The Critical Success Factors for IPv6 Uptake and Likely Future Report (Assessment)

In a series of radio broadcasts, the BBC has termed the growth and spread of the internet as a ‘virtual revolution’. From the fledgling computer technology barely forty years ago, to the largest infrastructural outlay of all time, the internet remains to be a true wonder of our time. Indeed, a fitting description for this point in time this point in time will the information age. The internet continues to make possible services that were beyond the wildest dreams of man barely a hundred years ago. In the famous Greek myth of Achilles, he had a weakness. He was vulnerable at his heel. This aptly describes the situation the internet infrastructure finds itself in today.

There is an ever-increasing demand for internet connections through IP, but there is a lack of corresponding IP addresses to meet this demand. The world is approaching an imminent depletion of the IP addresses all internet devices need in order to connect to the web. This is because of capacity limitations of communication protocol- IPv4-which provides the language of communication among internet-connecting devices. The development of a new protocol, IPv6 is complete and it is now taking over from IPv4. There are myriad issues surrounding this change.

Technical issues with IPv4

IPv4 is one of the marvels of the internet. Its capacity to provide a communication platform for the internet right from inception, to the mindboggling communication network it has now become, remains to be a true technological wonder. IPv4 “has remained almost unchanged since its inception in the late 1970’s” (Comer, 2006, p. 562). Since the internet went global, it has been growing at an alarming rate. It has steadily seen one hundred percent growth every nine to fifteen months.

However, IPv4’s time is running out because of unforeseeable limitations that are inbuilt, key of which is the 32-bit configuration. Other limitation it has include security limitations and the need for a vast number of additional protocols that were required over time to upgrade its performance over the years, making its administration complicated. At the time of its introduction, the internet was a very small network mainly used for research.

It was under experimentation for military and government and educational uses. At the time, mainframes were still in vogue and no PCs existed. Foretelling the future of this fledgling technology and the traffic volumes it would generate barely 40 years down the line was impossible. Mun and Lee (2005, p.1) attest that, the “current status of IPv4 is beyond imagination of the initial motivation to create it”.

Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) coordinates the allocation of the IP addresses globally. “Specifically, IANA allocates and maintains unique codes and numbering systems that are used in the technical standards (“protocols”) that drive the Internet” (IANA, 2010). 151 million addresses were still available for assignment for general use as at September 2010. This is in a context of very high demand. “The world’s IP address consumption rate peaked earlier this year at a new all time high of an equivalent rate of 243 million addresses per year” (Huston, 2010). This means that we are looking at a time lime of months before the depletion of the entire pool of available IP addresses available for allocation. IANA works through five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) through which it assigns IPs for distribution.

The adoption, in the early eighties of IPv4 as the sole communication language for all devices connected to the internet in the US, made it emerge as the common communication protocol for the entire world as the internet grew. It continues to be the major protocol in use today for this purpose after it proved resilient and easily adaptable to new developments. Comer (2006, p.562) observes that, “The longevity of version 4 shows that the design is flexible and powerful”. Its simple design has proved very helpful since all that has been required to upgrade communication systems has been new protocols built to work on the IPv4 platform.

The designers of IPv4 used a 32-bit configuration. At the time, “a 32-bit address space was more than sufficient” (Comer, 2006, p.562). This provided a possible upper limit of -two to the thirty-second power – possible IP addresses. This was excessively radical for its time because in the context, it was difficult to imagine that there would be that many mainframes all connected to the internet to use up the IP address space provided by IPv4. Comer (2006, p. 562) observes that at the time, “Only a handful of organizations used a LAN, and none had a PC”.

However, the quick advent in the next few years and popularity of the PC changed all that. This change from that time stretching to the sheer number of internet-connected devices currently in use has out stretched IPv4’s potential. “These days we are turning on in excess of 200 million new internet services every year, and today we’ve used up most of the 4.4 billion addresses that are encompassed by the IP protocol” (Huston, 2010).

However, “the most significant demand on the technology does not arise from added network connections, but from additional traffic” (Comer, 2006, p.9), due to changing user patterns. The traffic patterns change seasonally depending on applications in demand at any one time. For example, “when users begun to browse information using services like the World Wide Web traffic increased dramatically” (Comer, 2006, p9). Comer (2006, p.9) adds that, “later when file sharing became popular, traffic patterns changed again”. In addition to this, many devices connect to the internet on their own right and require an IP as a stand-alone location.

