[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment) 00 01           Informational
          02                                                            
V6OPS                                                        G. Fioccola
Internet-Draft                                                P. Volpato
Intended status: Informational                       Huawei Technologies
Expires: January 13, 2022                                      N. Elkins
                                                         Inside Products
                                                       J. Palet Martinez
                                                        The IPv6 Company
                                                               G. Mishra
                                                            Verizon Inc.
                                                                  C. Xie
                                                           China Telecom
                                                           July 12, 2021


                         IPv6 Deployment Status
                  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-02

Abstract

   This document provides an overview of IPv6 deployment status and a
   view on how the transition to IPv6 is progressing among network
   operators and enterprises.  It also aims to analyze the related
   challenges and therefore encourage actions and more investigations in
   those areas where the industry has not taken a clear and unified
   approach.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 13, 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.




Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  IPv4 vs IPv6: The Global Picture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  IPv4 Address Exhaustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  IPv6 Users  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.3.  IPv6 Web Content  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  A Survey on IPv6 Deployments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.1.  IPv6 Allocations and Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  IPv6 among Network Operators  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.3.  IPv6 among Enterprises  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.3.1.  Government, Campuses and Universities . . . . . . . .  12
     3.4.  Observations on Industrial Internet . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.5.  Observations on Content and Cloud Service Providers . . .  12
     3.6.  Application Transition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   4.  Towards an IPv6 Overlay Service Design  . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.1.  IPv6 introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.2.  IPv6-only Service Delivery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   5.  IPv6-only Underlay Network Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     5.1.  IPv6-only Edge Peering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   6.  IPv6 Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   7.  Common IPv6 Challenges  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     7.1.  Transition Choices  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       7.1.1.  Service Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       7.1.2.  Enterprises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       7.1.3.  Industrial Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       7.1.4.  Cloud and Data Centers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       7.1.5.  CPEs and user devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     7.2.  Government and Regulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     7.3.  Network Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     7.4.  Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       7.4.1.  IPv6 packet loss and latency  . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       7.4.2.  Customer Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     7.5.  IPv6 security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
       7.5.1.  Protocols security issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       7.5.2.  IPv6 Extension Headers and Fragmentation  . . . . . .  27
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   9.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28



Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   Appendix A.  Summary of Questionnaire and Replies for network
                operators  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   Appendix B.  Summary of Questionnaire and Replies for enterprises  39
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40

1.  Introduction

   [RFC6036] described IPv6 deployment scenarios adopted or foreseen by
   a number of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) who responded to a
   technical questionnaire in early 2010.  In doing that, [RFC6036]
   provided practices and plans expected to take place in the following
   years.  Since the publication of [RFC6036], several other documents
   contributed to discuss the transition to IPv6 in operational
   environments.  To name a few:

      - [RFC6180] discussed IPv6 deployment models and transition
      mechanisms, recommending those that showed to be effective in
      operational networks.

      - [RFC6883] provided guidance and suggestions for Internet content
      providers and Application Service Providers (ASPs).

      - [RFC7381] introduced the guidelines of IPv6 deployment for
      enterprises.

   It is worth mentioning here also [RFC6540] that not only recommended
   the support of IPv6 to all IP-capable nodes, but it was referenced in
   the IAB Statement on IPv6 [IAB], which represented a major step in
   driving the IETF as well as other Standard Developing Organizations
   (SDOs) to assume the use of IPv6 in their works.

   In more recent times, organizations such as ETSI provided more
   contributions to the use of IPv6 in operational environments,
   targeting IPv6 in different industry segments.  As a result,
   [ETSI-IP6-WhitePaper], was published to provide an updated view on
   the IPv6 best practices adopted so far, in particular in the ISPs
   domain.

   Considering all of the above, and after more than ten years since the
   publication of [RFC6036] it may be interesting to verify where the
   transition of the Internet to IPv6 currently stands, what major steps
   have been accomplished and what is still missing.  Some reasons
   justify such questions:



Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


      - In some areas, the lack of publicly available IPv4 addresses
      forced both carriers and content providers to shift to IPv6 to
      support the introduction of new applications, in particular in
      wireless networks.

      - Some governmental actions took place to encourage or even
      enforce, at different degrees, the adoption of IPv6 in certain
      countries.

      - Looking at the global adoption of IPv6, this seems to have
      reached a threshold that justifies speaking of native, end-to-end
      IPv6 connectivity (between a user's device and a content on a
      site) at the IPv6 service layer.

   This document intends to explode such statements, providing a survey
   of the status of IPv6 deployment and highlighting both the
   achievements and remaining obstacles in the transition to IPv6-only
   networks.  The target is to give an updated view of the practices and
   plans already described in [RFC6036], to encourage further actions
   and more investigations in those areas that are still under
   discussion, and to present the main incentives for the adoption of
   IPv6.  The expectation is that this process may help to understand
   what is missing and how to improve the current IPv6 deployment
   strategies of network operators, enterprises, content and cloud
   service providers.

   The initial section of this document reports some data about the
   status of IPv6.  The exhaustion of IPv4 as well as the measured
   adoption of IPv6 at the users' and the content's side will be
   discussed.  Comparing both IPv4 and IPv6, this latter has a higher
   growth rate.  While this fact alone does not permit to conclude that
   the definitive transition to IPv6 is undergoing, at least testifies
   that a portion of the ICT industry has decided to invest and deploy
   IPv6 at large.

   The next section provides a survey of IPv6 deployments in different
   environments, including ISPs, enterprises, cloud providers and
   universities.  Data from some well-known analytics will be discussed.
   In addition, two independent polls among network operators and
   enterprises will also be presented.

   Then, a section on IPv6 overlay service design will describe the IPv6
   transition approaches for Mobile BroadBand (MBB), Fixed BroadBand
   (FBB) and Enterprise services.  At present, Dual-Stack (DS) is the
   most deployed solution for IPv6 introduction, while 464XLAT and Dual-
   Stack Lite (DS-Lite) seem the preferred ones for those players that
   have already enabled IPv6-only service delivery.  A section on IPv6




Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   underlay network deployment will also focus on the common approaches
   for the transport network.

   The last parts of the document will analyze the incentives brought by
   IPv6 as well as the general challenges to be faced to move forward in
   the transition.  Specific attention will be given to operational,
   performance and security issues.  All these considerations will be
   input for the final section of the document that aims to highlight
   the areas still requiring improvement and some actions that the
   industry might consider to favor the adoption of IPv6.

2.  IPv4 vs IPv6: The Global Picture

   This section deals with some key questions related to IPv6, namely
   the status of IPv4 exhaustion, often considered as one of the
   triggers to switch to IPv6, the number of IPv6 end users, a primary
   measure to sense IPv6 adoption, and the percentage of websites
   reachable over IPv6.  The former is constantly measured by the
   Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and the next subsection provides
   an indication of where we currently stand.  The utilization of IPv6
   at both the end user's side and the content's side has also been
   monitored by several institutions worldwide as these two parameters
   provide a first-order indication on the real adoption of IPv6.

2.1.  IPv4 Address Exhaustion

   According to [CAIR] there will be 29.3 billion networked devices by
   2023, up from 18.4 billion in 2018.  This poses the question on
   whether the IPv4 address space can sustain such a number of
   allocations and, consequently, if this is affecting the process of
   its exhaustion.  The answer is not straightforward as many aspects
   have to be considered.

   On one hand, the RIRs are reporting scarcity of available and still
   reserved addresses.  Table 3 of [POTAROO1] shows that the available
   pool of the five RIRs counts a little more than 6 million IPv4
   address, while the reserved pool includes another 12 million, for a
   total of "usable" addresses equal to 18.3 million.  The same
   reference, in table 1, shows that the total IPv4 allocated pool
   equals 3.684 billion addresses.  The ratio between the "usable"
   addresses and the total allocated brings to 0.005% of remaining
   space.

   On the other, [POTAROO1] again highlights the role of both NAT and
   the address transfer to counter the IPv4 exhaustion.  NAT systems
   well fit in the current client/server model used by most of the
   available Internet applications, with this phenomenon amplified by
   the general shift to cloud.  Anyway, it should be noted that, in some



Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   cases, private address space cannot provide adequate address and the
   reuse of addresses may make the network even more complex.  The
   transfer of IPv4 addresses also contributes to mitigate the need of
   addresses.  As an example, [IGP-GT] and [NRO] show the amount of
   transfers to recipient organizations in the different regions.  Cloud
   Service Providers (CSPs) appear to be the most active in buying
   available addresses to satisfy their need of providing IPv4
   connectivity to their tenants.  But, since each address blocks of
   Internet is licensed by a specific resource-holder and stored for the
   verification of the authenticity, frequent address transfer may
   affect the global assignment process.

2.2.  IPv6 Users

   The count of the IPv6 users is the key parameter to get an immediate
   understanding of the adoption of IPv6.  Some organizations constantly
   track the usage of IPv6 by aggregating data from several sources.  As
   an example, the Internet Society constantly monitors the volume of
   IPv6 traffic for the networks that joined the WorldIPv6Launch
   initiative [WIPv6L].  The measurement aggregates statistics from
   organizations such as [Akm-stats] that provides data down to the
   single network level measuring the number of hits to their content
   delivery platform.  For the scope of this document, we follow the
   approach used by APNIC to quantify the adoption of IPv6 by means of a
   script that runs on a user's device [CAIDA].  To give a rough
   estimation of the relative growth of IPv6, the next table aggregates
   the total number of estimated IPv6-capable users at January 2021, and
   compares it against the total Internet users, as measured by
   [POTAROO2], [APNIC1].


   +--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
   |        |  Jan   |  Jan   |  Jan   |  Jan   |  Jan   |  CAGR  |
   |        |  2017  |  2018  |  2019  |  2020  |  2021  |        |
   +--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
   |  IPv6  |  290.27|  513.07|  574.02|  989.25|1,136.28|  44.7% |
   +--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
   | World  |3,339.36|3,410.27|3,470.36|4,065.00|4,091.62|   4.7% |
   +--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
   | Ratio  |    8.7%|   15.0%|   16.5%|   24.3%|   27.8%|  38.1% |
   +--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

         Figure 1: IPv6-capable users against total (in millions)

   Two figures appear: first, the IPv6 Internet population is growing
   with a two-digits Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR), and second, the
   ratio IPv6 over total is also growing steadily.




Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


2.3.  IPv6 Web Content

   [W3Tech] keeps track of the use of several technical components of
   websites.  The utilization of IPv6 for websites is shown in the next
   table.


   +------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
   |  Wolrdwide |  Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan  | CAGR |
   |  Websites  |  2017 |  2018 |  2019 |  2020 |  2021 |      |
   +------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
   |% of IPv6   |  9.6% | 11.4% | 13.3% | 15.0% | 17.5% |  16% |
   +------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+

                    Figure 2: Usage of IPv6 in websites

   Looking at the growth rate, it may appear not particularly high.  It
   has to be noted, though, that not all websites are equal.  The
   largest content providers, which already support IPv6, generate a lot
   more IPv6-based content than small websites.  [Csc6lab] measured at
   the beginning of January 2021 that out of the world top 500 sites
   ranked by [Alx], 196 are IPv6-enabled.  If we consider that the big
   content providers (such as Google, Facebook, Netflix) generate more
   than 50% of the total mobile traffic [SNDVN], and in some cases even
   more up to 65% ([ISOC1] [HxBld]), the percentage of content
   accessible over IPv6 is clearly more relevant than the number of
   enabled IPv6 websites.

   Related to that, a question that sometimes arises is whether the
   content stored by content providers would be all accessible on IPv6
   in the hypothetical case of a sudden IPv4 switch-off.  Even if this
   is pure speculation, the numbers above may bring to state that this
   is likely the case.  This would reinforce the common thought that, in
   quantitative terms, most of content is accessible via IPv6.

3.  A Survey on IPv6 Deployments

   Right after the count of the IPv6 users, it is fundamental to
   understand the status of IPv6 in terms of concrete adoption in
   operational networks.  This section deals with the status of IPv6
   among carriers, service and content providers, enterprises and
   research institutions.

3.1.  IPv6 Allocations and Networks

   RIRs are responsible for allocating IPv6 address blocks to ISPs, LIRs
   (Local Internet Registries) as well as enterprises or other
   organizations.  An ISP/LIR will use the allocated block to assign



Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   addresses to their end users.  For example, a mobile carrier will
   assign one or several /64 prefixes to the User Equipment (UE).
   Several analytics are available from the RIRs.  Here we are
   interested to those relevant to IPv6.  The next table shows the
   amount of individual allocations, per RIR, in the time period
   2016-2020 [APNIC2].


   +---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---------+------+
   | Registry|  Dec  |  Dec  |  Dec  |  Dec  |  Dec  |Cumulated| CAGR |
   |         |  2016 |  2017 |  2018 |  2019 |  2020 |         |      |
   +---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---------+------+
   | AFRINIC |   116 |   112 |   110 |   115 |   109 |    562  | 48%  |
   |  APNIC  | 1,681 | 1,369 | 1,474 | 1,484 | 1,498 |  7,506  | 45%  |
   |   ARIN  |   646 |   684 |   659 |   605 |   644 |  3,238  | 50%  |
   |  LACNIC | 1,009 | 1,549 | 1,448 | 1,614 | 1,801 |  7,421  | 65%  |
   | RIPE NCC| 2,141 | 2,051 | 2,620 | 3,104 | 1,403 | 11,319  | 52%  |
   |         |       |       |       |       |       |         |      |
   |  Total  | 5,593 | 5,765 | 6,311 | 6,922 | 5,455 | 30,046  | 52%  |
   +---------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---------+------+

                   Figure 3: IPv6 allocations worldwide

   Overall, the trend is strongly positive, witnessing the vivacity
   around IPv6.  The decline of IPv6 allocations in 2020, particularly
   remarkable for the RIPE NCC, could be explained with the COVID-19
   measures that may have affected the whole industry.  This is also
   explained because most of the operators that get an IPv6 allocation,
   will not need more for many years, unless their network presents an
   extremely expansion.

   [APNIC2] also compares the number of allocations for both address
   families, and the result is in favor of IPv6.  The average yearly
   growth is 52% for IPv6 in the period 2016-2020 versus 49% for IPv4.
   This is described in the next table.


   +--------+------+------+--------+--------+-------+-----------+------+
   | Address| Dec  | Dec  |  Dec   |  Dec   |  Dec  | Cumulated | CAGR |
   | family | 2016 | 2017 |  2018  |  2019  |  2020 |           |      |
   +--------+------+------+--------+--------+-------+-----------+------+
   |  IPv6  | 5,593| 5,765|  6,311 |  6,922 | 5,455 |   30,046  | 52%  |
   |        |      |      |        |        |       |           |      |
   |  IPv4  |10,515| 9,437| 10,192 | 14,019 | 7,437 |   51,600  | 49%  |
   |        |      |      |        |        |       |           |      |
   +--------+------+------+--------+--------+-------+-----------+------+

                 Figure 4: Allocations per address family



Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   The next table is based on [APNIC3], [APNIC4] and shows the
   percentage of Autonomous System (AS) numbers supporting IPv6 compared
   to the total ASes worldwide.  The number of IPv6-capable ASes
   increased from 22.6% in January 2017 to 30.4% in January 2021.  This
   equals to 14% CAGR for IPv6 enabled networks, highlighting how IPv6
   is growing faster than IPv4, since the total (IPv6 and IPv4) networks
   grow at 6% CAGR.


   +------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
   | Advertised |  Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan  | CAGR |
   |    ASN     |  2017 |  2018 |  2019 |  2020 |  2021 |      |
   +------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+
   |IPv6-capable| 12,700| 14,500| 16,470| 18,600| 21,400|  14% |
   |            |       |       |       |       |       |      |
   | Total ASN  | 56,100| 59,700| 63,100| 66,800| 70,400|   6% |
   |            |       |       |       |       |       |      |
   |   Ratio    | 22.6% | 24.3% | 26.1% | 27.8% | 30.4% |      |
   +------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+

                 Figure 5: Percentage of IPv6-capable ASes

   The tables above provide an aggregated view of the allocations
   dynamic.  Apart from the recent times influenced by the pandemic, the
   general trend related to IPv6 adoption is positive.  What the
   aggregated view does not tell us is the split between the different
   types of organizations.  The next sections of this chapter will zoom
   into each specific area to highlight the relative status.

3.2.  IPv6 among Network Operators

   Only a few public references describing the status of IPv6 in
   specific networks are available.  An example is the case of Reliance
   Jio, discussed at IETF 109 [RlncJ].  To understand the degree of
   adoption of IPv6 in the operators' domain, it is necessary to consult
   the data provided by those organizations that constantly track the
   usage of IPv6.  Among the others, we have the Internet Society that
   constantly monitors the volume of IPv6 traffic for the networks that
   joined the WorldIPv6Launch initiative [WIPv6L] and Akamai [Akm-stats]
   that collects statistics both at a country level and at the single
   operator's network measuring the number of hits to their content
   delivery platform.  In addition to them, the RIRs also provide
   detailed information about the prefixes allocated and the ASes
   associated to each operator.  Overall, the vast majority of the
   operators worldwide have enabled IPv6 and provide IPv6-based services
   even if the degree of adoption varies quite greatly based on local
   market demand, regulatory actions, and political decisions (e.g.




Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   [RIPE3] to look at the relative differences across the European
   market).

   As it was proposed at the time of [RFC6036], also in the case of this
   document a survey was submitted to a group of service providers in
   Europe (see Appendix A for the complete poll), to understand the
   details about their plans about IPv6 and their technical preferences
   towards its adoption.  Such poll does not pretend to give an
   exhaustive view on the IPv6 status, but to integrate the available
   data with some insights that may be relevant to the discussion.

   The poll reveals that the majority of the operators interviewed has
   plans concerning IPv6 (79%).  Of them, 60% already has ongoing
   activities, while 33% is expected to start activities in a 12-months
   time-frame.  The transition to IPv6 involves all business segments:
   mobile (63%), fixed (63%), and enterprises (50%).

   The reasons to move to IPv6 vary.  The majority of the operators that
   do have a plan for IPv6 perceives issues related to IPv4 depletion
   and prefer to avoid the use of private addressing schemes (48%) to
   save the NAT costs.  Global IPv4 address depletion and the run out of
   private address space recommended in [RFC1918] are reported as the
   important drivers for IPv6 deployment.  In some cases, the adoption
   of IPv6 is driven by innovation strategy (as the enabler of new
   services, 13%) or is introduced because of 5G/IoT, which play the
   role of business incentive to IPv6 (20%).  In a few cases,
   respondents highlight the availability of National Regulatory
   policies requiring to enable IPv6 together with the launch of 5G
   (13%).  Enterprise customers demand is also a reason to introduce
   IPv6 (13%).

   From a technical preference standpoint, Dual-Stack is the most
   adopted solution, both in wireline (59%) and in cellular networks
   (39%).  In wireline, the second most adopted mechanism is DS-Lite
   (19%), while in cellular networks the second preference goes to
   464XLAT (21%).

   In the majority of the cases, the interviewed operators do not see
   any need to transition their network as a whole.  They consider to
   touch or to replace only what it is needed.  CPE (47%), BNG (20%),
   CGN devices (33%), mobile core (27%) are the components that may be
   affected by transition or replacement.  It is interesting to see that
   most of the network operators have no big plans to transition the
   transport network (metro and backbone) soon, since they do not see
   business reasons.  It seems that there is no pressure to move to
   native IPv6-only forwarding in the short term, anyway the future
   benefit of IPv6 may justify the shift in the long term.




Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   More details about the answers received can be found in Appendix A.

3.3.  IPv6 among Enterprises

   As described in [RFC7381], enterprises face different challenges than
   operators.  Some publicly available statistics also show that the
   deployment of IPv6 lags behind other sectors.

