Practical implementations of Internet Protocol version 6

Survey on behalf of the Dutch IPv6 Taskforce Facilitated by ECP.nl and the Ministry of Economic Affairs By Peter van Eijk, Digital Infrastructures www.digitalinfrastructures.nl May 2007, Version 3.1

Contents
1 Executive summary ............................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Better digital collaboration with IPv6............................................................................. 3 The Survey ............................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 The survey question ........................................................................................................ 4 2.2 The approach................................................................................................................... 4 Internet protocol version 6.................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Advantages...................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Disadvantages ................................................................................................................. 5 3.3 Other obstacles................................................................................................................ 6 3.4 Market situation .............................................................................................................. 6 Business case and urgency .................................................................................................... 7 4.1 OMB ............................................................................................................................... 7 4.2 Comcast .......................................................................................................................... 7 4.3 NTT/Verio ...................................................................................................................... 8 4.4 Xs4all .............................................................................................................................. 8 4.5 Cyberlink ........................................................................................................................ 8 4.6 Nerim .............................................................................................................................. 8 4.7 University of Porto.......................................................................................................... 9 4.8 University of Strasbourg ................................................................................................. 9 4.9 Grangenet........................................................................................................................ 9 4.10 FCCN .............................................................................................................................. 9 4.11 Dutch Government........................................................................................................ 10 4.12 NATO/Defence ............................................................................................................. 10 4.13 Cisco ............................................................................................................................. 10 4.14 Microsoft....................................................................................................................... 10 4.15 Mobile telephones......................................................................................................... 10 4.16 Car manufacturer .......................................................................................................... 11 Lessons Learned .................................................................................................................. 11 5.1 Awareness, necessity and urgency................................................................................ 11 5.2 Business case ................................................................................................................ 11 5.3 Project approach ........................................................................................................... 12 5.4 Technical infrastructure approach................................................................................. 12 5.5 Costs.............................................................................................................................. 12 5.6 Problems ....................................................................................................................... 12 5.7 The likely end situation................................................................................................. 13 Appendix: Generic project plan ......................................................................................... 15 Appendix: The questionnaire ............................................................................................. 15 Appendix: References and sources used............................................................................ 16

6 7 8

Practical Implementations of Internet Protocol version 6, May 2007, V3.1, page 2/16

1 Executive summary
1.1 Introduction

IPv6 is the successor to IPv4, the currently used Internet Protocol version 4. The upgrade has become necessary as IPv4, developed in the 1970s, does not provide sufficient address space1 needed for the ongoing growth of the Internet. IPv6 is also an important technology supporting the development of new digital communication services. While the necessity of IPv6 is well understood by technicians, the case for IPv6 has still to be explained properly to the management layer in companies and organisations, in terms of urgency and impact on business, and explaining the costs and benefits involved. This survey consists of an inventory of current IPv6 implementations, the rationale behind the migration, and lessons learned, offering a visible aid for managers involved with strategic ICT decisions.

1.2

Better digital collaboration with IPv6

The implementation of IPv6 is most urgent for providers of new services (Mobile, Multimedia, Security, Peer-to-peer). It is also of relevance to large organizations and networks of organizations struggling with networks that have become complicated as the result of global address shortage and the use of private addressing behind NAT boxes (Network Address Translation). Microsoft plays an important role for IPv6 by setting IPv6 as the default and preferred protocol in Windows Vista and the 2007 Server platform; new collaboration applications like Meeting Space work exclusively with IPv6. Through IPv6, Microsoft expects that digital collaboration between organizations will become much easier. The leading organisations in the field of IPv6 are currently the suppliers of hardware and software, followed by service providers. Other organisations usually adopt IPv6 because they develop applications which can no longer be realized easily with IPv4 such as extensive networks, possibly with direct (serverless) communication between user terminals. The most significant barriers in the adoption of IPv6 are lack of skilled resources and sample implementations. Awareness-raising (information) is an important objective of the IPv6 Task Force Nederland. This document forms part of this awareness-raising campaign. The main initial steps in the introduction of IPv6 to an organisation are: establishing a roadmap defining scope, urgency and time schedule, specifying IPv6 in procurement processes, building up IPv6 expertise by the relevant personnel and starting pilot projects. For organisations the full integration of IPv6 in the digital infrastructure is just as much work as solving the millennium (Y2K) problem, as all computers and operating systems have to be examined. The operation is similar to the conversion to the Euro as all Internet and intranet applications have to be refreshed for the use of short or long addresses. The big exception is that there is no hard deadline in contrast to Y2K and the Euro. Fortunately office automation and server parks have already been made IPv6-ready by the suppliers while they continue supporting IPv4 applications in the long term.