Cell phones have literally blown away any chance of IPv4 remaining the main internet communications protocol. Comer (2006, p.562) warns that, “If each cell phone is assigned an IP address, addresses will be exhausted quickly”. This has put pressure on the available IP addresses and it seems certain that the currently available IPs will run out within the next two years if the current assignment trend remains. New internet markets in developing countries especially in Asia drive the demand for IP addresses, coupled with the introduction of newer devices in the markets. The Asia Pacific regional registry (APNIC) has noted this.

Huston (2010) says, “At the current level of demand APNIC would completely exhaust its address pools by the end of 2011, or at best in early 2012. In addition, the new devices each require its own IP to be part of the global internet. This has necessitated the development of a new protocol – IPv6.

IPv6 will alleviate some of the shortcomings of the IPv4 protocol. It has a 132-bit configuration, which promises innumerable IP allocations, increasing the current capacity of IPv4 by a factor of at least a billion. Beijnum (2006, p.2) states, “the most obvious and most important advantage of IPv6 is that the addresses are longer, which makes for a much, much larger address space”. “The actual number of individual addresses possible with 128-bits goes beyond numbers anyone except astronomers and particle physicists are familiar with” (Beijnum, 2006, p2). This means that the demand expansion for IP addresses by new devices such as phones to be recognized as IPs will be adequately met and IPv6 is anticipated to serve the internet needs of the world for at least 50 years.

However, “The question of how to partition the IPv6 address space has generated much discussion” (Comer, 2006, p.574). In the same discussion, Comer (2006, p.574) identifies, “two central issues: how to manage address assignment and how to map an address to a route”. “Unlike the current internet, which uses a two-level hierarchy of network prefix (assigned by an ISP) and a host suffix (assigned by an organization), the large address space in IPv6 permits a multi-level hierarchy or multiple hierarchies” (Comer , 2006, p. 574). This presents new challenges in devising a hierarchy of authority.

IPv6 will provide better routing for datagram since it has a longer address space enabling optimization of identification functions. Optimized of security features occurs under IPv6. This optimization is only an option in IPv4. Additional benefits of IPv6 are that it, “supports new features while enhancing enhances others, including-end to-end connectivity, plug and play autoconfiguration, built-in security, mobility, multicast and support of larger data packets” (Martínez, 2010, p.32).

IPv6 will not give us a system of inexhaustible IPs. It also has an upper limit, which we will exhaust with time. In this regard, it is a stopgap measure and not a permanent solution to the IP space problem. Work on the next generation protocol must begin in earnest during the implementation of IPv6 to avoid in the future a similar scenario to what we are facing now. Predictions point to a highly connected world with an extremely high number of internet connected devices all over the globe.

Since IPv6 promises better functionality, its uptake requires fast tracking in order to realize its potential. The protocol’s design should be for the long haul with possibility of interoperability with the next generation protocol. Massey et al identify routing scalability problems as one of those that IPv6 does not solve, but in fact, its deployment has the potential to make things worse. They say, “IPv6 removes the address shortage problem, however its deployment may potentially further exacerbate the routing scalability challenges facing us today” (Massey et al, 2007). They propose a solution they consider simple and effective which is to, “separate globally routable addresses (GRA) from globally deliverable addresses (GDA)” (Massey et al, 2007).

Status of IPv6Deployment

The uptake of IPv6 stood at 15 percent of available allocations by 2006. Comer (2006, p. 547) says, “Only 15% of address space has been assigned at present.” There are a number of factors responsible for this. The key factor is compatibility. The two protocols are really two different languages and as such, devices programmed to operate in IPv4 cannot communicate with devices on IPv6 directly. IPv6 lacks backward compatibility with IPv4. Mitigation measures envisaged to tackle this problem include “tunneling and translation” (Mun & Lee, 2005, p4), to allow for a transitional period where both IPv4 and IPv6 will be used in tandem before transition to IPv6 is completed.

