Overview
From the inception of the IPv6 protocol, the primary goal was to understand the main shortcomings of IPv4 and improve on those issues
in a new protocol. The uptake of the protocol has been very slow over the years due to the development of intermediate technologies that
optimized the (re)use of existing addressing.
A turning point in this history was reached early in 2011, when the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) announced depletion of
the IPv4 address pool. From that point, the regional Internet registries (RIRs) had only their previously assigned allocations to hand out to
local Internet registries (LIRs).
Building a business case for adoption of IPv6 was not a task to be taken lightly. As a consequence, only Internet Service Providers and
educational institutions attempted adoption in their core networks and peering points. Today, however, were seeing the first real
business cases building up, with mobile Service Providers offering high-speed Internet access (3G and 4G) via smartphones and mobile
devices. The growth of mobile devices has been increasing steadily, and mobile Service Providers are faced with the technical challenge
of how to provide access.
This article focuses on IPv6 deployment challenges in the Service Provider and enterprise spaces.
Article
Development of technologies for address optimization and reuse has seriously slowed the deployment rate of IPv6, Network Address
Translation (NAT) being the most infamous example. NAT allows multiple devices to use local private addresses within a network while
sharing one or more global IPv4 addresses for external communications. NAT was developed for two main situations:
The fact is that NAT was - and still is - required to deploy IPv6 gradually, and yet it appeared to eliminate the need for IPv6 altogether. The
possibility of translation and reuse of existing IPv4 addressing meant that Service Providers and enterprises alike found a suitable
technology to minimize new IPv4 allocation requests to their respective RIRs. However, the large-scale introduction of NAT greatly
increased the complexity of bidirectional communication.
Larger address space - IP addressing increased to 128 bits, greatly increasing the total amount of unique address space.
End-to-end transparency Due to the increased amount of available addressing, the need for translation technologies has
been reduced.
Automatic configuration for plug and play support.
Enabling implementation of IP Security (IPSec) IPSec extension headers provide integrity, authentication and privacy services.
Improved support for IP mobility Enabled support for mobile device users to keep a permanent IP address while roaming in
foreign networks.
Page 1 of 5
Figure 2 shows the increasing number of IPv6 prefixes being announced on the Internet. Exponential growth is seen from 2009 onward
and is likely to continue.
Figure 2 : IPv6 global prefix announcements and number of Autonomous Systems (ASs) announcing IPv6 prefixes
Source : http://www.ipv6actnow.org/info/statistics/#alloc
Although many Service Providers requested their IPv6 allocations years ago, others only recently started announcing their respective
prefixes and implementing IPv6 in their core network and peering points. Global IPv6 traffic still amounts to a fairly small percentage of
the total Internet traffic; however, it is increasing at an incredible pace and will continue to do so in the coming years.
No business need.
Not enough content available.
Infrastructure incompatibility
Lack of vendor support.
Page 2 of 5
To succeed in this task, changes need to be made to address at least the first point of the areas mentioned above.
Providing each mobile device with a public IPv4 address. This solution is sound and proven; however, the fact that IANA and RIRs
are out of IPv4 addressing prevents this approach from being viable long-term, due to the growth in smartphone numbers. RIRs are
reluctant to grant new allocations due to scarcity or even complete depletion of available addresses.
Providing each mobile device with a private IPv4 address and translating it to access the Internet. SPs with depleted public
address allocations have implemented a private addressing solution. This option enables the SP to meet growth demands, but it
greatly increases the complexity of the network due to the need for translation mechanisms, and it doesnt introduce a long-term
solution.
Building a business case has become an easier task, as its only a question of directly translating lost revenue due to the inability of the
network to grow based on demands. Broadband Service Providers can build business cases with similar reasoning.
IPv6 becomes the only long-term solution with appropriate scalability to endure these increasing demands.
Preferred transition mechanisms avoid translation and tunneling as much as possible:
Dual stack
Translation (NAT64, DNS64)
Tunneling (6RD, ISATAP, Teredo, 6to4)
Translation and tunneling will be inevitable due to the fact that not all of the content is available on IPv6 currently. That said, large content
providers (Google, YouTube, Facebook, etc.) have working deployments for IPv6 access, and participated in the ISOC World IPv6 Day on
June 8, 2011 . The increase in IPv6 content will also push more and more SPs to adopt and provide customers with IPv6 service.
Enterprise Challenges
Compared to the Service Provider market, the enterprise market and public sector have not yet found a compelling event to help in
building a solid business case for IPv6 adoption. The question of business need is still open, and total cost and risks included in the
migration process still outweigh the benefits.
One example of an enterprise that has found the answer for the business need question is the manufacturing industry, with its
thousands of Ethernet-capable sensors and devices monitoring the production line. Stateless auto configuration enables sensors to
register state seamlessly, without additional configuration effort. This design makes the process of maintenance and support of failed
and newly added sensors an optimized task directly translating into cost reductions.
Educational institutions, on the other hand, have had sufficient incentive to experiment with the new protocol, gathering valuable
experience in the meantime. Universities and governmental education agencies have been very quick to adopt and implement the new
functionalities. Although lacking a real business need, implementation has mostly been accomplished through research-anddevelopment in the academic sphere. Research results have usually been implemented in a working scenario or proof of concept, thus
greatly advancing understanding of the protocol.
Page 3 of 5
Page 4 of 5
Further Outlook
Implementations of IPv6 will increase rapidly in the next few years, fueled mutually by SPs offering IPv6 services to mobile and residential
users, and increasing numbers of content providers offering their services over IPv6. The main content providers are already there, and
consistent pressure by SPs to offer native IPv6 will force smaller content providers to migrate eventually.
The fact that selected RIRs still have some free allocations or that private address space is available with the use of NAT should not be a
relief. IPv6 is here and cannot be avoided.
You can either do a planned, careful migration, or you can do it in a panic. And you should know full well that panicking is more
expensive.
Martin Levy, Hurricane Electric
Page 5 of 5