There are not enough addresses with IPv4 to give everyone in the world his/her own address, while the average resident of the US and Europe already has several addresses. With IPv6, every grain of sand can have its own address.

Practical Implementations of Internet Protocol version 6, May 2007, V3.1, page 3/16

Measures the Dutch government could take are to require IPv6 in the procurement process, make government websites suitable for IPv6 and to sponsor case studies in the field of secure organisation links. Both actions will also lead to an increased level of expertise.

2 The Survey
2.1 The survey question

One of the objectives of the Dutch IPv6 taskforce is the creation of awareness of the need to invest in IPv6. The successful Dutch IPv6 Summit on 15 November 2006 made clear that the case for IPv6 had to be taken to a more strategic level. The necessity of IPv6 is well understood by technicians, but the impact on business has up to now not been explained properly to the management layer in companies and organisations in terms of urgency, costs and benefits. To assist in this process the Task Force has asked for an inventory of IPv6 implementations and test cases as a guideline. These examples form an important and visible aid in making strategic decisions by parties facing similar situations and choices.

2.2

The approach

The inventory was performed as follows: 1. Establishing the questions we wish to ask companies who have already taken a number of steps towards IPv6. A model of their deployment was used: awareness, understanding the urgency, business case, execution (planning and implementation) and evaluation. This questionnaire can be found in the appendix. 2. Selecting the companies and organisations who have already taken some of these steps. This was done through desk research, with the assistance of the various Dutch and international IPv6 study groups. 3. Gathering information on the basis of questionnaires, and telephone and personal interviews. The emphasis here is on urgency and business case. 4. Processing the results into this report. The rest of the report is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a very concise explanation of the features and potential advantages of IPv6. Section 3 describes the various examples, and outlines the main urgencies and business advantages. Section 4 deals with the main lessons learned in IPv6 integration, and sketches a potential end situation. The appendices contain summaries of generic project plans, the questionnaire used and references and sources. The project was executed by Peter van Eijk of Digital Infrastructures. On behalf of ECP, Rachel Peeters acted as principal. Erik Huizer and Paul Brackel formed the supervisory group for the Task Force.

Practical Implementations of Internet Protocol version 6, May 2007, V3.1, page 4/16

3 Internet protocol version 6

In addition to a larger address space, IPv6 has a number of features which differ from IPv4. This section sums up the pros and cons of these features, and explains its status in the market for products and services.

3.1

Advantages

The main features of IPv6 are: larger address space, better auto-configuration, better security for serverless computer-to-computer communication, and better support of mobility. These features should offer functional advantages in the use of IP for multicasting (one-to-many), host to host (one-to-one) communication (between persons and between organisations) and its use in large sensor networks. These advantages would primarily emerge in mobile communications, gaming, and large cooperating organisations. IPv6 has 128 bits address length versus 32 bits in IPv4, which implies that network design is simpler and NAT (network address translation) is no longer necessary. NAT is currently used a lot in networks to alleviate the address problem. However, NAT also has a lot of disadvantages which restrict the possibilities of its use. The elimination of NAT means a restoration of the end-to-end communication model, which is much simpler and therefore could be much cheaper. This makes a big difference in business network interconnection. IPsec (IPsecure) is integrated into IPv6 to enable unique endpoint identification which enable authentication, integrity and encryption within the network layer, instead of being an applicationspecific addition. IPv6 has more options for auto-configuration of end points (workstations, mobiles, sensors, etc). This, in combination with the elimination of NAT, makes it cheaper to manage end points. This is especially important if millions of end points are to be managed. Examples of this include mobile telephony and sensor networks. At present, a data network manager typically manages between 2000-20,000 end points per FTE. These costs will have to be reduced drastically for new largescale applications. Mobile IPv6 (Network mobility, NEMO) makes it possible for a complete network to change its connection to the Internet. Every end point maintains its IP sessions during this roaming. This kind of functionality is useful for networks in vehicles, and redundancy for company networks.