Tunneling makes it possible for IPv6 nodes to operate inside an IPv4 network and to communicate with each other. On the other hand, translation makes it possible for communication between IPv4 and IPv6 nodes. The motivation for the deployment of these two mechanisms is the fact that the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 will not take place in a day, but will be a gradual process over time. There will be need to ensure IPv6 nodes can communicate with each other and that all other nodes can communicate.

An IPv6 node that is able to communicate with both IPv4 and IPv6 nodes operates as a “dual stack” system. This means that depending on the communication input or destination, the node will prioritize one of the two protocols to enable it communicate with a peer. Several tunneling systems are available for different needs. Initially, IPv6 nodes will be communicating via tunneling to IPv6 nodes in an IPv4 network. As IPv6 network develops and as the phasing out of IPv4 nodes happen, the network will become primarily IPv6. At this point IPv4 nodes will now communicate over IPv6 networks. This stage will happen during the final stages of the transition from IPv4 to IPv6.

Network Address Translation (NAT) works by using a single IP to represent entire network, usually private networks. It translates all IP communications from its network into a single public domain IP; hence, someone outside of that network must communicate through it or receive communication via a translator. Within the network, sub-domains are used. This works to create a secure environment for the private network since it has a single gate through which it communicates with the rest of the world. This makes its administration easy and suspicious activity is easily recognized and dealt with. It also effectively reduces the number of IPs required to meet the needs of that particular network.

The result is availability of IPs for other users. Its use came in as a security measure so that private networks could communicate securely over public networks but in recent times, it has played a significant role in reducing the impact of IP space depletion. Despite its usefulness for the moment, NAT has its limitations. Huston, (2010) says, “Our experience suggests that address sharing only works up to a point, then it breaks everything badly”. He goes on to add that NAT is “at best a short term stop gap measure, and is not a sustainable option that is an alternative to IPv6” (Huston, 2010).

“Network providers in Asia seems to be especially interested in IPv6 deployment” (Dunmore, 2005, p4). The reason is that Asia joined the internet revolution slightly later than the west, they therefore have fewer IPv4 addresses, and address shortage will affect the region most, as they have the fastest growing demand for IP addresses. “This has led to some governments declaring their support for IPv6” (Dunmore, 2005, p4). Japan has some of the strongest IPv6 uptake strategies in the world. Mun and Lee (2005, p.5) observe that, “Japan is especially strong in experiments on combining consumer appliances with IPv6”.

The switch is slowest in Europe and America, since the use of IPv4 is widespread, and the switch will be most expensive in these regions. “In North America, the networking hardware vendors, such as CISCO and Juniper have successfully introduced IPv6 equipments into the market” (Mun & Lee, 2005, p.4). In addition, “operating systems such as Linux and Windows, also support IPv6 in their latest releases” (Mun & Lee, 2005, p.4) There is evidence of institutional support for IPv6 uptake in Europe. “The deployment of IPv6 in Europe has been boosted by the Framework Programmes of European Commission” (Dunmore, 2007, p.4)

Uptake of IPv6

Transition from IPv4 to IPv6 will be slow and will take a number of years. This is because of the sheer number of devices that are currently online operating on the IPv4 platform. The entire technical world is bracing for a period where the two protocols will operate side by side as IPv4 is gradually phased out as IPv6 becomes the dominant protocol. The following factors promote the uptake of IPv6. The features promised by IPv6 are superior in many ways to those of IPv4. IPv6 satisfactorily solves the key problem of address space providing a new lease of life to IP address allocation.

IPv6 will simplify somewhat operations and management of the protocol since, “Many additional protocols are needed for operation of IPv4”, (Mun &Lee, 2005). There will be no more need for these additional protocols. Additional benefits of IPv6 are “auto configuration, simplified header format, interoperability, integrated security, and route optimisation for mobile terminals” (Mun & Lee, 2005, p.7).

Newer devices released to the market are coming with IPv6 capabilities. This will make the uptake quicker and more efficient. As Dunmore (2005, p4) reports, “Between 2000 and 2004, the vast majority of operating systems and router vendors implemented IPv6”. The development of suitable transition mechanisms are also serving to promote the uptake of IPv6. No devices will end up locked out of the internet because of the differences in the two protocols. This will allow for a smooth transition to IPv6, which should be complete when the IPv4 device and system replacements take place with time, as they age.