   [NST_1] provides estimations on deployment status of IPv6 for more
   than 1000 second level domains such as example.com, example.net or
   example.org belonging to organizations in the United States.  The
   measurement encompasses many industries, including
   telecommunications.  So, the term "enterprises" is a bit loose to
   this extent.  In any case, it provides a first indication of IPv6
   adoption in several US industry sectors.  The analysis tries to infer
   whether IPv6 is supported by looking from "outside" a company's
   network.  It takes into consideration the support of IPv6 to external
   services such as Domain Name System (DNS), mail and website.
   Overall, for around 65% of the considered domains there is an active
   DNS Name Server (NS) record, but less than 20% have IPv6 support for
   their websites and less than 10% have IPv6-based mail services, as of
   January 2021.

   [BGR_1] have similar data for China.  The measurement considers 241
   second or third level domains such as example.com, example.cn or
   example.com.cn.  33% have IPv6 support for DNS, 2% are operationally
   ready to support mail services, 98% have IPv6-based websites.

   A poll submitted to a group of large enterprises in North America
   (see Appendix B) show that the operational issues are likely to be
   more critical than for operators.

   Looking at current implementations, almost one third has dual-stacked
   networks, while 20% declares that portions of their networks are
   IPv6-only. 35% of the enterprises are stuck at the training phase.
   In no cases the network is fully IPv6-based.

   Speaking of training, the most critical needs are in the field of
   IPv6 security and IPv6 troubleshooting (both highlighted by the two
   thirds of respondents), followed by IPv6 fundamentals (57.41%).

   Coming to implementation, the three areas of concern are IPv6
   security (31.48%), training (27.78%), application conversion
   (25.93%).  Interestingly, 33.33% of respondents think that all three
   areas are all simultaneously of concern.

   The full poll is reported in Appendix B.




Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


3.3.1.  Government, Campuses and Universities

   This section focuses specifically on governments and academia, due to
   the relevance of both domains in the process of IPv6 adoption.  The
   already mentioned organizations that estimates the IPv6 status
   provide a deep focus on IPv6 in the network domains associated with
   governmental and education-related agencies.

   As far as the US Governmental and Federal Agencies are concerned, the
   statistics [NST_2] show higher IPv6 adoption than the overall
   enterprise sector discussed in the previous section.  This is likely
   to be dependent on the support provided by [US-CIO].  Looking at the
   1250 measured second level domains (e.g. example.gov or example.fed
   domains) as of January 2021, more than 80% provide IPv6 support for
   DNS, around 40% have IPv6-enabled websites while only 15% have mail
   services over IPv6.  For China [BGR_2], 54 third level domains such
   as example.gov.cn domains are analyzed.  DNS is operational in 42% of
   the cases, mail services over IPv6 are not yet enabled while 98% of
   the government agencies have an IPv6 website enabled.

   For higher education, [NST_3] measures the data coming from 346
   second level domains such as example.edu, while [BGR_3] looks at 71
   domains such as example.edu.cn.  Starting with the former, slightly
   less than 50% .edu domains have IPv6 support for DNS, around 20% for
   mail services and slightly more than 15% have an IPv6 website.  In
   the case of China, 50% have DNS operational, 0% IPv6 support for mail
   services and 99% have an IPv6-enabled website.

3.4.  Observations on Industrial Internet

   There are potential advantages for implementing IPv6 for IIoT
   (Industrial Internet of Things) applications, in particular the large
   IPv6 address space, the automatic IPv6 configuration and resource
   discovery.

   However, there are still many obstacles that prevent its pervasive
   use.  The key problems identified are the incomplete or immature tool
   support, the dependency on manual configuration and the poor
   knowledge of the IPv6 protocols among insiders.  To advance and ease
   the use of IPv6 for smart manufacturing systems and IIoT applications
   in general, a generic approach to remove these pain points is
   therefore, highly desirable.

3.5.  Observations on Content and Cloud Service Providers

   Both the number of addresses required to connect all of the virtual
   and physical elements in a Data Center and the necessity to overcome




Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   the limitation posed by [RFC1918] have been the drivers to adopt IPv6
   in several CSP networks.

   Several public references, as reported in Section 7.1.4, discuss how
   most of the major players find themselves at different stages in the
   transition to IPv6-only in their Data Center (DC) infrastructure.  In
   some cases, the transition already happened and the DC infrastructure
   of these hyperscalers is completely based on IPv6.  This can be
   considered a good sign because the end-to-end connectivity between a
   client (e.g. an application on a smartphone) and a server (a Virtual
   Machine in a DC) may be based on IPv6.

3.6.  Application Transition

   The preliminary step to take full benefit of the IPv6 capabilities is
   to write or adapt the application software for use in IPv6 networks
   (see, as an example, [ARIN-SW]).

   It is worth mentioning Happy Eyeballs [RFC6555] and Happy Eyeballs 2
   [RFC8305] as a major aspect of application transition and porting to
   IPv6.  All host and network router OS's by default prefer IPv6 over
   IPv4.

   At the current stage, the full support of IPv6 is not yet complete
   [Wikipedia], as issues remains in particular for applications known
   not to work properly behind NAT64.

4.  Towards an IPv6 Overlay Service Design

   This section reports the most deployed approaches for the IPv6
   transition in MBB, FBB and enterprise.

   The consolidated strategy, as also described in
   [ETSI-IP6-WhitePaper], is based on two stages, namely: (1) IPv6
   introduction, and (2) IPv6-only.  The first stage aims at delivering
   the service in a controlled manner, where the traffic volume of
   IPv6-based services is minimal.  When the service conditions change,
   e.g.  when the traffic grows beyond a certain threshold, then the
   move to the second stage may occur.  In this latter case, the service
   is delivered solely on IPv6, including the traffic originated from
   IPv4-based nodes.  For this reason, the IPv6-only stage is also
   called IPv4aaS (IPv4 as a Service).

   The consolidated approach foresees to enable IPv6 in the network
   (sometimes referred to as the underlay) and move progressively to the
   service layer.  Recently, the attention has shifted to enabling IPv6
   at the service layer (the overlay) leaving the transition of the




Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   network to IPv6 at a later stage.  This relates to the increased
   adoption of the transition mechanisms described in this section.

4.1.  IPv6 introduction

   In order to enable the deployment of an IPv6 service over an underlay
   IPv4 architecture, there are two possible approaches:

   o  Enabling Dual-Stack [RFC4213] at the Customer Premises Equipment
      (CPE)

   o  IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling, e.g. with IPv6 Rapid Deployment (6rd) or
      Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE).

   Based on information provided by operators with the answers to the
   poll (Appendix A), Dual-Stack appears to be currently the most widely
   deployed IPv6 solution, for MBB, FBB and enterprises, accounting for
   about 50% of all IPv6 deployments (see both Appendix A and the
   statistics reported in [ETSI-IP6-WhitePaper]).  Therefore, for
   operators that are willing to introduce IPv6 the most common approach
   is to apply the Dual-Stack transition solution, which appears more
   robust, and easier to troubleshoot and support.

   With Dual-Stack, IPv6 can be introduced together with other network
   upgrades and many parts of network management and IT systems can
   still work in IPv4.  This avoids major upgrade of such systems to
   support IPv6, which is possibly the most difficult task in the IPv6
   transition.  In other words, the cost and effort on the network
   management and IT system upgrade are moderate.  The benefits are to
   start to accommodate future services and save the NAT costs.

   The CPE has both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses at the WAN side and uses an
   IPv6 connection to the operator gateway, e.g.  Broadband Network
   Gateway (BNG) or Packet Gateway (PGW) / User Plane Function (UPF).
   However, the hosts and content servers can still be IPv4 and/or IPv6.
   For example, NAT64 can enable IPv6-only hosts to access IPv4 servers.
   The backbone network underlay can also be IPv4 or IPv6.

   Although the Dual-Stack IPv6 transition is a good solution to be
   followed in the IPv6 introductory stage, it does have few
   disadvantages in the long run, like the duplication of the network
   resources and states, as well as other limitations for network
   operation.  It also means requiring more IPv4 addresses, so an
   increase in both Capital Expenses (CAPEX) and Operating Expenses
   (OPEX).  Even if private addresses are being used via Carrier-Grade
   NAT (CGN), there is extra investment in the CGN devices, logs storage
   and helpdesk to track CGN-related issues.




Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   For this reason, when IPv4 traffic is vanishingly small or when IPv6
   usage increases to more than a given percentage, which highly depends
   on each network, it could be advantageous to switch to the IPv6-only
   stage with IPv4aaS.  It is difficult to establish the criterion for
   switching (e.g. to properly identify the upper bound of the IPv4
   decrease or the lower bound of the IPv6 increase).  In addition to
   the technical factors, the switch to IPv6-only may also include a
   loss of customers.  Based on operational experience and some
   measurements of network operators participating in World IPv6 Launch
   [WIPv6L] where, at June 2021, out of 346 entries 108 exceed 50% of
   IPv6 traffic volume (31.2%), 72 overcome 60% (20.8%), while 37 go
   beyond 75% (10.7%), the consensus to move to IPv6-only is when IPv6
   traffic volume is between 50% and 60%.

4.2.  IPv6-only Service Delivery

   The second stage, named here IPv6-only (but including IPv4 support
   via IPv4aaS), can be a complex decision that depends on several
   factors, such as economic aspects, policy and government regulation.

   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison] discusses and compares the
   technical merits of the most common transition solutions for
   IPv6-only service delivery, 464XLAT [RFC6877], DS-lite [RFC6333],
   Lightweight 4over6 (lw4o6) [RFC7596], MAP-E [RFC7597], and MAP-T
   [RFC7599], but without providing an explicit recommendation.  As the
   poll highlights Appendix A, the most widely deployed IPv6 transition
   solution in the MBB domain is 464XLAT while in the FBB space is DS-
   Lite.

   Both of them are IPv6-only solutions, also referred as IPv4 as a
   Service.  IPv4aaS offers Dual-Stack service to users and allows an
   operator to run IPv6-only in the access network.  It needs to be
   observed that an increasing number of operators, also in the FBB
   area, tend to prefer 464XLAT over the other transition mechanisms,
   especially in the case of MBB/FBB convergence.