3.2

Disadvantages

As well as advantages, the introduction IPv6 also has disadvantages. IPv6 is new technology, and every new technology has teething problems. These will also occur in the field of security. To hackers it offers a new challenge to prove themselves. This will be made worse in the short term by unfamiliarity among system managers. The elimination of NAT reduces the possibilities for Internet providers to create a so-called walled garden, in which they can force their clients to only buy their products or services. The elimination of NAT also makes it more difficult for organisations to make their networks independent of a provider. However, there are technical solutions for both these points, for

Practical Implementations of Internet Protocol version 6, May 2007, V3.1, page 5/16

example through filtering on the network border, auto-configuration, and provider-independent addressing for IPv6 as well. Another perceived advantage attributed to NAT is that it makes the structure of the internal network invisible and inaccessible to outsiders. The advantages of this, however, are also achieved in an IPv6 network by a properly-configured firewall and the use of RFC3041 address privacy for IPv6.

3.3

Other obstacles

Other obstacles to the introduction of IPv6 are in the inadequate realisation of the advantages in relation to the alternatives. Although IPv6 offers more address space, the same applies in fact to NAT. The disadvantages of NAT often only become visible in the long term and as a result, it is often opted for in the short term on financial grounds. The new applications which should enable IPv6 are currently few and far between. At the same time, the technology needed to roll it out (for quality of service, IMS, etc) is not always of telecom required quality. Many ISPs cannot see where the additional revenues which justify investment in IPv6 are to come from. And for as long as there are IPv4-only websites, there will remain a need among clients for IPv4 connectivity. Therefore, it is unavoidable that over a very long transition period, there will be systems where IPv6 and IPv4 co-exist (dual-stack).

3.4

Market situation

In summary, IPv6 would now be ready for production, were it not for the fact that there are not enough people available with the knowledge needed to set up and manage IPv6 networks. Windows XP, Vista and Server are all IPv6 ready. The same applies to just about all Unix/Linux platforms and new mobile phones. Most routers are OK, though there may be issues in the use of more advanced features. The Amsterdam Internet Exchange is ready for IPv6 and reports that at present IPv6 represents approx. 0.2 % of total traffic. It is likely that many other Internet Exchanges are also ready. Most of the National Research networks, such as SurfNet, Renater, Gant, Abilene and Grangenet have already been working with IPv6 for a number of years. The domain name system (DNS) can handle IPv6, though developments for supporting IPv6-only end points are still underway. Various models of mobile phone already work with IPv6 out of the box, and can set up IPv6 connections, for example via T-Mobile in the Netherlands. Not all applications are IPv6 enabled. Most immediately, this concerns network management applications, and all applications which can be used via Internet or intranet. Affordable and IPv6-suitable end user ADSL and cable routers are only available in limited numbers.

Practical Implementations of Internet Protocol version 6, May 2007, V3.1, page 6/16

4 Business case and urgency

A business case is a description of costs and benefits. Sometimes the benefits are mainly avoided costs. The financial benefits of IPv6 will have to be found in providing new services which are ultimately positively rewarded by the client, or enabling the providing of new services. The latter case concerns a strategic advantage. The costs occur in three areas2: the cost of acquiring addresses, the cost of network design and rollout, and the cost of network operation. There is no direct price for IPv4 addresses as their allocation is regulated. Despite this, there is an administrative cost in justifying need of additional IPv4 address space. Where the need for addresses becomes greater than a few million, it will actually become impossible to acquire so many public addresses, and therefore the cost will be high. The costs of designing and rolling out a network can be reduced with IPv6 as more addresses mean a more flexible design, and auto-configuration ensures that change management is greatly simplified. The costs of managing a network would be reduced with IPv6 as less use would be made of NAT, for example. However, the costs may initially be higher as support is more expensive. This may be the case if there are both IPv4 and IPv6 networks, and for as long as IPv6 is still an unfamiliar technology.

4.1

OMB

In June 2005 the American Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a directive specifying that federal organisations had to make their networks IPv6-ready by July 2008. In particular, this means that they must be able to connect to other IPv6 networks, but not that all network end points (like workstations) need to be converted to IPv6. There is a belief that IPv6 will be necessary in the future and that the advantages of IPv6 will manifest themselves. To the market, this means that suppliers of hardware, software and services will be forced to supply IPv6 products.

