Working together on national regional level to encourage IPv6 deployment: Experiences and addressing challenges
Co-proposers/co-organizers
- China IGF
- Japan IGF
- Kenya IGF
- Netherlands IGF
Session title
Working together on national regional level to encourage IPv6 deployment: Experiences and addressing challenges
Session format and timing
Total proposed duration of the session: 90 minutes, divided into two major segments [20 minutes + 70 minutes].
Session format: roundtable, followed by discussions with participants
Moderator will open the floor for 5 minutes as part of PartI.
We take Q& A from the floor in Part II of the session. We have speakers as icebreaker for each question but participants are able to provide inputs for each of the questions. Please see Section 4 Contents of the session for more details.
Content of the session
Part I: 20 minutes
Moderator opens the follow with Introduction (5 minutes)
Overview of Key developments since IGF2016 IPv6 BPF (15 minutes)
- General observations on deployment since IGF2016 output
- Discussions at APrIGF2017
Part II: 70 minutes
Discussions based on key questions (3 questions listed as examples).
1. Any actions taken/further development since IGF IPv6 BPF outputs?
* Mexico:
Share the experiences and observations on how deployment rate has shown rapid increase in the past few months, since IGF IPv6 BPF session in Dec 2016. Candidate speaker (ONE SPEAKER slot): Oscar Robles (LACNIC CEO, ex-NIC Mexico CEO – invited), Other candidates are Manuel Haces (National IP Registry (NIC MX)), Jimena Sierra (IFT as the regulator).
* Japan:
Share experience of mobile deployment, remaining challenges, and other further work by the Japanese community since IGF IPv6 BPF session in Dec 2016. Speaker:
Tsuyoshi KINOSHITA (Vice President of Internet Association of Japan)
* Netherlands:
Growing steadily, but there's a long way to go! Share the situation in Netherlands, some challenges, comparison with other countries in Europe. Based on observations share what would be helpful way forward
Erik Huizer (The chair of the Dutch IPv6 Taskforce)
http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/erik-huizer
2. What is the situation in countries other than where further action was taken? Feedback on how helpful or not helpful the BPF document was. What are the remaining challenges?
* China:
A suggestion to be made from China IGF. Feedback from a perspective of a country which has interests in encouraging IPv6 deployment, what are the additional information or initiatives observed to be helpful, information exchanges among countries on private sector initiatives, soft policies/strategies or community actions.
* Kenya/Africa
Speaker: Alan Barrett (CEO of AFRINIC , Technical Community)
Share the current situation in Kenya, remaining challenges for the African region as a whole, suggestions on a way forward beyond IGF IPv6 BPF documents.
3. What are the common challenges?
What can be key messages to stakeholders such as government, private sectors and community bodies to address these challenges?
* Open discussions with both the panelist and participants
Speakers/Resource persons
TBC
Relevance of the issue
In IGF2015 and IGF2016, Best Practices Forum produced output documents on IPv6. Outputs of IGF2015 IPv6 BPF was shared at APrIGF2016, with its feedback reflected back to its IPv6 BPF work in IGF2016. There was a further follow up session on IPv6 at APrIGF2017, which introduced outputs of IGF2016.
We would like to now bring back again of feedback on IGF2016 BPF IPv6 from national and regional communities back to the global IGF.
This brings a cycle of discussions on IPv6 at both global, regional and national level as : global (2015) --> regional (2016) --> global (2016) --> regional/national (2017) --> back again to the global IGF2017.
Due to the exhaustion of the unallocated IPv4 address space, the version of technical identifier which has been used from early days of the Internet, the new version of IP addressed called IPv6 has been developed with abundant stocks. The deployment of IPv6 is needed to provide addresses for millions of new internet users in the future; therefore it is a prerequisite for access and growth, relevant to all regions and economies. See section 2 of IGF2016 BPF IPv6 for more details on why deploy IPv6.
The global IGF2016 document clearly describes that there is no correlation with GDP and economies with high IPv6 deployment. i.e., you do not have to be from developing countries to have high deployment rate.
Since the output document was published in Dec 2016, global IPv6 deployment rate has risen from total of 8% to approximately 15% as of Aug 2017. These figures are far much lower in other regions of the world with the African average being less than 1%. There is still more rooms for improvements, for the global Internet to be IPv6 ready, in accommodating access without number resources limitation as in the case of IPv4 and growth.
Based on highlights of key outputs of IGF IPv6 BPF, speakers from different regions share further feedback and actions taken on national and or regional level, including the remaining challenges, and highlighting specific actions where different stakeholders can work together. For example, to bring in more commercial actors who are closer to the market, together with the policy maker to tackle this issue.
Interventions/Engagement with participants (onsite and online)
The speakers listed are for sharing experiences to stimulated discussions with onsite and onsite participants. There will be times secured to have discussions with participants per key questions listed
Geographical, Stakeholder and Gender Diversity
Each of the National IGFs [*]organising the session are based on geographic, stakeholder and gender diversity into considerations. The speaker are from different regions and stakeholders.
China IGF: http://igfcn.news/
Japan IGF: https://japanigf.jp/
Kenya IGF: http://isoc-ke.org/?page_id=173
Netherlands IGF: http://www.nligf.nl/
Onsite moderator(s)
A moderator(s) with knowledge of IPv6 and understanding not limited to technical expertise but also understanding of environment outside technical community with will be chosen based on discussions by China, Keya, Netherlands and Japan IGF.
Online moderator(s)
Call for volunteer at IPv6 BPF mailing list. The online moderator (s) does not have to have deep understanding of IPv6 as long as have interest in the subject and able to use Webex and twitter, read out comments.
Rapporteur(s)
We will commit to appoint a rapporteur but specific name is to be discussed among China, Kenya, Netherlands and Japan IGF
Online participation logistics
Inputs in Webex and twitter hashtag will be read out by online moderator to speakers and onsite participants.
Discussion facilitation
The session will be interactive with participants and speakers. The moderator with knowledge on IPv6 will play a key role in ensuring all inputs are heard and have useful summary on a way forward.