   For specific applications, even the full private address space
   [RFC1918], is not large enough.  This may be typical of large mobile
   operators or large DCs.  In such cases, Dual-Stack is not enough,
   because it still requires IPv4 addresses to be assigned.  Also, Dual-
   Stack will likely lead to duplication of network resources and
   operations to support both IPv6 and IPv4 and this increases the
   amount of state information in the network.  For this reason, in some
   scenarios (e.g.  MBB or DCs) IPv6-only stage could be more efficient
   from the start since the IPv6 introduction phase with Dual-Stack may
   consume more resources (for example CGN costs).





Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   It is worth mentioning that the IPv6-only transition technologies
   with IPv4aaS, such as 464XLAT, have a much lower need for IPv4 public
   addresses, because they make a more efficient usage without
   restricting the number of ports per subscriber, which reduces
   troubleshooting costs as well.  This may also be tied to the
   permanent black-listing of IPv4 address blocks when used via CGN in
   some services, such as Sony Play Station Network or OpenDNS, among
   others, which implies a higher rotation of IPv4 prefixes in CGN,
   until they get totally blocked.  IPv6-only with IPv4aaS, in many
   cases, could outweigh sooner than expected the advantages of Dual-
   Stack or IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling.  It can also be facilitated by the
   natural upgrade or replacement of CPEs because of newer technologies
   (tripe-play, higher bandwidth WAN links, better WiFi technologies,
   etc.) and, at the same time, the CAPEX and OPEX of other parts of the
   network will be lowered (for example CGN and associated logs), indeed
   the chance to reduce the usage of IPv4 addresses could also be turn
   into revenues by means of IPv4 transfers.

   So, in general, when the Dual-Stack disadvantages outweigh the
   IPv6-only complexity, it makes sense to apply the transition to
   IPv6-only.  Some network operators already started this process,
   while others are still waiting.

5.  IPv6-only Underlay Network Deployment

   IPv6-only alone can be misinterpreted as not supporting IPv4.  It can
   be referred to different portions of the network, to the underlay
   network, to the overlay network (services), as also mentioned in
   [I-D.palet-v6ops-ipv6-only].

   As opposed to the IPv6-only service delivery (with IPv4aaS) discussed
   in the previous sections, the IPv6-only network means that the whole
   network (both operator underlay transport and customer traffic
   overlay) uses IPv6 as the network protocol for all traffic delivery,
   but some operators may do IPv6-only at the access network only.  This
   can be accomplished on a case-by-case basis.

   As a matter of fact, IPv4 reachability must be provided for a long
   time to come over IPv6 for IPv6-only endpoints.  Most operators are
   leveraging CGN to extend the life of IPv4 instead of going with
   IPv4aaS.

   When operators (both enterprises and service providers) start to
   migrate from an IPv4 core, MPLS LDPv4 core, SR-MPLSv4 core to
   introduce IPv6 in the underlay, they do not necessarily need to dual
   stack the underlay to maintain both IPv4 and IPv6 address families in
   the transport layer.  Forwarding plane complexity on the Provider (P)
   core should be kept simple as a single protocol only core.



Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   As an example, operators when deciding to migrate to an IPv6
   underlay, the Provider (P) core should be IPv4-only or IPv6-only but
   never dual-stacked.  The underlay could be IPv6-only based on
   Softwire Mesh Framework [RFC5565] which allows IPv4 packets to be
   tunneled using VPN over an IPv6-only core and leveraging Advertising
   IPv4 Network Layer Routing Information (NLRI) with an IPv6 Next Hop
   [RFC8950].  Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP) Multiprotocol Extension for
   BGP [RFC4760] specifies that the set of usable next-hop address
   families is determined by the Address Family Identifier (AFI) and the
   Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI).  Historically the AFI/
   SAFI definitions for the IPv4 address family only have provisions for
   advertising a Next Hop address that belongs to the IPv4 protocol when
   advertising IPv4 or VPN-IPv4.  [RFC8950] specifies the extensions
   necessary to allow advertising IPv4 NLRI, Virtual Private Network
   Unicast (VPN-IPv4) NLRI, Multicast Virtual Private Network (MVPN-
   IPv4) NLRI with a Next Hop address that belongs to the IPv6 protocol.

   Regarding the IPv6 underlay network deployment for Access Network
   (AN) Metro Edge BNG to NG edge, the current trend is to keep MPLS
   Data Plane IPv4-only and run IPv4/IPv6 Dual Stack to the Access
   Network (AN) to Customer RG edge node.

   As operators do the transition in the future to IPv6 metro and
   backbone network, e.g.  Segment Routing over IPv6 data plane (SRv6),
   they are able to start the elimination of IPv4 from the underlay
   transport network while continuing to provide overlay IPv4 services.
   Basically, as also showed by the poll among network operators, from a
   network architecture perspective, it is not recommended to apply
   Dual-Stack to the transport network per reasons mentioned above about
   the forwarding plane complexities.

   Based on Softwire Mesh Framework [RFC5565] recommendation and
   understanding of what IPv6-only actually means from an underlay
   perspective, it is clear that the complete deployment of IPv6-only
   underlay network can be done immediately for green field deployments
   and maybe challenging for brownfield deployments.  However, if we
   consider IPv6-only to mean both operator underlay network and
   customer VPN traffic, that will take more time.  If we look at the
   long term evolution, IPv6 can bring other advantages like introducing
   advanced protocols developed only on IPv6.

   IPv6-only underlay transport using SRv6 can now also take advantage
   of QoS 6 bits of DSCP marking, 32 bits Class Selector (CS) with
   Assured Forwarding (AF) and Expedited Forwarding (EF) Per Hop Basis
   (PHB) QoS scheduling, and provide a finer grane SLA to customers when
   remarking traffic to Gold, Bronze, Silver class using traditional
   MPLS EXP bits.  IPv6-only underlay transport also requires Jumbo




Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   frames to be enabled to account for the extra 20 byte IPv6 header
   increase going from IPv4 to IPv6.

5.1.  IPv6-only Edge Peering

   As Enterprises and Service Providers upgrade their brown field or
   green field MPLS/SR core to an IPv6 transport, Multiprotocol BGP (MP-
   BGP) now plays an important role in the transition of their Provider
   (P) core network as well as Provider Edge (PE) Edge network from IPv4
   to IPv6.  Operators must be able to continue to support IPv4
   customers when both the Core and Edge networks are IPv6-only.

   The current specification for carrying IPv4 NLRI of a given address
   family via a Next Hop of a different address family is now defined in
   [RFC8950].  With these new extensions supporting NLRI and next hop
   address family mismatch, the BGP peer session can now be treated as a
   pure TCP transport and carry both IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI at the Provider
   Edge (PE) - Customer Edge (CE) over a single IPv6 TCP session.  This
   allows for the elimination of dual stack from the PE-CE peering
   point, and now enable the peering to be IPv6-only.  The elimination
   of IPv4 on the PE-CE peering points translates into OPEX expenditure
   savings of point-to-point infrastructure links as well as /31 address
   space savings.  The administration and network management of both
   IPv4 and IPv6 BGP peers can therefore be saved.  This reduction
   decreases the number of PE-CE BGP peers by fifty percent, which is a
   tremendous cost savings for operators.

   [I-D.ietf-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh] details an important
   External BGP (eBGP) PE-CE Edge IPv6-only peering design that
   leverages the MP-BGP capability exchange by using IPv6 peering as
   pure transport, allowing both IPv4 Network Layer Reachability
   Information (NLRI) and IPv6 Network Layer Reachability Information
   (NLRI)to be carried over the same (Border Gateway Protocol) BGP TCP
   session.  With this design change from a control plane perspective a
   single IPv6 is required for both IPv4 and IPv6 routing updates and
   from a data plane forwarding perspective an IPv6 address need only be
   configured on the PE and CE interface for both IPv4 and IPv6 packet
   forwarding.  This provides a much needed solution for Internet
   Exchange Point (IXP) that are facing IPv4 address depletion at large
   peering points.  With this design, IXP can now deploy PE-CE IPv6-only
   eBGP Edge peering design to eliminate IPv4 provisioning at the Edge.
   This core and edge IPv6-only peering design paradigm change can apply
   to any eBGP peering, public internet or private, which can be either
   Core networks, Data Center networks, Access networks or can be any
   eBGP peering scenario.
   [I-D.ietf-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh] also provides
   interoperability test cases for the IPv6-only peering design as well
   as test results between industry vendors.



Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   As this issue with IXP IPv4 address depletion is a critical issue
   around the world, it is imperative for an immediate solution that can
   be implemented quickly.  This Best Current Practice IPv6-only eBGP
   peering design specification will help proliferate IPv6-only
   deployments at the eBGP Edge network peering points to starting
   immediately at a minimum with operators around the world.  As vendors
   start to implement this Best Current Practice, the IXP IPv4 address
   depletion gap will eventually be eliminated.

6.  IPv6 Incentives

   It is possible to state that IPv6 adoption is no longer optional,
   indeed there are several incentives for the IPv6 deployment:

      Technical incentives: all Internet technical standard bodies and
      network equipment vendors have endorsed IPv6 and view it as the
      standards-based solution to the IPv4 address shortage.  The IETF,
      as well as other Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs), need
      to ensure that their standards do not assume IPv4.  The IAB
      expects that the IETF will stop requiring IPv4 compatibility in
      new or extended protocols.  Future IETF protocol work will then
      optimize for and depend on IPv6.  It is recommended by [RFC6540]
      that all networking standards assume the use of IPv6 and be
      written so they do not require IPv4.  In addition, every RIR
      worldwide strongly recommends immediate IPv6 adoption.

      Business incentives: with the emergence of new digital
      technologies, such as 5G, IoT and Cloud, new use cases have come
      into being and posed more new requirements for IPv6 deployment.
      Over time, numerous technical and economic stop-gap measures have
      been developed in an attempt to extend the lifetime of IPv4, but
      all of these measures add cost and complexity to network
      infrastructure and raise significant barriers to innovation.  It
      is widely recognized that full transition to IPv6 is the only
      viable option to ensure future growth and innovation in Internet
      technology and services.  Several large networks and Data Centers
      have already evolved their internal infrastructures to be
      IPv6-only.  Forward looking large corporations are also working
      toward the transition of their enterprise networks to IPv6-only
      environments.