4.2

Comcast

Comcast is a cable company in the USA. With 20 million video customers, an average of 2.5 settop boxes per customer, and 2 IP addresses per box, they require 100 million IP addresses. This number of addresses is not possible with a single NAT solution. Thus, Comcast is the first published case of a service provider that has run out of private address space (limited to 16 M Ipv4 addresses. Other service providers will follow in the near future. Furthermore, the chance is small that so much address space will be publicly available. The business case is therefore based on the fact that the costs both of acquiring addresses and network management will ultimately be lower.

From the IPv6 summit presentation by Daniel Karrenberg.

Practical Implementations of Internet Protocol version 6, May 2007, V3.1, page 7/16

The approach: start with IPv6 in the central network and its management. After that, ensure you are ready to offer customers new services on the basis of IPv6. The customer side is connected via either v4 or v6 (not both). The main concern is formed by back office systems which are administered through IPv6 addresses. In addition, IPv6 is not a mature technology with all suppliers. The training of employees is not at the same level as for IPv4.

4.3

NTT/Verio

NTT/Verio is a carrier/Internet service provider. The business case for IPv6 with NTT/Verio was based on the assumption that the supply of IPv6 Internet access services is a market differentiator. Technological leadership brings a competitive advantage particularly in certain markets (hightech manufacturing, mobile operators, and government). Currently, this edge has been achieved in the market and it is clear that the costs are easily outweighed by the benefits. The integration of IPv6 started in 1999 with plans and communications with suppliers. In 2003, a pre-commercial service was supplied to a number of IPv6 customers. This was followed by the commercial phase with the expansion of the service. Taking time kept the additional costs low. The greatest challenge is not technology, but peoples knowledge. A range of IPv6 products are supplied. Dual-stack is the most popular service for customers.

4.4

Xs4all

Xs4all has been offering IPv6 connectivity since 2005 (via tunnels and also dual-stack for some ADSL products). The reason behind this is primarily to experiment proactively. The market demand is not yet there. The bulk of the IPv6 traffic is composed of newsgroup traffic (Netnews) used via IPv6 by a number of enthusiasts. There is not much growth in the IPv6. There are obstacles in the internal company systems which do not adequately support IPv6 management.

4.5

Cyberlink

Cyberlink is a Swiss ISP providing dual-stack services. The main motivation was to be technologically ready. This helps avoid high costs which would be required in cases of sudden urgency. Problems include the availability of cheap IPv6-ready ADSL modems and cable modems (CPE: customer premises equipment), and of adequate IPv6 management software.

4.6

Nerim

Nerim is a French ISP. Nerim has high expectations of peer-to-peer applications, and multicast. Most services (Mail, etc) are dual-stack. On the customer side, they do not yet support dual-stack IPv6. The integration costs are low as quality suppliers such as Cisco already provide IPv6. The expectation is that the management costs of a dual-stack network are ultimately no higher than those of an IPv4 network.

Practical Implementations of Internet Protocol version 6, May 2007, V3.1, page 8/16

There are a number of minor technical problems: the old version web server platform is not yet IPv6, and there are a few configuration issues.

4.7

University of Porto

The technical faculty of the University of Porto has decided to proactively offer IPv6 for scientific reasons. They now have a dual-stack network with dual-stack servers. As an initial migration strategy a start has been made with an IPv6-only network to the workstations. This network is connected to the IPv4 world via NAT. Through bandwidth allocations (100 Mbit/sec for IPv4 and 100 Mbit/sec for IPv6) there is a user incentive for early adopters to use IPv6. The implementation costs were altogether one-and-a-half man years, and a relatively low extra cost for equipment as IPv6 is included in a normal replacement cycle.

4.8

University of Strasbourg

There are 17 scientific institutes in Strasbourg (110 buildings, 50,000 users) connected to the municipal research network OSIRIS. In 2003 this backbone was made dual-stack, as the core routers were replaced. The main reason is to keep up with (or ahead of) the technology, which would have to occur in any case. Although the technology costs of the network have risen, this increase is attributed mostly to a growth in volume and quality, and not the introduction of IPv6.

