The primary challenges to IPv6 adoption come from wrong perspectives and major misunderstandings with respect to its role and its value. Throughout this book, we have highlighted these problems and addressed them; following are some of the primary problems:
• IPv6 is not a feature: One common perspective is that IPv6 is a feature
that can be turned on to provide new capabilities. The problem with this perspective is that it greatly underestimates the task of integrating IPv6
and it minimizes the potential of an IPv6 environment. IPv6 is not a feature; it is the infrastructure of future IP services and communications. • Search for a well-defined ROI: The apparent lack of ROI and killer
applications was, and in many cases still is, a major barrier to adoption. In the search for ROI and killer apps that would justify adoption, we ended up with fabricated myths about IPv6 capabilities and we missed the larger picture: the fact that IPv6’s primary role is to help us scale our IP environments to meet the needs of the NGNs. In this fundamental, infrastructure role, IPv6 implies a far more complex ROI calculation, if any can be practically calculated. After all, what is the value of the overall Internet business today in its current size? What would it be when scaled up with the resources provided by IPv6? The exhaustion of the RFC 1918 address space provides a great example: You do not need a killer app to deploy IPv6. You simply have to deploy IPv6.
These two misconceptions along with a set of obstacles distracted the industry from addressing more concrete and valuable challenges. The commonly quoted obstacles are independent of market space and their perception will inevitably change in time:
• Lack of pressure to adopt IPv6: NAT and CIDR postponed the
immediate need for IPv6, but this reprieve was greatly misunderstood. How many times have we heard in the response to a warning about IPv4 address space exhaustion: “I have been hearing this for several years now and it did not happen. If nothing else, they will come up with another workaround.”? The exhaustion of the IPv4 private addresses was already painfully experienced by large networks. As of May 2007, the prediction for the global pool exhaustion is around 2010. There is no time left to come up with workarounds, test them, put them in a product, and deploy them. The pressure to adopt will only increase.
• Lack of apparent use: This perspective relates to the lack of a killer app,
as discussed in the previous list. In reality, SPs and enterprises have found use for IPv6 such as content delivery or facilities maintenance. These are not killer apps but they are examples of cost-effective ways to use IPv6.
• Costs involved in adoption: In the context of the two arguments
identified at the start of this list, virtually any investment in IPv6 would be perceived as an unjustifiable cost. Of course, this argument relates, to a certain extent, to the search for ROI. With more and more organizations developing adoption plans, the true costs of integration have been more clearly defined and quantified. Early planning was proven to significantly reduce costs.
• Perceived technology challenges: Another common question that we
hear is: Is IPv6 reliable? Chapter 2 debunked several of the myths that point to technology shortcomings. Many times, sensational news in ICT- related publications presents the problems out of context, generating misgivings toward IPv6. As an example, in May 2007, an apparent IPv6 security problem—the potential use of source routing for denial-of- service attacks—was discovered and made big news. In reality, the same security problem exists on IPv4, but, being well known, most if not all IPv4 implementations disable IPv4 source routing by default. Although IPv6 implementations continue to mature, in this particular case, most networking equipment manufacturers already implemented IPv6 countermeasures similar to the ones on IPv4. Most true challenges with IPv6 come in the context of its use in ways IPv4 could not be used, for the next generation services and architectures.
• Availability of IPv6-ready products: The definition of “IPv6 ready”
depends on the product. As mentioned previously, IPv6 is not a feature, but it is similar to IPv4, a package of features. The definition of readiness revolves around the contents of that list. Organizations planning to deploy IPv6 can indeed run into product or feature gaps. Although manufacturers with global coverage have been developing IPv6-ready products for a long time, manufacturers with a localized market or covering very specific market segments might have started to introduce IPv6 in their products only recently. Moreover, the investment in feature development is market driven, so the later a given market or IP
environment type started to plan for IPv6, the more likely it is that features specific to that market might not yet be available.
• Lack of trained staff: The number of IPv6 subject matter experts (SME)
is limited today, and most network operations teams lack familiarity with the protocol. Training is often listed among the top costs for adoption. Public training, such as seminars offered by the 6DISS project, is not sufficient to raise the appropriate level of protocol knowledge in a timely manner. Consultant firms, however, have been stepping up their course offerings and expanding the coursework coverage.
The June 2006 market study performed by Market Connections provides a concrete and quantitative example of top IPv6 adoption challenges for a given market segment discussed on page 102 of this chapter.50
Figure 4-9 shows the impact that various challenges have on IPv6 adoption as perceived by the U.S. federal agencies.
Figure 4-9 Top IPv6 Adoption Challenges Based on the Market Connections Poll Some obstacles are just a matter of perception and some are challenges that must be actively addressed. The minor ones relate to deploying IPv6 in the context of the principles and frameworks of today’s IPv4 network. The more interesting ones relate to deploying IPv6 based on new principles and in the context of new architectures.
50. “IPv6 Survey: Taking the Federal Pulse on IPv6,” http://wwwcisco.com/web/strategy/docs/gov/ cisco_IPv6_Report.ppt.
Lack of Experienced Agency Staff Other Projects Get Higher Priority Developing Transition Plan Funding/Budget % Considered a Challenge 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 45% 51% 52% 62% 50% 60% 70%