      Governments incentives: governments have a huge responsibility in
      promoting IPv6 deployment within their countries.  There are
      example of governments already adopting policies to encourage IPv6
      utilization or enforce increased security on IPv4.  So, even
      without funding the IPv6 transition, governments can recommend to
      add IPv6 compatibility for every connectivity, service or products
      bid.  This will encourage the network operators and vendors who do



Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


      not want to miss out on government related bids to evolve their
      infrastructures to be IPv6 capable.  Any public incentives for
      technical evolution will be bonded to IPv6 capabilities of the
      technology itself.  In this regard, in the United States, the
      Office of Management and Budget is calling for an implementation
      plan to have 80% of the IP-enabled resources on Federal networks
      be IPv6-only by 2025.  If resources cannot be converted, then the
      Federal agency is required to have a plan to retire them.  The
      Call for Comment is at [US-FR] and [US-CIO].  In China, the
      government launched IPv6 action plan in 2017, which requires that
      networks, applications and terminal devices will fully support the
      adoption of IPv6 by the end of 2025 [CN].

7.  Common IPv6 Challenges

   There are some areas of improvement, that are often mentioned in the
   literature and during the discussions on IPv6 deployment.  This
   section highlights these common IPv6 challenges in order to encourage
   more investigations on these aspects.

7.1.  Transition Choices

   From an architectural perspective, a service provider or an
   enterprise may perceive quite a complex task the transition to IPv6,
   due to the many technical alternatives available and the changes
   required in management and operations.  Moreover, the choice of the
   method to support the transition may depend on factors specific to
   the operator's or the enterprise's context, such as the IPv6 network
   design that fits the service requirements, the deployment strategy,
   and the service and network operations.

   This section briefly highlights the approaches that service providers
   and enterprises may take and the related challenges.

7.1.1.  Service Providers

   For fixed operators, the massive CPE software upgrade to support
   Dual-Stack already started in most of service provider networks.  On
   average, looking at the global statistics, the IPv6 traffic
   percentage is currently between 30% and 40% of IPv6.  As highlighted
   earlier, all major content providers have already implemented Dual-
   Stack access to their services and most of them have implemented
   IPv6-only in their Data Centers.  This aspect could affect the
   decision on the IPv6 adoption for an operator, but there are also
   other aspects like the current IPv4 addressing status, CPE costs, CGN
   costs and so on.





Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


      Fixed Operators with a Dual-Stack architecture, can start defining
      and apply a new strategy when reaching the limit in terms of
      number of IPv4 addresses available.  This can be done through CGN
      or with an IPv6-only approach (IPv4aaS).

      On the one hand, most of the fixed operators remain attached to a
      Dual-Stack architecture and have already employed CGN.  In this
      case it is likely that CGN boosts their ability to supply CPE IPv4
      connectivity for more years to come.  On the other hand, only few
      fixed operators have chosen to move to IPv6-only.

   For mobile operators, the situation is quite different since, in some
   cases, mobile operators are already stretching their IPv4 address
   space since CGN translation levels have been reached and no more IPv4
   public pool addresses are available.

      Some mobile operators choose to implement Dual-Stack as first and
      immediate mitigation solution.

      Other mobile operators prefer to move to IPv6-only solution (e.g.
      464XLAT) since Dual-Stack only mitigates and does not solve
      completely the IPv4 address scarcity issue.

   For both fixed and mobile operators the approach for the transition
   is not unique and this bring different challenges in relation to the
   network architecture and related costs.  So each operator needs to do
   own evaluations for the transition based on the specific situation.

7.1.2.  Enterprises

   At present, the key driver for enterprises relies on upstream service
   providers.  If they run out of IPv4 addresses, it is likely that they
   start providing native IPv6 and non-native IPv4.  So for other
   networks trying to reach enterprise networks, the IPv6 experience
   could be better than the transitional IPv4 if the enterprise deploys
   IPv6 in its public-facing services.  IPv6 also shows its advantages
   in the case of acquisition, indeed when an enterprise merges two
   networks which use IPv4 private addresses, the address space of the
   two networks may overlap and this makes the merge difficult.
   Enterprises providing consulting service to the Federal Government
   due to Government mandate for IPv6, are also required to support in
   some cases IPv6 internally to show their technical expertise in the
   IPv6 arena

   Enterprises ares shielded from IPv4 address depletion issues due to
   Enterprises predominantly using Proxy and Non internet routable
   private [RFC1918], thus do not have the business requirement or
   technical justification to migrate to IPv6.



Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   Enterprises worldwide are quite late to adopt IPv6, especially on
   internal networks.  In most cases, the enterprise engineers and
   technicians don't know well how IPv6 works and the problem of
   application porting to IPv6 looks quite difficult, even if
   technically is not a big issue.  As highlighted in the relevant poll,
   the technicians may want to get trained but the management do not see
   a business need for adoption.  This creates an unfortunate cycle
   where misinformation about the complexity of the IPv6 protocol and
   unreasonable fears about security and manageability combine with the
   perceived lack of urgent business needs to prevent adoption of IPv6.
   In 2019 and 2020, there has been a concerted effort by some grass
   roots non-profits working with ARIN and APNIC to provide training
   [ARIN-CG] [ISIF-ASIA-G].

   For enterprises, the challenge is that of "First Mover Disadvantage".
   Compared to network operators that may feel the need of a network
   evolution towards IPv6, enterprises typically upgrade to new
   technologies and architectures, such as IPv6, only if it gains them
   revenue, and this is evident, at least in the short term.

7.1.3.  Industrial Internet

   As the most promising protocol for network applications, IPv6 is
   frequently mentioned in relation to Internet of Things and Industry
   4.0.  However, its industrial adoption, in particular in smart
   manufacturing systems, has been much slower than expected.  Indeed,
   as for enterprises, it is important to provide an easy way to
   familiarize system architects and software developers with the IPv6
   protocol.

   It is possible to differentiate types of data and access to
   understand how and where the IPv6 transition can happen.  For IIoT
   applications, it would be desirable to be able to implement a truly
   distributed system without dependencies to central components.  In
   this regard the distributed IIoT applications can leverage the
   configuration-less characteristic of IPv6.  In addition, it could be
   interesting to have the ability to use IP based communication and
   standard application protocols at every point in the production
   process and further reduce the use of specialized communication
   systems.

7.1.4.  Cloud and Data Centers

   Most CSPs have adopted IPv6 in their internal infrastructure but are
   also active in gathering IPv4 addresses on the transfer market to
   serve the current business needs of IPv4 connectivity.  As noted in
   the previous section, most enterprises do not consider the transition
   to IPv6 as a priority.  To this extent, the use of IPv4-based network



Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   services by the CSPs will last.  Yet, CSPs are struggling to buy IPv4
   addresses.

   It is interesting to look at how much traffic in a network is going
   to Caches and Content Delivery Networks (CDNs).  The response is
   expected to be an high percentage, at least higher than 50% in most
   of the cases.  Since all the key Caches and CDNs are IPv6-ready
   [Cldflr], [Akm], [Ggl], [Ntflx], [Amzn], [Mcrsft], [Vrzn].  So the
   percentage of traffic going to the key Caches/CDNs is a good
   approximation of the potential IPv6 traffic in a network.

   The challenge for CSPs is related to the support of non-native IPv4
   since most CSPs provide native IPv6.  If, in the next years, the
   scarcity of IPv4 addresses becomes more evident, it is likely that
   the cost of buying an IPv4 address by a CSP could be charged to their
   customers.

7.1.5.  CPEs and user devices

   It can be noted that most of the user devices (e.g. smartphones) are
   already IPv6-enabled since so many years.  But there are exceptions,
   for example, smartTVs and Set-Top Box (STBs) typically had IPv6
   support since few years ago, however not all the economies replace
   them at the same pace.

   As already mentioned, ISPs who historically provided public IPv4
   addresses to their customers generally still have those IPv4
   addresses (unless they chose to transfer them).  Some have chosen to
   put new customers on CGN but without touching existing customers.
   Because of the extremely small number of customers who notice that
   IPv4 is done via NAT444, it could be less likely to run out of IPv4
   addresses and private IPv4 space.  But as IPv4-only devices and
   traffic reduce, then the need to support private and public IPv4
   become less.  So the complete CPE support to IPv6 is also an
   important challenge and incentive to overcome Dual-Stack towards
   IPv6-only with IPv4aaS [ANSI].

7.2.  Government and Regulators

   The global picture shows that the deployment of IPv6 worldwide is not
   uniform at all [G_stats], [APNIC1].  Countries where either market
   conditions or local regulators have stimulated the adoption of IPv6
   show clear sign of growth.

   As an example, zooming into the European Union area, countries such
   as Belgium, France and Germany are well ahead in terms of IPv6
   adoption.  The French National Regulator, Arcep, can be considered a
   good reference of National support to IPv6.  [ARCEP] introduced an



Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   obligation for the operators awarded with a license to use 5G
   frequencies (3.4-3.8GHz) in Metropolitan France to be IPv6
   compatible.  As stated, "the goal is to ensure that services are
   interoperable and to remove obstacles to using services that are only
   available in IPv6, as the number of devices in use continues to soar,
   and because the RIPE NCC has run out of IPv4 addresses".  A slow
   adoption of IPv6 could prevent new Internet services to widespread or
   create a barrier to entry for newcomers to the market. "IPv6 can help
   to increase competition in the telecom industry, and help to
   industrialize a country for specific vertical sectors".

   A renewed industrial policy might be advocated in other countries and
   regions to stimulate IPv6 adoption.  As an example, in the United
   States, the Office of Management and Budget is also calling for IPv6
   adoption [US-FR], [US-CIO].  China is another example of govern
   supporting a country-wide adoption.