4.9

Grangenet

Grangenet is an Australian research network. IPv6 is now used mainly for video conferencing and bulk file transfer of instruments such as electron microscopes. Voice over IP and multicast video are seen as major future applications.

4.10 FCCN
The FCCN (Fundao para a Computao Cientfica Nacional) operates the national research computer network in Portugal. Within this network, IPv6 is available everywhere it is needed (over 95% of the backbone is dual-stack). Approx. 20% of the FCCN members connected use IPv6. Technology was mainly available, some upgrades were required, and since 2005 IPv6 has been specified in tenders. The rollout of IPv6 has incurred limited extra costs, and there is no noticeable difference in network management. Advantages: IPv6 is an extra channel for management (backdoor) in the case of problems with the IPv4 network. Lessons learned: A good IPv6 numbering plan is important. It is sensible to integrate with IPv4 management. It is important that the primary Internet services (mail, news, web, DNS, time) are IPv6-enabled. The main challenge is peoples expertise: few people understand IPv6.

Practical Implementations of Internet Protocol version 6, May 2007, V3.1, page 9/16

4.11 Dutch Government

Email between departments currently goes via Internet, as it has proven to be very hard to put together a safe IPv4 numbering plan. There is a common Hague ring but connecting ministries with it demands complex NAT structures. This may become easier if a collective IPv6 numbering plan was used. The Ministry of Justice has an IPv6 numbering plan. The tender of the new JustitieNet 2 in 2004 specified that the supplier had to support IPv6.

4.12 NATO/Defence
Networks are linked to support international coalitions. The Dutch Ministry of Defence sees possibilities for mobile networks in vehicles. These entail 1000-2000 vehicles with at least tens of devices each. In particular, auto-configuration and mobility features are important, although the latter has not yet been completely worked out in IPv6.

4.13 Cisco
Cisco states that some of its ISP customers are met with high IPv4 support costs as different CPEs work differently with NAT. These costs can be avoided with IPv6. On the Cisco internal network issues exist because of the inadequate availability of content distribution technology (for example traffic distributors) for IPv6.

4.14 Microsoft
Microsoft has IPv6 support in its Windows products Server, XP, and Vista. Microsoft sees security in combination with electronic cooperation as an important functional benefit created by IPv6. The model of a corporate network with a clear boundary with the outside no longer works. There is a great demand for cooperation with partner organisations (and not just through exchanging email attachments). Traditionally, electronic cooperation takes place through shared servers. It is in Microsofts interest that this is no longer necessary. Microsoft thinks that a peer-to-peer security model is necessary for this. Although IPsec (the standard for secure IP) also works with IPv4, it does not work with NAT. The combination of IPsec with IPv6 is therefore Microsofts choice. Unique end point identification (restoration of the end-to-end model) also enables better authentication of the end points.

4.15 Mobile telephones

Manufacturers of mobile smart telephones see the telephones as end points in a network. These end points are always on, and can communicate peer-to-peer. This architecture has developed into 3GPP IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS). Potentially, the number of smartphones outnumbers the number of public IPv4 addresses. Therefore, acquiring a lot of address space is a problem for mobile operators. The technical implication of always on and NAT is that the smartphone has to send regular keep alive messages in order to keep its IPv4 address, which can drain up to 50% of battery capacity.

Practical Implementations of Internet Protocol version 6, May 2007, V3.1, page 10/16

Furthermore, peer-to-peer services between smartphones in different private IPv4 address spaces are very difficult to achieve, IMS is therefore in principle based on IPv6 addressing. The smartphones are already available, while the services hardly exist.

4.16 Car manufacturer

A major international car manufacturer does not yet have an internal IPv6 network, but sees the possibility and even the necessity of IPv6 in vehicles. Giving every vehicle its own address (or sub network) is not a simple matter with public IPv4 addresses. The relatively long lifecycle of cars and carmodels and the costs of in-service upgrading mean that there is now an urgency to evaluate IPv6. As the entire car industry is in the same predicament, it is expected that common telematics platforms will be IPv6-based. Functionally, the standard for Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) is superior to mobile IPv4. The combination of security and mobility is difficult (and therefore expensive) to achieve with IPv4 and NAT. A problem is that the rollout of IPv6 on mobile networks has been disappointing. There are also possibilities of finding certain IPv6 software (Java libraries for embedded applications).