Currently, there is no real pain in using IPv4; hence, there the motivation to switch is still low among ISPs and other vendors. In fact, it appears expensive and inconvenient for parties to switch now! The real pain will surface as soon as available IP allocations run out. For the moment, the uptake is slow. A number of factors inhibit the uptake of IPv6. Since the switch from IPv4 to IPv6 is not an easy one, there has been an attempt to develop several methods to increase the effective addresses available for allocation under IPv4. These include, “Network Address Translation (NAT) and Classless Inter Domain Routing (CIDR)” (Mun & Lee, 2005, p.xiii).

These methods have provided useful intermediate solutions to the address problems but with it have come a degree of false security in IPv4 thereby reducing the urgency for conversion to IPv6. The methods are short-term and cannot solve the address problem to any significant extent. The second inhibitor for IPv6 uptake has been financing. The cost of transition is not any one person’s responsibility and seems, currently, to be at the mercy of market forces. Consensus on who will meet the cost of transition does not exist yet.

The business case for Deploying IPv6

There are several costs associated with Deployment of IPv6. Gaffin (2007, p.21) identifies these costs to “consists of a mixture of hardware, software, labor and miscellaneous costs”. ISPs offering internet service to large pools of consumers are poised to bear the largest costs associated with the switch to version six, while individual users will bear very little or none of the costs. The deployment of IPv6 on commercial basis is a factor of the demand for it.

The costs of transition are huge while the demand for it, especially in the US, is still commercially low. The ISPs therefore lack the incentive to transit in any meaningful scale until demand justifies such a move. Gaffin (2007, p.27) contends that, “ISPs have little incentive to incur any major additional costs; as such, in the short term, most ISPs are likely to continue testing IPv6 and offer limited IPv6 connectivity as requested”.

Gaffin however goes on to identify the minimum conditions for successful commercialization of IPv6. He says, “As more hardware and software become IPv6 compatible through cyclical replacements, continued standardization by IETF, and testing by many parties, these ISPs will probably be in a position to recoup the investment costs associated with IPv6 service” (Gaffin, 2007, p.27). Currently, the demand for IPv6 is not significant enough to justify widespread commercial investment. ISPs who make the switch cannot do it cost effectively yet. The high cost of installation of IPv6 routers and supporting equipment remains a barrier to its uptake. Nevertheless, the demand for address spaces will eventually reach the critical limits required to increase the demand sufficiently for IPv6.

Deployment Strategies and Solutions

The involvement of governments in the deployment of IPv6 cannot be understated. Governments through various measures have the capacity to catalyze the deployment of IPv6 in their countries. Some of these incentives are tax related. For instance, “the Japanese government gives tax cuts to companies for buying IPv6 equipment” (Mun & Lee, 2005, p.5). Other areas for using incentives can be in the actual implementation of IPv6 in their networks.

There were plans by the US department of Defense to “convert its network to IPv6 by 2009” (Mun & Lee, 2005, p4). Government support for IPv6 will lead to favorable policies, which the rest of industry can use to enhance uptake. Regional efforts in the deployment of IPv6 if pursued, may promise better compliance and quicker adoption of IPv6. It will bring with it possibility of enable pooled procurement for IPv6 equipment required for the infrastructural outlay to support IPv6 by ISPs in the region. Tariffs on the equipment and provision of support services for the region by a common body will be easier to negotiate.

Setting up a joint regional commission to oversee the transition can be part of that effort. The nature of the upgrade is such that no one wants to move out first while no one also wants to remain too far behind. Moving out among the first people could isolate a user while being left too far behind may end up with the same consequence. Regional efforts will guard against both scenarios, as the commission will coordinate implementation to ensure the transition is as minimally disruptive as possible.

The critical success factors for IPv6 uptake

Demand for IPv6 is likely to be the most significant success factor for its deployment. An appreciation of the need to deploy IPv6 exists across the board, yet, since IPv4 is still doing a good job, demand has not grown to the required critical levels. The institution of measures to increase demand is required urgently. Vegoda (2009), asserts, “Demand can be generated”. This needs to include very visible campaigns by governments and by regional international organizations such as IETF to highlight the superiority of IPv6 and in so doing, to generate sufficient interest in it to produce the demand levels required for successful commercial large-scale deployment of the new protocol.