7.3.  Network Operations

   An important factor is represented by the need for training the
   network operations workforce.  Deploying IPv6 requires it as policies
   and procedures have to be adjusted in order to successfully plan and
   complete an IPv6 transition.  Staff has to be aware of the best
   practices for managing IPv4 and IPv6 assets.  In addition to network
   nodes, network management applications and equipment need to be
   properly configured and in some cases also replaced.  This may
   introduce more complexity and costs for the transition.

7.4.  Performance

   People tend to compare the performance of IPv6 versus IPv4 to argue
   or motivate the IPv6 transition.  In some cases, IPv6 behaving
   "worse" than IPv4 tends to re-enforce the justification of not moving
   towards the full adoption of IPv6.  This position is supported when
   looking at available analytics on two critical parameters: packet
   loss and latency.  These parameters have been constantly monitored
   over time, but only a few extensive researches and measurement
   campaigns are currently providing up-to-date information.  For this
   reason this is an important issue to consider and further
   investigate.

7.4.1.  IPv6 packet loss and latency

   [APNIC5] provides the failure rate of IPv6.  Two reports, namely
   [RIPE1] and [APRICOT], discussed the associated trend, showing how
   the average worldwide failure rate of IPv6 worsened from around 1.5%
   in 2016 to a value exceeding 2% in 2020.  Reasons for this effect may
   be found in endpoints with an unreachable IPv6 address, routing



Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   instability or firewall behaviour.  Yet, this worsening effect may
   appear as disturbing for a plain transition to IPv6.

   [APNIC5] also compares the latency of both address families.
   Currently, the worldwide average is still in favor of IPv4.  Zooming
   at the country or even at the operator level, it is possible to get
   more detailed information and appreciate that cases exist where IPv6
   is faster than IPv4.  [APRICOT] highlights how when a difference in
   performance exists it is often related to asymmetric routing issues.
   Other possible explanations for a relative latency difference lays on
   the specificity of the IPv6 header which allows packet fragmentation.
   In turn, this means that hardware needs to spend cycles to analyze
   all of the header sections and when it is not capable of handling one
   of them it drops the packet.  Even considering this, a difference in
   latency stands and sometimes it is perceived as a limiting factor for
   IPv6.  A few measurement campaigns on the behavior of IPv6 in CDNs
   are also available [MAPRG-IETF99], [INFOCOM].  The TCP connect time
   is still higher for IPv6 in both cases, even if the gap has reduced
   over the analysis time window.

7.4.2.  Customer Experience

   It is also not totally clear if the Customer Experience is in some
   way perceived if it is used IPv6-only compared to IPv4.  In some
   cases it has been publicly reported by IPv6 content providers, that
   users have a better experience when using IPv6-only compared to IPv4
   [ISOC2].  This could be explained because in the case of IPv6 users,
   reaching IPv6-only Data Centers, IPv6 is end-to-end, without
   translations.  Instead, when using IPv4 there is a NAT translation in
   the CPE, maybe one more in the ISP CGN and then, the translation from
   IPv4 to IPv6 (and back to IPv4) in the IPv6-only content provider
   Data Center.

7.5.  IPv6 security

   Another point that is sometimes considered as a challenge when
   discussing the transition to IPv6 is related to the Security.
   [I-D.ietf-opsec-v6] analyzes the operational security issues in
   several places of a network (enterprises, service providers and
   residential users).  It is also worth considering the additional
   security issues brought into existence by the applied IPv6 transition
   technologies used to implement IPv4aaS, e.g. 464XLAT, DS-Lite.  Some
   hints are in the paper [ComputSecur].

   The security aspects have to be considered to keep the same level of
   security as it exists nowadays in an IPv4-only network environment.
   The autoconfiguration features of IPv6 will require some more
   attention.  Router discovery and address autoconfiguration may



Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   produce unexpected results and security holes.  The IPsec protocol
   implementation has initially been set as mandatory in every node of
   the network, but then relaxed to recommendation due to extremely
   constrained hardware deployed in some devices e.g., sensors, Internet
   of Things (IoT).

   There are some concerns in terms of the security but, on the other
   hand, IPv6 offers increased efficiency.  There are measurable
   benefits to IPv6 to notice, like more transparency, improved
   mobility, and also end to end security (if implemented).

   As reported in [ISOC3], comparing IPv6 and IPv4 at the protocol
   level, one may probably conclude that the increased complexity of
   IPv6 results in an increased number of attack vectors, that imply
   more possible ways to perform different types attacks.  However, a
   more interesting and practical question is how IPv6 deployments
   compare to IPv4 deployments in terms of security.  In that sense,
   there are a number of aspects to consider.

   Most security vulnerabilities related to network protocols are based
   on implementation flaws.  Typically, security researchers find
   vulnerabilities in protocol implementations, which eventually are
   "patched" to mitigate such vulnerabilities.  Over time, this process
   of finding and patching vulnerabilities results in more robust
   implementations.  For obvious reasons, the IPv4 protocols have
   benefited from the work of security researchers for much longer, and
   thus, IPv4 implementations are generally more robust than IPv6.
   However, this is turning also in the other way around, as with more
   IPv6 deployment there may be older IPv4 flaws not discovered or even
   not resolved anymore by vendors.

   Besides the intrinsic properties of the protocols, the security level
   of the resulting deployments is closely related to the level of
   expertise of network and security engineers.  In that sense, there is
   obviously much more experience and confidence with deploying and
   operating IPv4 networks than with deploying and operating IPv6
   networks.

   Finally, implementation of IPv6 security controls obviously depends
   on the availability of features in security devices and tools.
   Whilst there have been improvements in this area, there is a lack of
   parity in terms of features and/or performance when considering IPv4
   and IPv6 support in security devices and tools.








Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


7.5.1.  Protocols security issues

   It is important to say that IPv6 is not more or less secure than IPv4
   and the knowledge of the protocol is the best security measure.

   In general there are security concerns related to IPv6 that can be
   classified as follows:

   o  Basic IPv6 protocol (Basic header, Extension Headers, Addressing)

   o  IPv6 associated protocols (ICMPv6, NDP, MLD, DNS, DHCPv6)

   o  Internet-wide IPv6 security (Filtering, DDoS, Transition
      Mechanisms)

   ICMPv6 is an integral part of IPv6 and performs error reporting and
   diagnostic functions.  Since it is used in many IPv6 related
   protocols, ICMPv6 packet with multicast address should be filtered
   carefully to avoid attacks.  Neighbor Discovery Protocol (NDP) is a
   node discovery protocol in IPv6 which replaces and enhances functions
   of ARP.  Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) is used by IPv6 routers
   for discovering multicast listeners on a directly attached link, much
   like Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) is used in IPv4.

   These IPv6 associated protocols like ICMPv6, NDP and MLD are
   something new compared to IPv4, so they add new security threats and
   the related solutions are still under discussion today.  NDP has
   vulnerabilities [RFC3756] [RFC6583].  The specification says to use
   IPsec but it is impractical and not used, on the other hand, SEND
   (SEcure Neighbour Discovery) [RFC3971] is not widely available.

   [RIPE2] describes the most important threats and solutions regarding
   IPv6 security.

7.5.2.  IPv6 Extension Headers and Fragmentation

   IPv6 Extension Headers imply some issues, in particular their
   flexibility also means an increased complexity, indeed security
   devices and software must process the full chain of headers while
   firewalls must be able to filter based on Extension Headers.
   Additionally, packets with IPv6 Extension Headers may be dropped in
   the public Internet.  Some documents, e.g.
   [I-D.hinden-6man-hbh-processing], [I-D.bonica-6man-ext-hdr-update],
   [I-D.peng-v6ops-hbh] analyze and provide guidance regarding the
   processing procedures of IPv6 Extension Headers.

   There are some possible attacks through EHs, for example RH0 can be
   used for traffic amplification over a remote path and it is



Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   deprecated.  Other attacks based on Extension Headers are based on
   IPv6 Header Chains and Fragmentation that could be used to bypass
   filtering, but to mitigate this effect, Header chain should go only
   in the first fragment and the use of the IPv6 Fragmentation Header is
   forbidden in all Neighbor Discovery messages.

   Fragment Header is used by IPv6 source node to send a packet bigger
   than path MTU and the Destination host processes fragment headers.
   There are several threats related to fragmentation to pay attention
   to e.g. overlapping fragments (not allowed) resource consumption
   while waiting for last fragment (to discard), atomic fragments (to be
   isolated).

   A lot of additional functionality has been added to IPv6 primarily by
   adding Extension Headers and/or using overlay encapsulation.  All of
   the these expand the packet size and this could lead to oversized
   packets that would be dropped on some links.  It is important to
   investigate the potential problems with oversized packets in the
   first place.  Fragmentation must not be done in transit and a better
   solution needs to be found, e.g. upgrade all links to bigger MTU or
   follow specific recommendations at the source node.
   [I-D.vasilenko-v6ops-ipv6-oversized-analysis] analyzes available
   standards for the resolution of oversized packet drops.

8.  Security Considerations

   This document has no impact on the security properties of specific
   IPv6 protocols or transition tools.  The security considerations
   relating to the protocols and transition tools are described in the
   relevant documents.

9.  Contributors

   Sebastien Lourdez
   Post Luxembourg
   Email: sebastien.lourdez@post.lu

10.  Acknowledgements

   The authors of this document would like to thank Brian Carpenter,
   Fred Baker, Jordi Palet Martinez, Alexandre Petrescu, Barbara Stark,
   Haisheng Yu(Johnson), Dhruv Dhody, Gabor Lencse, Shuping Peng, Eduard
   Vasilenko and Xipeng Xiao for their comments and review of this
   document.







Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


11.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-opsec-v6]
              Vyncke, E., Kk, C., Kaeo, M., and E. Rey, "Operational
              Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks", draft-ietf-
              opsec-v6-27 (work in progress), May 2021.

   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison]
              Lencse, G., Martinez, J. P., Howard, L., Patterson, R.,
              and I. Farrer, "Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition
              Technologies for IPv4aaS", draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-
              comparison-00 (work in progress), April 2021.

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
              and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
              BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.

   [RFC3756]  Nikander, P., Ed., Kempf, J., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6
              Neighbor Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats",
              RFC 3756, DOI 10.17487/RFC3756, May 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3756>.