5 Lessons Learned
The following observations and lessons can be drawn from the cases and literature. They have been grouped according to their stage in the integration of IPv6.

5.1

Awareness, necessity and urgency

The organisations we have been in contact with are of course aware of IPv6. Where steps towards integration have been taken the main drivers are to prevent an urgency later on. This urgency then being the result of regulations enforcing IPv6, or because the market will suddenly demand these services. The view is that taking steps in good time can help avoid costs to a great extent. Only a limited number of organisations are now starting to integrate IPv6. Their reasons are explained in the following paragraphs.

5.2

Business case

The following reasons exist for the organisations who have actually taken steps to integrate IPv6 in production. A number of organisations have suffered from a shortage of addresses, and the accompanying expensive IPv4/NAT architecture. The management of multiple layers of NAT is quite expensive in practice. On the provider and research side in particular there are organisations who wish to be early adopters for strategic reasons. A number believe in the necessity of IPv6 to enable new services such as peer-to-peer, multicast, in combination with multimedia. There is a similar conviction that IPv6 will ultimately enable cheaper and better security, especially in combination with peer-topeer and mobility.

Practical Implementations of Internet Protocol version 6, May 2007, V3.1, page 11/16

5.3

Project approach

An appendix includes a framework of a project plan for the integration of IPv6. The inventory shows the following points to be important. By specifying IPv6 functionality in time when buying hardware, software and services, the infrastructure can be upgraded within the normal replacement cycle and therefore without too much extra cost. The same applies to staff, by arranging training and taking into account IPv6 expertise in recruitment policy, adequate expertise can be built up to ensure the transition is seamless. Carrying out pilots is of major importance, on the one hand to build knowledge and experience with the technology and on the other hand to be able to adjust plans in good time. The main architectural activities are setting-up of an IPv6 numbering plan for the organisation, and integration with the management of the existing IPv4 network. A few respondents mentioned that the presence of extra bandwidth or functionality can have an attracting effect in converting users.

5.4

Technical infrastructure approach

Where IPv6 is integrated with an existing network infrastructure, almost everyone expects these to be dual-stack in the coming decades. The following scenarios are typical for the gradual introduction of IPv6. At least part of the core or backbone network is made dual-stack. The main infrastructure and Internet services are made dual-stack (DNS, web servers, etc.) Individual clients or subnets are made dual-stack, and connected via tunnelling to the IPv6 backbone Individual subnets with IPv6-only nodes are connected via protocol translation / NAT to the dual-stack backbone.

The likely end situation is explained in a following sub-section.

5.5

Costs

The additional costs are low for the respondents who are proactively introducing IPv6. This is because the IPv6 functionality is introduced in the normal refresh cycle. Neither do the other organisations see significant extra costs in the IPv6 infrastructure.

5.6

Problems
The availability of IPv6 technology for classical applications such as company networks is good. There still seems to be a shortage of cheap IPv6 CPE (cable modems, ADSL modems, and suchlike). At the other end of the spectrum there is still not enough IPv6enabled content distribution technology like load balancers. Neither does there seem to be adequate IPv6 management and security software. Microsoft has however announced greatly-improved IPv6 security software on the Windows server platform, to be provided later in 2007.

Organisations experience a number of problems with the integration of IPv6.

Practical Implementations of Internet Protocol version 6, May 2007, V3.1, page 12/16

In practice, there are some technical glitches here and there (for example MTU configuration problems). In the mobile field, there are few service providers with an IPv6 service. Knowledge and enough personnel with knowledge is a problem for organisations. An unexpected advantage is that a dual-stack network is actually more redundant in the case of protocol breakdowns as may occur in the case of an IPv4 configuration error or a virus/worm attack.

5.7

The likely end situation

On the basis of the desirability and necessity of IPv6 integration for the different market players, the following architecture diagram depicts a likely end situation. Parts have already been realised. The question of whether the entire picture can be realised in the next 10 years is open to speculation.