There is need to sensitize industry players of the dangers of subtle comfort in IPv4, and to portray the inevitability of the switch to IPv6. The comfort is akin enjoying a boat ride near a waterfall and not fretting about it. This image should spur them into action, to become compliant.

The second success factor will be widespread availability of IPv6 compatible equipment. This is already taking shape as more and more manufacturers have been including IPv6 capabilities in newer equipment, in anticipation of the switch. Through relevant bodies such as the FCC, such requirements should be made to ensure that all IP requiring equipment are IPv6 compatible. With the anticipated boom of internet connectivity in emerging markets such as China, the need for IP addresses will grow and with it demand for IP addresses, which in turn will make the adoption of IPv6 inevitable. It will be easier to make the switch if devices are already IPv6 compatible compared to a situation where they are not.

Most electronic equipment become obsolete in a few years as newer technologies emerge and as such, the uptake of IPv6 will occur in a shorter span of time, not longer than the average lifespan of electronic devices. China needs to be involved aggressively in the enforcement of IPv6 equipment, since china has had some of the most relaxed manufacturing standards yet it is becoming the world industrial hub, manufacturing most of the world’s electronic equipment. The good news is that China took a lead in the adoption of IPv6 through the Chinese Next Generation Internet (CNGI) way back in 2001, and with a little encouragement and support, it will produce the required IPv6 compatible equipment.

The third success factor is a strong regulatory environment provided by governments the world over giving deadlines for the implementation of key aspect of IPv6 uptake. This will inform procurement laws that can stop importation of non-IPv6 compliant network equipment, and will discourage the manufacture of such equipment in manufacturing countries. The US Department of Defense is leading the fray in this respect because it “requires IPv6 support from network equipment suppliers” (Vegoda, 2009.)

In addition, the EU has started to get stringent. Vegoda, (2009) notes that, “EU Communication suggests members make sure contract renewals include IPv6 support” The internet has generally been a free world devoid of regulation. It is however not good for it at the moment to continue unchecked in the IPv6 matter because it may face imminent collapse or develop numerous technical problems if governments do not move with speed to enforce policies that will encourage IPv6 uptake. Just as governments had to step in to enact legislation to control content posted and exchanged on the internet, such as controls on pornography and dangerous information for instance how to build explosives, there is need to view this transition as a process that requires heavy mediation and will not succeed on its own except with government support. This kind of involvement does not have to be direct control but can take softer forms.

These forms include ensuring all government functions undertaken on the internet are under the IPv6 platform, and that all equipment procured is compatible with the new format. Governments in many countries have the capacity to finance equipment upgrade for state run ISPs, or to provide financial supports by incentivizing commercial banks to provide financing to privately owned ISPs for IT backbone infrastructure upgrades.

Commercial incentives like tax breaks are options for consideration to promote the acquisition and use of IPv6 network equipment. These incentives should aim at reducing the financial impact of the transition on IPS’s and other vendors. Ensuring sound financial policies and strong financial support for IPv6 compliance will greatly help in the uptake of IPv6. Advice from experts on internet economics may provide insight into business models that can provide sufficient profits from upgrading to IPv6 especially if those models have some form of support from governments, regional authorities, and internet regulators.

The end users must be involved in the process for upgrading, even though they will incur the least cost. They determine the demand and so they form the primary movers for this process. If there is sufficient information and motivation to demand IPv6 services then the providers will respond to the demand and will greatly increase the uptake of IPv6. Large institutions require incentives, which can be by bringing to their attention the security benefits that IPv6 offers compared t IPv4. Since IPv6 through IPSec has better security guarantees, large institutions will likely opt for IPv6 since security is one of their most serious concerns in the internet.

Future scenarios

In the near, future internet, IPv6 will be the protocol that carries the online traffic. IPv4 must give way to the new order. The transition will be costly, maybe inconvenient and difficult, but necessary. A failure to transit will be catastrophic. It may lead to extreme adaptation measures such as IP theft and IP speculation, and this will render the internet unreliable for the worlds collective communication needs. New ideas for coping will emerge from different parties, and a black market for IPs would be one of the possible results of such a process. Failure to implement IPv6 will slow down the growth of the internet and may cause tension in the world.

The internet is a basic need in society today and hence anything that limits access will be termed as an affront on civil liberties. There will be an increased prospect of ‘internet activism’, where countries with low IP allocations will begin to fight for a larger share of allocations.

Internet based businesses will be affected. Technical services providers such as web designers and programmers will see a reduced volume of business since only clients with already existing IP allocations will be able to bring business to them. Their growth prospects will stagnate. Network and end user equipment manufacturers will suffer a hit too since no one will buy equipment if they are unable to take part in the internet. The internet provides many of the world’s jobs and a collapse of the internet because of no space for expansion of IPs will lead to loss of numerous jobs and numerous job opportunities. Collaboration in research that is currently growing between many institutions in different nations will suffer heavily.

In an extreme adaptation measure, lack of IPs may necessitate nationalization of the internet, and capable countries or regions may decide to develop their own protocols for use within their regions, to assign to themselves the IPs they need for their uses. Zones such as Asia and China have a well-developed work force to develop the protocols they will need in a nationalized or regionalized internet. This will reverse many gains that world has been able to get because of the liberalized internet where any two people can communicate from whatever points of the world with a fair degree of equality. Totalitarian states will use this to their advantage.

This will be the death of the internet as a global network without walls. A fitting analogy will be the mythical tower of Babel. After a confusion of languages occurred at the tower, its construction could not proceed and soon thereafter, their civilization collapsed, and all people went their own way.

On the contrary, if the implementation of IPv4 goes on successfully, it will provide a new boom for the internet. With the issues of address space sorted, new devices can join the internet to good effect for the entire human race. It will provide much needed facilitation for India and China’s emergence as world economic powers. Africa will have the opportunity to join the international community in this growth. Developed economies in the west will enjoy labor and population stability.

This will be the result of the availability of jobs online, which immigrants seek. The result will be the stemming of immigration, whose chief driver is the search for opportunities. With a growing internet, there is a better chance of world peace. Totalitarian regimes will have fewer levers to use to control their populations and so there will be corresponding increase in civil liberties all over the world.

The opportunity to manufacturer IPv6 compliant network and end use equipment will be a big boom for business. Network specialists will also see a growth in demand for their services, and new technologies will emerge to take advantage of the new protocol. New gadgets made and added to our ever-growing list of equipment that use internet technology will hopefully lead to a rise in quality of life. Since IPv6 is also limited in its future life, work on the next protocol will lead to a new wave of research into a better futuristic protocol that should not bear an upper limit to number of IPs it can support. This research effort will bear international fingerprints as programmers and internet specialists from India and China and possibly all over the world get a chance to contribute to the technical operations of the internet.

Adoption of IPv6 promises the world more than just many more IP addresses. It sits on issues such as world peace, political stability, and an open human society where civil liberties continue to grow, a culture of international cooperation and development in commerce, research and governance, and a vastly improved quality of life for all human beings.

References

Beijnum, I. V. 2006. A Practical Guide to configuring IPv6 for windowsXP, MacOS, FreeBSD, Red Hat Linux, Cisco Routers, DNS, and BIND, Zebra, and Apache 2. Apress: Berkley CA.

Comer, D. E. 2006. Internetworking with TCP/IP Vol. 1 Principles, protocols and architechture, 5^th edn. Pearson prentice hall: New Jersey.

Dunmore, M. (ed). 2005. An IPv6 deployment guide: 6net consortium. Web.

Gaffin, J.C. 2007. Internet protocol 6. Nova science publishers: New York.

Huston, G. (2010) “IP address exhaustion in 12 easy questions”. Web.

IANA (2010) “introducing IANA”. Web.

Leo VEGODA, (2009) ICANN, IPv6 deployment overview. Web.

Martínez J.P. (2010) IPv6: legal aspects of the new internet protocol. Euro6ix. Web.

Massey, D Wang, L. Zhang B.& Zhang, L. 2007. A scalable routing system design for future internet. Web.

Mun, Y. & Lee, H. K. 2005. Understanding IPv6. Springer science + business media: New York.