   [RFC3971]  Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
              "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3971>.

   [RFC4213]  Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
              for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4213, October 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4213>.

   [RFC4760]  Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
              "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.

   [RFC5565]  Wu, J., Cui, Y., Metz, C., and E. Rosen, "Softwire Mesh
              Framework", RFC 5565, DOI 10.17487/RFC5565, June 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5565>.




Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   [RFC6036]  Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Emerging Service Provider
              Scenarios for IPv6 Deployment", RFC 6036,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6036, October 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6036>.

   [RFC6180]  Arkko, J. and F. Baker, "Guidelines for Using IPv6
              Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment", RFC 6180,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6180, May 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6180>.

   [RFC6333]  Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
              Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
              Exhaustion", RFC 6333, DOI 10.17487/RFC6333, August 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6333>.

   [RFC6540]  George, W., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., and L. Howard,
              "IPv6 Support Required for All IP-Capable Nodes", BCP 177,
              RFC 6540, DOI 10.17487/RFC6540, April 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6540>.

   [RFC6583]  Gashinsky, I., Jaeggli, J., and W. Kumari, "Operational
              Neighbor Discovery Problems", RFC 6583,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6583, March 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6583>.

   [RFC6877]  Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
              Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
              RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>.

   [RFC6883]  Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "IPv6 Guidance for Internet
              Content Providers and Application Service Providers",
              RFC 6883, DOI 10.17487/RFC6883, March 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6883>.

   [RFC7381]  Chittimaneni, K., Chown, T., Howard, L., Kuarsingh, V.,
              Pouffary, Y., and E. Vyncke, "Enterprise IPv6 Deployment
              Guidelines", RFC 7381, DOI 10.17487/RFC7381, October 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7381>.

   [RFC7596]  Cui, Y., Sun, Q., Boucadair, M., Tsou, T., Lee, Y., and I.
              Farrer, "Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the Dual-
              Stack Lite Architecture", RFC 7596, DOI 10.17487/RFC7596,
              July 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7596>.







Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   [RFC7597]  Troan, O., Ed., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S.,
              Murakami, T., and T. Taylor, Ed., "Mapping of Address and
              Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)", RFC 7597,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7597, July 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7597>.

   [RFC7599]  Li, X., Bao, C., Dec, W., Ed., Troan, O., Matsushima, S.,
              and T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port using
              Translation (MAP-T)", RFC 7599, DOI 10.17487/RFC7599, July
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7599>.

   [RFC8950]  Litkowski, S., Agrawal, S., Ananthamurthy, K., and K.
              Patel, "Advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability
              Information (NLRI) with an IPv6 Next Hop", RFC 8950,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8950, November 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8950>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [Akm]      Akamai, "IPv6 Adaptation",
              <https://www.akamai.com/us/en/multimedia/documents/
              product-brief/ipv6-adaptation-product-brief.pdf>.

   [Akm-stats]
              Akamai, "IPv6 Adoption Visualization", 2021,
              <https://www.akamai.com/uk/en/resources/our-thinking/
              state-of-the-internet-report/state-of-the-internet-ipv6-
              adoption-visualization.jsp>.

   [Alx]      Alexa, "The top 500 sites on the web", 2021,
              <https://www.alexa.com/topsites>.

   [Amzn]     Amazon, "Announcing Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
              support for Amazon CloudFront, AWS WAF, and Amazon S3
              Transfer Acceleration", <https://aws.amazon.com/es/about-
              aws/whats-new/2016/10/ipv6-support-for-cloudfront-waf-and-
              s3-transfer-acceleration/>.

   [ANSI]     ANSI/CTA, "ANSI/CTA Standard Host and Router Profiles for
              IPv6", 2020, <https://shop.cta.tech/products/host-and-
              router-profiles-for-ipv6>.

   [APNIC1]   APNIC, "IPv6 Capable Rate by country (%)", 2020,
              <https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6>.

   [APNIC2]   APNIC2, "Addressing 2020", 2021,
              <https://labs.apnic.net/?p=1400>.




Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 31]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   [APNIC3]   APNIC, "BGP in 2019 - The BGP Table", 2020,
              <https://blog.apnic.net/2020/01/14/bgp-in-2019-the-bgp-
              table/>.

   [APNIC4]   APNIC, "IPv6 in 2020", 2021,
              <https://blog.apnic.net/2021/02/08/ipv6-in-2020/>.

   [APNIC5]   APNIC, "Average RTT Difference (ms) (V6 - V4) for World
              (XA)", 2020, <https://stats.labs.apnic.net/v6perf/XA>.

   [APRICOT]  Huston, G., "Average RTT Difference (ms) (V6 - V4) for
              World (XA)", 2020,
              <https://2020.apricot.net/assets/files/APAE432/ipv6-
              performance-measurement.pdf>.

   [ARCEP]    ARCEP, "Arcep Decision no 2019-1386, Decision on the terms
              and conditions for awarding licences to use frequencies in
              the 3.4-3.8GHz band", 2019,
              <https://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gsavis/19-1386.pdf>.

   [ARIN-CG]  ARIN, "Community Grant Program: IPv6 Security,
              Applications, and Training for Enterprises", 2020,
              <https://www.arin.net/about/community_grants/recipients/>.

   [ARIN-SW]  ARIN, "Preparing Applications for IPv6",
              <https://www.arin.net/resources/guide/ipv6/
              preparing_apps_for_v6.pdf>.

   [BGR_1]    BIIGROUP, "China Commercial IPv6 and DNSSEC Deployment
              Monitor", 2021,
              <http://218.2.231.237:5001/cgi-bin/generate>.

   [BGR_2]    BIIGROUP, "China Government IPv6 and DNSSEC Deployment
              Monitor", 2021,
              <http://218.2.231.237:5001/cgi-bin/generate_gov>.

   [BGR_3]    BIIGROUP, "China Education IPv6 and DNSSEC Deployment
              Monitor", 2021,
              <http://218.2.231.237:5001/cgi-bin/generate_edu>.

   [CAIDA]    APNIC, "Client-Side IPv6 Measurement", 2020,
              <https://www.cmand.org/workshops/202006-v6/
              slides/2020-06-16-client-side.pdf>.








Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 32]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   [CAIR]     Cisco, "Cisco Annual Internet Report (2018-2023) White
              Paper", 2020,
              <https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/
              executive-perspectives/annual-internet-report/white-paper-
              c11-741490.html>.

   [Cldflr]   Cloudflare, "Understanding and configuring Cloudflare's
              IPv6 support", <https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/
              articles/229666767-Understanding-and-configuring-
              Cloudflare-s-IPv6-support>.

   [CN]       China.org.cn, "China to speed up IPv6-based Internet
              development", 2017, <http://www.china.org.cn/
              business/2017-11/27/content_41948814.htm>.

   [ComputSecur]
              Computers & Security (Elsevier), "Methodology for the
              identification of potential security issues of different
              IPv6 transition technologies: Threat analysis of DNS64 and
              stateful NAT64", DOI 10.1016/j.cose.2018.04.012, 2018.

   [Csc6lab]  Cisco, "World - Display Content Data", 2021,
              <https://6lab.cisco.com/index.php>.

   [ETSI-IP6-WhitePaper]
              ETSI, "ETSI White Paper No. 35: IPv6 Best Practices,
              Benefits, Transition Challenges and the Way Forward",
              ISBN 979-10-92620-31-1, 2020.

   [G_stats]  Google, "Google IPv6 Per-Country IPv6 adoption", 2021,
              <https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/
              statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption>.

   [Ggl]      Google, "Introduction to GGC",
              <https://support.google.com/interconnect/
              answer/9058809?hl=en>.

   [HxBld]    HexaBuild, "IPv6 Adoption Report 2020", 2020,
              <https://hexabuild.io/assets/files/HexaBuild-IPv6-
              Adoption-Report-2020.pdf>.

   [I-D.bonica-6man-ext-hdr-update]
              Bonica, R. and T. Jinmei, "Inserting, Processing And
              Deleting IPv6 Extension Headers", draft-bonica-6man-ext-
              hdr-update-05 (work in progress), March 2021.






Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 33]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   [I-D.hinden-6man-hbh-processing]
              Hinden, R. M. and G. Fairhurst, "IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options
              Processing Procedures", draft-hinden-6man-hbh-
              processing-00 (work in progress), December 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh]
              Mishra, G., Mishra, M., Tantsura, J., Madhavi, S., Yang,
              Q., Simpson, A., and S. Chen, "Deployment Guidelines for
              Edge Peering IPv4-NLRI with IPv6-NH", draft-ietf-bess-
              deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-01 (work in progress),
              June 2021.

   [I-D.palet-v6ops-ipv6-only]
              Martinez, J. P., "IPv6-only Terminology Definition",
              draft-palet-v6ops-ipv6-only-05 (work in progress), March
              2020.

   [I-D.peng-v6ops-hbh]
              Peng, S., Li, Z., Xie, C., Qin, Z., and G. Mishra,
              "Processing of the Hop-by-Hop Options Header", draft-peng-
              v6ops-hbh-03 (work in progress), January 2021.

   [I-D.vasilenko-v6ops-ipv6-oversized-analysis]
              Vasilenko, E., Xipeng, X., and D. Khaustov, "IPv6
              Oversized Packets Analysis", draft-vasilenko-v6ops-ipv6-
              oversized-analysis-00 (work in progress), March 2021.

   [IAB]      IAB, "IAB Statement on IPv6", 2016,
              <https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6/>.

   [IGP-GT]   Internet Governance Project, Georgia Tech, "The hidden
              standards war: economic factors affecting IPv6
              deployment", 2019, <https://via.hypothes.is/
              https://www.internetgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/
              IPv6-Migration-Study-final-report.pdf>.

   [INFOCOM]  Doan, T., "A Longitudinal View of Netflix: Content
              Delivery over IPv6 and Content Cache Deployments", 2020,
              <https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1109/
              INFOCOM41043.2020.9155367>.

   [ISIF-ASIA-G]
              ISIF Asia, "Internet Operations Research Grant: IPv6
              Deployment at Enterprises. IIESoc. India", 2020,
              <https://isif.asia/2020-grantees/>.






Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 34]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   [ISOC1]    Internet Society, "State of IPv6 Deployment 2018", 2018,
              <https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/2018/state-of-
              ipv6-deployment-2018/>.

   [ISOC2]    Internet Society, "Facebook News Feeds Load 20-40% Faster
              Over IPv6", 2015,
              <https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2015/04/facebook-
              news-feeds-load-20-40-faster-over-ipv6/>.

   [ISOC3]    Internet Society, "IPv6 Security FAQ", 2019,
              <https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-
              content/uploads/2019/02/Deploy360-IPv6-Security-FAQ.pdf>.

   [MAPRG-IETF99]
              Bajpai, V., "Measuring YouTube Content Delivery over
              IPv6", 2017, <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/slides/
              slides-99-maprg-measuring-youtube-content-delivery-over-
              ipv6-00.pdf>.

   [Mcrsft]   Microsoft, "IPv6 for Azure VMs available in most regions",
              <https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/updates/ipv6-for-azure-
              vms/>.

   [NRO]      AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, RIPE NCC, "Internet Number
              Resource Status Report", 2021, <https://www.nro.net/wp-
              content/uploads/NRO-Statistics-2021-Q1-FINAL.pdf>.

   [NST_1]    NIST, "Estimating Industry IPv6 and DNSSEC External
              Service Deployment Status", 2021, <https://fedv6-
              deployment.antd.nist.gov/cgi-bin/generate-com>.

   [NST_2]    NIST, "Estimating USG IPv6 and DNSSEC External Service
              Deployment Status", 2021, <https://fedv6-
              deployment.antd.nist.gov/cgi-bin/generate-gov>.

   [NST_3]    NIST, "Estimating University IPv6 and DNSSEC External
              Service Deployment Status", 2021, <https://fedv6-
              deployment.antd.nist.gov/cgi-bin/generate-edu>.

   [Ntflx]    Netflix, "Enabling Support for IPv6",
              <https://netflixtechblog.com/enabling-support-for-
              ipv6-48a495d5196f>.

   [POTAROO1]
              POTAROO, "Addressing 2020", 2020,
              <https://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2021-01/addr2020.html>.





Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 35]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   [POTAROO2]
              POTAROO, "IPv6 Resource Distribution Reports", 2021,
              <https://resources.potaroo.net/iso3166/archive/>.

   [RFC6555]  Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with
              Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, DOI 10.17487/RFC6555, April
              2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6555>.

   [RFC8305]  Schinazi, D. and T. Pauly, "Happy Eyeballs Version 2:
              Better Connectivity Using Concurrency", RFC 8305,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8305, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8305>.

   [RIPE1]    Huston, G., "Measuring IPv6 Performance", 2016,
              <https://ripe73.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/
              presentations/35-2016-10-24-v6-performance.pdf>.

   [RIPE2]    RIPE, "IPv6 Security", 2019,
              <https://www.ripe.net/support/training/material/ipv6-
              security/ipv6security-slides.pdf>.

   [RIPE3]    RIPE, "IPv6", 2021,
              <https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/roundtable/26-
              january-2021/ipv6_roundtable_-jan-2021.pdf>.

   [RlncJ]    Reliance Jio, "IPv6-only adoption challenges and
              standardization requirements", 2020,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/
              slides-109-v6ops-ipv6-only-adoption-challenges-and-
              standardization-requirements-03>.

   [SNDVN]    SANDVINE, "Sandvine releases 2020 Mobile Internet
              Phenomena Report: YouTube is over 25% of all mobile
              traffic", 2020, <https://www.sandvine.com/press-releases/
              sandvine-releases-2020-mobile-internet-phenomena-report-
              youtube-is-over-25-of-all-mobile-traffic>.

   [US-CIO]   The CIO Council, "Memorandum for Heads of Executive
              Departments and Agencies. Completing the Transition to
              Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)", 2020,
              <https://www.cio.gov/assets/resources/internet-protocol-
              version6-draft.pdf>.









Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 36]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   [US-FR]    Federal Register, "Request for Comments on Updated
              Guidance for Completing the Transition to the Next
              Generation Internet Protocol, Internet Protocol Version 6
              (IPv6)", 2020, <https://www.federalregister.gov/
              documents/2020/03/02/2020-04202/request-for-comments-on-
              updated-guidance-for-completing-the-transition-to-the-
              next-generation>.

   [Vrzn]     Verizon, "Verizon Digital Media Services announces IPv6
              Compliance", <https://www.verizondigitalmedia.com/blog/
              verizon-digital-media-services-announces-
              ipv6-compliance/>.

   [W3Tech]   W3Tech, "Historical yearly trends in the usage statistics
              of site elements for websites", 2021, <https://w3techs.com
              /technologies/history_overview/site_element/all/y>.

   [Wikipedia]
              Wikipedia, "Comparison of IPv6 support in common
              applications", <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
              Comparison_of_IPv6_support_in_common_applications>.

   [WIPv6L]   World IPv6 Launch, "World IPv6 Launch - Measurements",
              2021, <https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/>.

Appendix A.  Summary of Questionnaire and Replies for network operators

   A survey was proposed to more than 50 service providers in the
   European region during the third quarter of 2020 to ask for their
   plans on IPv6 and the status of IPv6 deployment.

   40 people, representing 38 organizations, provided a response.  This
   appendix summarizes the results obtained.

   Respondents' business
                               Convergent  Mobile  Fixed
       Type of operators       82%         8%      11%

   Question 1.  Do you have plan to move more fixed or mobile or
   enterprise users to IPv6 in the next 2 years?

   a.  If so, fixed, or mobile, or enterprise?

   b.  What are the reasons to do so?

   c.  When to start: already on going, in 12 months, after 12 months?





Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 37]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   d.  Which transition solution will you use, Dual-Stack, DS-Lite,
   464XLAT, MAP-T/E?

   Answer 1.A (38 respondents)

                           Yes     No
       Plans availability  79%     21%

                           Mobile  Fixed   Enterprise  Don't answer
       Business segment    63%     63%     50%         3%

   Answer 1.B (29 respondents)

   Even this was an open question, some common answers can be found.

   14 respondents (48%) highlighted issues related to IPv4 depletion.
   The reason to move to IPv6 is to avoid private and/or overlapping
   addresses.

   For 6 respondents (20%) 5G/IoT is a business incentive to introduce
   IPv6.

   4 respondents (13%) also highlight that there is a National
   regulation request to enable IPv6 associated with the launch of 5G.

   4 respondents (13%) consider IPv6 as a part of their innovation
   strategy or an enabler for new services.

   4 respondents (13%) introduce IPv6 because of Enterprise customers
   demand.

   Answer 1.C (30 respondents)

                   On-going  In 12 months  After 12 months  Don't answer
      Timeframe    60%       33%           0%               7%

   Answer 1.D (28 respondents for cellular, 27 for wireline)

      Transition in use   Dual-Stack  464XLAT  MAP-T  Don't answer
      Cellular            39%         21%      4%     36%

      Transition in use   Dual-Stack  DS-Lite  6RD/6VPE   Don't answer
      Wireline            59%         19%      4%         19%

   Question 2.  Do you need to change network devices for the above
   goal?

   a.  If yes, what kind of devices: CPE, or BNG/mobile core, or NAT?



Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 38]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   b.  Will you migrate your metro or backbone or backhaul network to
   support IPv6?

   Answer 2.A (30 respondents)

                          Yes  No   Don't answer
      Need of changing    43%  33%  23%

                          CPEs    Routers  BNG  CGN   Mobile core
      What to change      47%     27%      20%  33%   27%

   Answer 2.B (22 respondents)

                            Yes  Future  No
      Plans for migration   9%   9%      82%

Appendix B.  Summary of Questionnaire and Replies for enterprises

   The Industry Network Technology Council (INTC) developed the
   following poll to verify the need or willingness of medium-to-large
   US-based enterprises for training and consultancy on IPv6
   (https://industrynetcouncil.org/).

   54 organizations provided an answer.

   Question 1.  How much IPv6 implementation have you done at your
   organization? (54 respondents)

      None                                            16.67%
      Some people have gotten some training           16.67%
      Many people have gotten some training            1.85%
      Web site is IPv6 enabled                         7.41%
      Most equipment is dual-stacked                  31.48%
      Have an IPv6 migration plan for entire network   5.56%
      Running native IPv6 in many places              20.37%
      Entire network is IPv6-only                      0.00%

   Question 2.  What kind of help or classes would you like to see INTC
   do? ( 54 respondents)

      Classes/labs on IPv6 security                   66.67%
      Classes/labs on IPv6 fundamentals               55.56%
      Classes/labs on address planning/network conf.  57.41%
      Classes/labs on IPv6 troubleshooting            66.67%
      Classes/labs on application conversion          35.19%
      Other                                           14.81%





Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 39]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   Question 3.  As you begin to think about the implementation of IPv6
   at your organization, what areas do you feel are of concern? (54
   respondents)

      Security                    31.48%
      Application conversion      25.93%
      Training                    27.78%
      All the above               33.33%
      Don't know enough to answer 14.81%
      Other                        9.26%

Authors' Addresses

   Giuseppe Fioccola
   Huawei Technologies
   Riesstrasse, 25
   Munich  80992
   Germany

   Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com


   Paolo Volpato
   Huawei Technologies
   Via Lorenteggio, 240
   Milan  20147
   Italy

   Email: paolo.volpato@huawei.com


   Nalini Elkins
   Inside Products
   36A Upper Circle
   Carmel Valley  CA 93924
   United States of America

   Email: nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com


   Jordi Palet Martinez
   The IPv6 Company
   Molino de la Navata, 75
   La Navata - Galapagar, Madrid  28420
   Spain

   Email: jordi.palet@theipv6company.com




Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 40]


Internet-Draft                                                 July 2021


   Gyan S. Mishra
   Verizon Inc.

   Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com


   Chongfeng Xie
   China Telecom

   Email: xiechf@chinatelecom.cn









































Fioccola, et al.        Expires January 13, 2022               [Page 41]