IPv6
Mobile: v6

v4-v6 NAT SOHO: v4 (+v6)

IPv4
Corporate: v6 CPE ISP, WAN Hosting, v4 (+v6)

The two clouds in the centre represent Internet Service Providers, who provide their customers with IP connectivity. A number of these will supply dual-stack IP (i.e. IPv4 and IPv6 combined, often over the same ATM or MPLS infrastructure). Although the clouds have been drawn separately, they will mostly be realised on the same underlying infrastructure. As part of the service, translation between IPv4 and IPv6 will be provided. Web hosting will remain IPv4-only for a long time, as there are no convincing reasons for most applications to support IPv6. Address space problems do not matter very much here. For new applications such as gaming, multicast multimedia, IMS, and so on, there is a motivation to support IPv6, possibly even IPv6-only.

Practical Implementations of Internet Protocol version 6, May 2007, V3.1, page 13/16

Mobile operators will migrate fully to IPv6, as they will experience major address space problems, their IMS platforms support it, and a single-stack solution ultimately leads to lower management costs. Networks of households and small businesses (SOHO) will continue to support IPv4 for a long time, as there is no obvious reason to eliminate it, and IPv4-only websites will exist for years to come. A lot of equipment will be in service for a long time. IPv6 will also be introduced by stealth (for example, via Windows Vista, Macs, and embedded applications), which some ISPs will support with a dual-stack CPE. It is likely that the ISP network to the CPE will become IPv6-only, for similar reasons as those which apply to mobile operators. Larger organisations will transfer to IPv6 at the next upgrade. The main reasons for this are better security in communications with partner organisations and remote workers. Phasing out of IPv4 is ultimately a cost benefit. In addition, they will be responsible themselves for maintaining communications with the public IPv4 Internet. This is integrated into the application-level firewall they already have.

Practical Implementations of Internet Protocol version 6, May 2007, V3.1, page 14/16

6 Appendix: Generic project plan

Although this document does not contain scripts for an integration of IPv6, a number of important observations can be made regarding the approach. In outline, the following phases are proposed for the average organisation: 1. Inventory of needs and possibilities. What strategic advantage is expected from the introduction of IPv6? What are the important time frameworks? 2. Scoping and business case. What advantages are expected, and what are the implications for a phased approach? 3. Establishing an outline schedule. The urgent steps must be addressed first. 4. Preparation phase. Purchasing standards, developing expertise, setting up a numbering plan, starting pilots and training. 5. Pre-production phase. Set up dual-stack network management and make infrastructural services dual-stack. Realise Internet IPv6 connectivity with your ISP for a limited number of users. 6. Expansion phase. Draft a plan for making all applications dual-stack and more detailed plans for realising the planned strategic advantages such as better security and new functionality. 7. Implementation 8. Transition to existing management organisation 9. Aftercare.

7 Appendix: The questionnaire

The questionnaire is intended to emulate a typical implementation process. Therefore, not all organisations will have made the same journey. Awareness: when and where was awareness started? Understanding of necessity and urgency: what is the main driver and what are the deadlines? Estimate of the number of addresses in use. Business case, how do we view the business case? We could start with the Daniel Karrenberg model: the costs of acquiring addresses, costs of network design, and costs of network operation. Implementation: how far have we got and what intermediate results can we share? o o o o o o o Phases and planning Purchasing standards Numbering plan Pilot Training Conversion plan Implementation and aftercare

Practical Implementations of Internet Protocol version 6, May 2007, V3.1, page 15/16

Evaluation o o Advantages gained and not gained Lessons learned: obstacles, successful techniques.

8 Appendix: References and sources used

Latif Ladid, chair of European IPv6 Taskforce. Patrick Grossetete, Cisco. Carlos Friaas. Wide Area Network Working Group (WAN), FCCN Simon Hania, Xs4all Peter Webb, Unilever Silvia Hagen (various cases) Toshiyuki Yamasaki, NTT/Verio Alain Durand, Comcast Franck LeGall, Innogroup Daniel Karrenberg, RIPE Patrick Grossetete, Ciprian Popoviciu, Fred Wettling (2007), IPv6 for Decision Makers, Cisco Press. ISBN 1-58705-343-8 Iljitsch van Beijnum (2005), Running IPv6, Apress, ISBN: 1-59059-527-0 Silvia Hagen (2006), IPv6 Essentials, Second Edition, OReilly, ISBN 0-596-10058-2 Geoff Huston (2007), The IPv4 Address Report, continuously updated at http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/

Practical Implementations of Internet Protocol version 6, May 2007, V3.1, page 16/16