IPv6 is funded by the government and began in February 2009. It will run for two years and consists of research into advanced IPv6 features, IPv6 security, and an IPv6-enabled honeypot. The project is also developing IPv6-enabled conferencing software. Turkey has a test network, IPv6-GO, which is being used to test IPv6 transition methods, IPv6-enabled applications, etc.
The Brazil National Internet Registry, register.br, first began making IPv6 allocations in December 2007. There has been a significant increase in the number of IPv6 allocations made to Brazilian networks since the beginning of 2008.
During 2009, while Brazilian ISPs have not yet started giving IPv6 to their customers, they have been creating a test site for IPv6 or deploying their websites over IPv6. The Federal Government has launched an initiative that recommends IPv6 for the intragov.sp.gov.br network.
In order to raise awareness, ipv6.br was launched in 2008. The website targets all stakeholders, from technical engineers to businesses. The European Union 6deploy project has been very helpful for Brazilian efforts to deploy IPv6. Nic.br produced IPv6 materials for ISP staff in Brazil under a Creative Commons license. It now uses these as part of capacity building workshops.
There are nine ISPs in Lebanon. These ISPs have been working with RIPE NCC and MENOG to spread awareness of IPv6. MENOG held a meeting in 2009 in Beirut that included a well-attended three-day workshop on IPv6. This meeting was the catalyst to begin IPv6 preparations in earnest.
Since MENOG was held in Lebanon earlier in 2009, there have been five IPv6 blocks requested and delegated to Lebanese ISPs.
The biggest IPv6 issues in Lebanon are business rather than technical concerns. Operators there still have questions about the business impact of operating two networks: IPv4 and IPv6.
Conclusions and further comments:
It was generally agreed by all workshop participants that IPv6 deployment is the only option for future Internet growth and that all stakeholders, including the technical community, government, and business, need to work together to educate and encourage the community, particularly in developing areas, to prepare for IPv6 deployment.
Looking long-term, IPv6 offers great opportunities: in the 1990s, there was an “IPv4 revolution”, when the Internet blossomed and subsequently brought down prices for network access and networked devices. As IPv6 adoption spreads, enabling greater Internet penetration, there will be a similar effect.
...End of Report...
Top of Page
Joomla Professional Work
NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul (Mr), Consultant, Burundi
Souter David (Mr), ICT Development Associates, UK
Bollow Norbert (Mr), Self-employed consultant - Systems analyst and technologist – FOSS (Free and Open Source Software), Switzerland
Athens Preparatory Contributions
Copyright © 2005-2010 Internet Governance Forum. All Rights Reserved.