- ¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0
- Remaining challenges after implementing IPv6
- Challenge in regions where deployment is not taking off
5. Remaining challenges
5.1. Remaining challenges after implementing IPv6
● Bugs and technical issues
- ¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0
- 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
- 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
- Several companies in the US have explicitly stated more need for more vendor support IPv6
- ¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0
- Particularly for specific functionality (such as ND inspection OSPFv3 neighbor authentication, VXLAN overlay v6 transport, etc.)
- Lack of support entirely in some critical product sets
- Limited or missing v6 support in many operational and security tools and services (including DDOS mitigation services).
- ¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0
- Several US Case Studies request for action from the government (NTIA in the case of US), to require vendors to support IPv6.
- ¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 1
- Cost of staff training and human resources for commercial deployment
- ¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 1
- For small/medium ISPs/Data centers – cost of training staff to have sufficient knowledge on running IPv6 network
- This issue as identified in developing country such as Japan as well. In case of Japan, community body jointly developed hands on seminar program per different industry sector.
- ¶ 14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0
- This may be an area where governments or nonprofit industry bodies or jon efforts by the community in the regional/economy can support, depending on what best fits in that environment
- ¶ 15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0
- 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)
- It requires additional costs to or limitation for small businesses
¶ 16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 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.
5.2. Challenges for regions where where deployment is not taking off
5.2.1. Deployment Challenges in Developing Countries
¶ 19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 In the recent years IPv6 deployment has been paced up in different part of the world especially in Europe and USA. There are significant progresses in Latin America and in part of Asia for example in Japan and Korea.
¶ 20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 But still mostly in the developing world IPv6 deployment rate is far behind. As part of the 2016 IPv6 BPF initiative we have also tried to find the deployment challenges in the developing nations. It has been observed from the survey that still there are lacks of motivations, few technical challenges remains and lastly in most of the countries no real initiatives from the governments to promote or encourage IPv6 deployment to fulfill the need of connecting the unconnected.
¶ 21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 Most of the service providers (ISPs, Mobile Operators) are aware of the fact that sooner or later they will need to deploy IPv6. Some deployed IPv6 in the transit paths and in their core networks but at the access layer mostly no visible IPv6 deployment and largely depending on Carrier Grade NAT (CGN).
¶ 22 Leave a comment on paragraph 22 0 Some ISPs mentioned even they can offer IPv6 to their corporate customers without any challenge but there is not much interest from the customers rather in some cases they are not willing at all as they don’t have enough knowledge on IPv6 deployment and IPv6 security.
¶ 23 Leave a comment on paragraph 23 0 Regarding IPv6 deployment for the last mile broadband users, some ISPs mentioned that they have technical difficulties in shaping the bandwidth in IPv4 and IPv6 dual stack environment and looking for technical solutions to that to comply with the commercial packages they are offering.
¶ 25 Leave a comment on paragraph 25 0 Another major issue for the ISPs in South Asia is the CPEs. More than 90% of the Wifi access points presently in use are not IPv6 capable. Which is one of the main demotivation factors in deploying IPv6 for the last mile broadband users. Still a large number of cheap CPEs being sold in the market are not IPv6 capable.
¶ 26 Leave a comment on paragraph 26 0 Mobile Operators were waiting for more Smart Phone users before deploying IPv6. But recent years use of smart phones growing rapidly, one of the mobile operators in Bangladesh mentioned their smart phone users are now more than 20% and it’s growing fast. Now they are considering deploying IPv6 seriously. But any fixed strategy and timeline is yet to be fixed.
¶ 27 Leave a comment on paragraph 27 0 In the Content side only a handful content providers are offering contents via IPv6. Lack of awareness seems to be the major factor in this area. No major technical or other challenge found in the survey.
- ¶ 28 Leave a comment on paragraph 28 0
- Convincing decision makers about the need of IPv6
- This is the case even in global corporation such as Microsoft describes as :
¶ 29 Leave a comment on paragraph 29 0 “Advocacy of IPv6 occurs at levels below the decision makers. It is understood that IPv6 will be a hard sell because it is more difficult to quantify the potential benefits than to quantify the likely costs to replace equipment, retrain staff, and implement the physical and configuration changes required to make the transition. This is particularly true when networks are heterogeneous mixtures of operating systems and include embedded devices and sensors which are assigned addresses and remotely managed differently than servers and workstations.”
- ¶ 30 Leave a comment on paragraph 30 0
- Rural areas in some developing countries use second hand equipment, hence needs another cycle to upgrade to IPv6 supported equipment
6. Conclusions / next steps
- ¶ 32 Leave a comment on paragraph 32 0
- General observation from successful Cases
- Lessons learnt from Failures
Appendix: CASE STUDIES
¶ 34 Leave a comment on paragraph 34 0 The full case studies collected by the BPF will be made available as an appendix to the final outcome document. Until then, we refer to the online compilation of case studies at: