[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

V6OPS                                                        G. Fioccola
Internet-Draft                                                P. Volpato
Intended status: Informational                       Huawei Technologies
Expires: April 18, 2021                                 October 15, 2020


                   IPv6 Transition Deployment Status
                   draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-00

Abstract

   Looking globally, IPv6 is growing faster than IPv4 and this means
   that the collective wisdom of the networking industry has selected
   IPv6 for the future.  This document provides an overview of IPv6
   transition deployment status and a view on how the transition to IPv6
   is progressing among network operators that are introducing IPv6 or
   have already adopted an IPv6-only solution.  It also aims to analyze
   the transition challenges and therefore encourage actions and more
   investigations on some areas that are still under discussion.  The
   overall IPv6 incentives are also examined.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

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 April 18, 2021.








Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   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.  The global picture of IPv6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  IPv6 connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Number of IPv6 users  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Web sites supporting IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.4.  Regional Internet Registries' Allocations . . . . . . . .   6
     2.5.  Networks supporting IPv6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Survey among Network Operators  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  IPv6 deployments worldwide  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.1.  IPv6 service design for Mobile, Fixed broadband and
           enterprises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.1.1.  IPv6 introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.1.2.  IPv6-only service delivery  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Considerations coming out of IPv6 deployments . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  IPv6 incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Call for action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.1.  Transition choices  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       7.1.1.  Service providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       7.1.2.  Enterprises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.2.  Network Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.3.  Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       7.3.1.  IPv6 latency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       7.3.2.  IPv6 packet loss  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     7.4.  IPv6 security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       7.4.1.  Protocols security issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   9.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17



Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Appendix A.  Summary of Questionnaire and Replies . . . . . . . .  20
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24

1.  Introduction

   The focus of this document is to provide a survey of the deployed
   IPv6 transition technologies and to highlight the difficulties in the
   transition.  This process helps to understand what is missing and how
   to improve the current IPv6 deployment strategies of the network
   operators and enterprises.  The objective is to give an updated view
   of the practices and plans already described in [RFC6036].  The scope
   is to report the current IPv6 status and encourage actions and more
   investigations on some areas that are still under discussion as well
   as the main incentives for the IPv6 adoption.

   [RFC6180] discussed the IPv6 deployment models and migration tools.
   [RFC6036] described the Service Provider Scenarios for IPv6
   Deployment, [RFC7381] introduced the guidelines of the IPv6
   deployment for Enterprise and [RFC6883] provided guidance and
   suggestions for Internet Content Providers and Application Service
   Providers.  On the other hand, this document focuses on the end-to-
   end services and in particular on the device - network - content
   communication chain.

   [ETSI-IP6-WhitePaper] reported the IPv6 Best Practices, Benefits,
   Transition Challenges and the Way Forward.  IPv6 is becoming a
   priority again and a new wave of IPv6 deployment is expected, due the
   exhaustion of the IPv4 address space since 2010, in addition
   technologies like 5G, cloud, IoT require its use, governments and
   standard bodies (including IETF) demand it, and the device - network
   - content communication chain is calling for its adoption.  In this
   regard it is possible to mention the IAB Statement on IPv6 stating
   that "IETF will stop requiring IPv4 compatibility in new or extended
   protocols".

   The following sections give the global picture of IPv6 to show how
   IPv6 is growing faster than IPv4 worldwide in all measures including
   number of users, percentage of content, and amount of traffic.  This
   testifies that the key Internet industry players have decided
   strategically to invest and deploy IPv6 in large-scale to sustain the
   Internet growth.

   Then it is presented the survey among network operators about the
   IPv6 deployment and the considerations that have come out.  IPv6
   transition solutions for Mobile BroadBand (MBB), Fixed BroadBand
   (FBB) and enterprise services are ready.  Dual-Stack is the most




Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


   deployed solution for IPv6 introduction, while 464XLAT and Dual Stack
   Lite (DS-Lite) seem the most suitable for IPv6-only service delivery.

   Finally, The IPv6 incentives are presented but the general IPv6
   challenges are also reported in particular in relation to
   Architecture, Operations, Performance and Security issues.  These
   considerations aim to start a call for action on the areas of
   improvement, that are often mentioned as reason for not deploying
   IP6.

2.  The global picture of IPv6

   The utilization of IPv6 has been monitored by many agencies and
   institutions worldwide.  Different analytics have been made
   available, ranging from the number of IPv6 users, its relative
   utilization over the Internet, to the number of carriers able to
   route IPv6 network prefixes.  The scope of this section then is to
   provide a glance at the status of the IPv6 adoption, so to get an
   indication of the relevance of IPv6 today.  For each analytic listed
   in the next subsections the trend over the past five years is given,
   expressed as the Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR).  In general,
   this shows how IPv6 has grown in the past few years, and that is
   growing faster than IPv4.

2.1.  IPv6 connectivity

   Some OTTs and Internet Registries keep track of the utilization of
   IPv6 worldwide, collecting the number of end points (IPv6 addresses)
   that access their servers.  The following table show the percentage
   of IPv6 connections as collected and reported by [APNIC1],
   [FACEBOOK], and [GOOGLE] in the period January 1, 2015 to January 1,
   2020.  It has to be noted that [FACEBOOK] started their collection in
   September, 2017.  As such, January, 2018 is the first data point
   reported in the table.  For each data set, the relative CAGR shows
   how steady the IPv6 growth results.
















Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


   +---------+------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
   |  Source | Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan   |  Jan   |  CAGR  |
   |         | 2015 |  2016 |  2017 |  2018 |  2019  |  2020  |        |
   +---------+------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
   |  APNIC  | 3.13 | 5.51% | 8.05% | 16.83 | 20.11% | 24.58% | 51.01% |
   |         |  %   |       |       |   %   |        |        |        |
   | Faceboo | N/A  |  N/A  |  N/A  | 18.35 | 23.66% | 26.24% | 19.58% |
   |    k    |      |       |       |   %   |        |        |        |
   |  Google | 5.84 | 10.41 | 16.51 | 21.84 | 26.32% | 30.16% | 38.87% |
   |         |  %   |   %   |   %   |   %   |        |        |        |
   +---------+------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+

                   Table 1: IPv6 connectivity percentage

   The next table also shows the relative increase of IPv6 connections
   as measured by [AKAMAI] on their platforms over the last five years.
   The percentage is expressed as the number of hits generated by IPv6
   users over the total hits.  For the sake of conciseness, only a few
   examples are reported.

   +----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+------+
   |  Source  |  Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan   |  Jan   | CAGR |
   |          |  2015 |  2016 |  2017 |  2018 |  2019  |  2020  |      |
   +----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+------+
   | Reliance |  6.7% | 10.7% | 73.2% | 84.0% | 86.3%  | 87.0%  | 67%  |
   |   (IN)   |       |       |       |       |        |        |      |
   |   ATT    | 20.9% | 40.0% | 49.0% | 59.6% | 68.4%  | 67.7%  | 26%  |
   |  (USA)   |       |       |       |       |        |        |      |
   | Softbank |  2.1% | 11.2% | 20.9% | 28.7% | 40.8%  | 45.8%  | 85%  |
   |   (JP)   |       |       |       |       |        |        |      |
   +----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+------+

             Table 2: IPv6 connectivity percentage - Operators

2.2.  Number of IPv6 users

   The analytics provided by [APNIC1] also give an estimation on the
   number of IPv6 users worldwide, which is constantly increasing.  The
   next table shows the growth for the five economies with the highest
   numbers of IPv6 users at January 2020 as well as the estimation of
   the total IPv6 users worldwide.










Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


   +--------+------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
   | Countr | Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan   |  Jan   |  Jan   |  CAGR  |
   |   y    | 2015 |  2016 |  2017 |  2018  |  2019  |  2020  |        |
   +--------+------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
   | India  | 0.10 |  4.27 | 61.99 | 227.22 | 250.10 | 360.74 | 413.7% |
   |  USA   | 31.9 | 84.80 | 95.15 | 109.86 | 122.79 | 137.31 | 33.9%  |
   |        |  1   |       |       |        |        |        |        |
   | China  | 4.12 |  4.52 |  4.87 |  2.84  |  8.32  | 130.10 | 99.5%  |
   | Brazil | 0.14 |  9.77 | 12.84 | 26.42  | 32.87  | 50.48  | 226.9% |
   | Japan  | 10.4 | 18.43 | 17.11 | 27.56  | 28.98  | 40.86  | 31.2%  |
   |        |  9   |       |       |        |        |        |        |
   | World  | 74.2 | 179.4 | 290.6 | 513.68 | 574.02 | 989.25 | 67.9%  |
   |        |  4   |   2   |   8   |        |        |        |        |
   +--------+------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

                Table 3: IPv6 users worldwide (in millions)

2.3.  Web sites supporting IPv6

   The progression of IPv6 web sites on the global Internet is shown in
   the next table, as reported by [W3TECHS]

   +---------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+------+
   | Country |  Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan   |  Jan   |  Jan   | CAGR |
   |         |  2015 |  2016 |  2017 |  2018  |  2019  |  2020  |      |
   +---------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+------+
   | Servers |  5.2% |  6.1% |  9.6% | 11.4%  | 13.3%  | 15.0%  | 24%  |
   +---------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+------+

                    Table 4: IPv6 web servers worldwide

   As explained by [W3TECHS], the statistic above refers to the whole
   Internet and includes all sizes of providers, businesses and
   enterprises.  As such, it has to be noted that the biggest OTTs and
   Content Providers host a large amount of servers which are actually
   counted as one single website.  The relative percentage of IPv6
   capable servers would be much higher, as these players alone provide
   a big portion of the contents accessed every day by the Internet
   community.

2.4.  Regional Internet Registries' Allocations

   Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are responsible for assigning an
   IPv6 address block to ISPs or enterprises.  An ISP will use the
   assigned block to provide addresses to their end users.  For example,
   a mobile carrier will assign one or several /64 prefixes to the end
   users.  Several analytics are available for the RIRs.  The next table




Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


   shows the amount of individual allocations, per RIR, in the time
   period 2015-2019 [APNIC2].

   +---------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----------+------+
   | Registr | Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan  | Cumulated | CAGR |
   |    y    | 2015 |  2016 |  2017 |  2018 |  2019 |           |      |
   +---------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----------+------+
   | AFRINIC |  86  |  116  |  112  |  110  |  115  |    539    | 58%  |
   |  APNIC  | 778  | 1,681 | 1,369 | 1,474 | 1,484 |   6,786   | 72%  |
   |   ARIN  | 602  |  646  |  684  |  658  |  605  |   3,195   | 52%  |
   |  LACNIC | 1,06 | 1,010 | 1,549 | 1,450 | 1,618 |   6,688   | 58%  |
   |         |  1   |       |       |       |       |           |      |
   |   RIPE  | 2,20 | 2,141 | 2,051 | 2,617 | 3,105 |   12,120  | 53%  |
   |         |  6   |       |       |       |       |           |      |
   |  Total  | 4,73 | 5,594 | 5,765 | 6,309 | 6,927 |   29,328  | 58%  |
   |         |  3   |       |       |       |       |           |      |
   +---------+------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-----------+------+

                    Table 5: IPv6 web servers worldwide

   [APNIC2] also compares the number of allocations for both address
   families, and the result is in favor of IPv6.  The average yearly
   growth is 58% for IPv6 in the period 2015-2019 versus 47% for IPv4, a
   sign that IPv6 is growing bigger than IPv4.  This is described in the
   next table.

   +--------+-------+------+------+--------+--------+-----------+------+
   | Addres |  Jan  | Jan  | Jan  |  Jan   |  Jan   | Cumulated | CAGR |
   |   s    |  2015 | 2016 | 2017 |  2018  |  2019  |           |      |
   | family |       |      |      |        |        |           |      |
   +--------+-------+------+------+--------+--------+-----------+------+
   |  IPv6  | 4,733 | 5,59 | 5,76 | 6,309  | 6,927  |   29,328  | 58%  |
   |        |       |  4   |  5   |        |        |           |      |
   |  IPv4  | 11,73 | 9,78 | 9,44 | 10,199 | 14,033 |   55,191  | 47%  |
   |        |   2   |  7   |  0   |        |        |           |      |
   +--------+-------+------+------+--------+--------+-----------+------+

                  Table 6: Allocations per address family

2.5.  Networks supporting IPv6

   The next table is based on [POTAROO] and shows the percentage of ASes
   supporting IPv6 compared to the total ASes worldwide.  The number of
   IPv6-capable ASes increases from 21.1% in January 2015 to 27.5% in
   January 2020.  This equals to 15.19% CAGR for IPv6 enabled networks.
   This also shows that the number of networks supporting IPv6 is
   growing faster than the ones supporting IPv4, since the total (IPv6
   and IPv4) networks grow at 9.23% CAGR.



Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


   +-----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
   | Advertise |  Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan  |  Jan  |  CAGR |
   |   d ASN   |  2015 |  2016 |  2017 |  2018 |  2019 |  2020 |       |
   +-----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
   | IPv6-capa | 9,182 | 10,74 | 12,66 | 14,50 | 16,44 | 18,62 | 15.19 |
   |    ble    |       |   4   |   3   |   6   |   0   |   3   |   %   |
   | Total ASN | 43,54 | 44,54 | 44,36 | 60,28 | 63,78 | 67,71 | 9.23% |
   |           |   3   |   9   |   8   |   1   |   2   |   3   |       |
   |   Ratio   | 21.1% | 24.1% | 28.5% | 24.1% | 25.8% | 27.5% |       |
   +-----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

                    Table 7: IPv6 web servers worldwide

3.  Survey among Network Operators

   It was started an IPv6 poll to more than 50 network operators about
   the status of IPv6 deployment.  This poll reveals that more than 30
   operators will migrate fixed and mobile users to IPv6 in next 2
   years.  The IPv6 Poll has been submitted in particular to network
   operators considering that, as showed by the previous section, both
   user devices and contents seem more ready for IPv6.  The answers to
   the questionnaire can be found in Appendix.

   The main Questions asked are:

      * Do you plan to move more fixed or mobile or enterprise users to
      IPv6  (e.g.  Dual-Stack) or IPv6-only in the next 2 years?  What
      are the reasons to do so?  Which transition solution will you use,
      Dual-Stack, DS-Lite, 464XLAT, MAP-T/E?

      * Do you need to change network devices for the above goal?  Will
      you migrate your metro or backbone or backhaul network to support
      IPv6?

   The result of this questionnaire highlights that major IPv6 migration
   will happen in next 2 years.  Dual Stack is always the most adopted
   solution and the transition to IPv6-only is motivated in particular
   by business reasons like the 5G and IoT requirements.  In addition it
   is worth mentioning that the migration of transport network (metro
   and backbone) is not considered a priority today for many network
   operators and the focus is in particular on the end to end IPv6
   services.

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







Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


4.  IPv6 deployments worldwide

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

4.1.  IPv6 service design for Mobile, Fixed broadband and enterprises

   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.

4.1.1.  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 at the CPE

   o  Tunneling IPv6 traffic over IPv4, e.g. with 6rd.

   So, from a technical perspective, the first stage is based on Dual-
   Stack [RFC4213] or tunnel-based mechanisms such as Generic Routing
   Encapsulation (GRE), IPv6 Rapid Deployment (6rd), Connection of IPv6
   Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4), and others.

   Dual-Stack [RFC4213] is more robust, and easier to troubleshoot and
   support.  Based on information provided by operators with the answers
   to the poll (see Appendix A), it can be stated that Dual-Stack is
   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.

   With Dual-Stack, IPv6 can be introduced together with other network
   upgrade 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 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.





Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


   The CPE has only an IPv6 address 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 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 introduction stage, it does have few
   disadvantages in the long run, like the duplication of the network
   resources, as well as other limitations for network operation.  For
   this reason, when IPv6 increases to a certain limit, it would be
   better to switch to the IPv6-only stage.

4.1.2.  IPv6-only service delivery

   The second stage, named here IPv6-only, can be a complex decision
   that depends on several factors, such as economic factors, policy and
   government regulation.

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

   Based on the survey among network operators in Appendix A it is
   possible to analyze the IPv6 transition technologies that are already
   deployed or that will be deployed.  The different answers to the
   questionnaire and in particular [ETSI-IP6-WhitePaper] reported
   detailed statistics on that and it can be stated that, besides Dual-
   Stack, the most widely deployed IPv6 transition solution for MBB is
   464XLAT [RFC6877], and for FBB is DS-Lite [RFC6333], both of which
   are IPv6-only solutions.

   Looking at the different feedback from network operators, in some
   cases, even when using private addresses, such as 10.0.0.0/8 space
   [RFC1918], the address pool is not large enough, e.g. for large
   mobile operators or large Data Centers (DCs), Dual-Stack is not
   enough, because it still requires IPv4 addresses to be assigned.
   Also, Dual-Stack will likely lead to duplication of several network
   operations both in IPv6 and IPv4 and this increases the amount of
   state information in the network with a waste of resources.  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 CGNAT costs).




Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


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

5.  Considerations coming out of IPv6 deployments

   Global IPv4 address depletion is reported by most network operators
   as the important driver for IPv6 deployment.  Indeed, the main reason
   for IPv6 deployment given is related to the run out of private
   10.0.0.0/8 space [RFC1918].  5G and IoT service deployment is another
   incentive not only for business reasons but also for the need of more
   addresses.

   The answers in Appendix shows that the IPv6 deployment strategy is
   based mainly on Dual Stack architecture and most of the network
   operators are migrating or plan to migrate in the next few years.

   It is interesting to see that most of the network operators have no
   big plans to migrate transport network (metro and backbone) soon,
   since they do not see business reasons.  It seems that despite the
   future benefit with IPv6 (e.g.  SRv6) which may justify in the long
   term a migration to native IPv6, there is no pressure to migrate to
   native IPv6 forwarding in the short term.  Most of the network
   operators said that a software upgrade can be enough to support IPv6
   where it is needed for now.

   This survey demonstrates that full replacement of IPv4 will take long
   time.  Indeed the transition to IPv6 has different impacts and
   requirements depending on the network segment:

   o  It is possible to say that almost all mobile devices are already
      IPv6 capable while for fixed access most of the CPEs are Dual
      Stack.  Data Centers are also evolving and deploying IPv6 to cope
      with the increasing demand of cloud services.

   o  While the access network seems not strongly impacted because it is
      mainly based on layer 2 traffic, regarding Edge and BNG, most
      network operators that provide IPv6 connectivity runs BNG devices
      in Dual Stack in order to distribute both IPv4 and IPv6.

   o  For Metro and Backbone, the trend is to keep MPLS Data Plane and
      run IPv6/IPv4 over PE devices at the border.  All MPLS services
      can be guaranteed in IPv6 as well through 6PE/6VPE protocols.

   In this scenario it is clear that the complete deployment of a full
   IPv6 data plane will take more time.  If we look at the long term
   evolution, IPv6 can bring other advantages like introducing advanced



Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


   protocols developed only on IPv6 (e.g.  SRv6) to implement all the
   controlled SLA services aimed by the 5G technology and beyond.

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 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 that all networking standards assume the use of IPv6
      and be written so they do not require IPv4 ([RFC6540]).  In
      addition, every Internet registry 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 migrating 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
      don't want to miss out on government related bids to evolve their
      infrastructure to be IPv6 capable.  Any public incentives for
      technical evolution will be bonded to IPv6 capabilities of the
      technology itself.





Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


7.  Call for action

   There are some areas of improvement, that are often mentioned in the
   literature and during the discussions on IPv6 deployment.  This
   section lists these topics and wants to start a call for action 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 basic approaches that service
   providers and enterprises may take.  The scope is to raise the
   discussion whether actions may be taken that allow to overcome the
   issues highlighted and further push the adoption of IPv6.

7.1.1.  Service providers

   For a service provider, the IPv6 transition often refers to the
   service architecture (also referred to as overlay) and not to the
   network architecture (underlay).  IPv6 is introduced at the service
   layer when a service requiring IPv6-based connectivity is deployed in
   an IPv4-based network.  In this case, as already mentioned in the
   previous sections, a strategy is based on two stages: IPv6
   introduction and IPv6-only.

7.1.2.  Enterprises

   As described in [RFC7381], enterprises face different challenges than
   operators.  The overall problem for many enterprises is to handle
   IPv6-based connectivity to the upstream providers, while supporting a
   mixed IPv4/IPv6 domain in the internal network.  The dual stage
   approach may be still applicable, even if the priorities to apply
   either stage are different.

7.2.  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 migration.  Staff has to be aware of the best



Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


   practices for managing IPv4 and IPv6 assets.  In addition to network
   nodes, network management applications and equipment need to be
   properly configured and in same cases also replaced.  This may
   introduce more complexity and costs for the migration.

7.3.  Performance

   Despite their relative differences, people tend to compare the
   performance of IPv6 versus IPv4.  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.  This
   paragraph will look briefly at both of them, considering the
   available measurements.  Operators are invited to bring in their
   experience and enrich the information reported below.

7.3.1.  IPv6 latency

   [APNIC3] constantly 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 Content
   Delivery Networks (CDN) 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.

7.3.2.  IPv6 packet loss

   [APNIC3] also 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
   instability or firewall behaviours.  Yet, this worsening effect may
   appeae as disturbing for a plain transition to IPv6.  Operators are




Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


   once again invited to share their experience and discuss the
   performance of IPv6 in their network scenarios.

7.4.  IPv6 security

   IPv6 presents a number of exciting possibilities for the expanding
   global Internet, however, there are also noted security challenges
   associated with the transition to IPv6.  [I-D.ietf-opsec-v6] analyzes
   the operational security issues in several places of a network
   (enterprises, service providers and residential users).

   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 for the things going on at the network level.  Router
   discovery and address autoconfiguration may 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 [ISOC], 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.

   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




Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


   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.

7.4.1.  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 adds 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.

8.  Security Considerations

   This document has no impact on the security properties of specific
   IPv6 protocols or transition tools.  The security considerations




Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


   relating to the protocols and transition tools are described in the
   relevant documents.

9.  Contributors

   The following people provided relevant contributions to this
   document:

      TBC

10.  Acknowledgements

   TBC

11.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [AKAMAI]   AKAMAI, "IPv6 Adoption Visualization", 2020,
              <https://www.akamai.com/uk/en/resources/our-thinking/
              state-of-the-internet-report/state-of-the-internet-ipv6-
              adoption-visualization.jsp>.

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

   [APNIC2]   APNIC2, "Addressing 2019", 2020,
              <https://labs.apnic.net/?p=1288>.

   [APNIC3]   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>.




Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


   [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.

   [FACEBOOK]
              FACEBOOK, "IPv6", 2020, <https://www.facebook.com/ipv6>.

   [GOOGLE]   GOOGLE, "IPv6 Adoption", 2020,
              <https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html>.

   [I-D.ietf-opsec-v6]
              Vyncke, E., Kk, C., Kaeo, M., and E. Rey, "Operational
              Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks", draft-ietf-
              opsec-v6-21 (work in progress), November 2019.

   [I-D.lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison]
              Lencse, G., Martinez, J., Howard, L., Patterson, R., and
              I. Farrer, "Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition Technologies
              for IPv4aaS", draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-05
              (work in progress), July 2020.

   [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>.

   [ISOC]     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>.

   [POTAROO]  POTAROO, "IPv6 / IPv4 Comparative Statistics", 2020,
              <https://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/v6rpt.html>.

   [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>.







Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


   [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>.

   [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>.







Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


   [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>.

   [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>.

   [W3TECHS]  W3TECHS, "Historical yearly trends in the usage statistics
              of site elements for websites", 2020, <https://w3techs.com
              /technologies/history_overview/site_element/all/y>.

Appendix A.  Summary of Questionnaire and Replies

   This Appendix summarizes the questionnaire and the replies received.

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

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

   b.  What're the reasons to do so?

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

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

   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?

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

   Some answers below:





Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


   Answer 1: (1) Yes, IPv6 migration strategy relies upon the deployment
   of Dual Stack architecture.  IPv4 service continuity designs is based
   on DS-Lite for fixed environments and 464XLAT for mobile
   environments.  No plans to move towards MAP-E or MAP-T solutions for
   the time being.  (2) Yes, it's a matter of upgrading CPE, routers
   (including BNGs), etc.  Tunneling options (ISATAP, TEREDO, 6rd) will
   also be used for migration.

   Answer 2: (1) Yes, at this moment we widely use IPv6 for mobile
   services while we are using DS-Lite for fixed services (FTTH and
   DSL).  (2) We have no pressure to migrate to native IPv6 forwarding
   in the short term and it would represent a significant work without
   clear immediate benefit or business rationale.  However we may see a
   future benefit with SRv6 which may justify in the long term a
   migration to native IPv6.

   Answer 3: (1) Yes, fixed.  The IP depletion topic is crucial, so we
   need to speed up the DS-Lite deployment and also Carrier Grade Nat
   introduction.  (2) Yes, CGNAT introduction.

   Answer 4: (1) No, we are rolling IPv6 users back to IPv4.  DS-Lite.
   (2) No, it was already done.  IPv6 works worse than IPv4. it is
   immature.

   Answer 5: (1) Yes, all 3.  Target is Dual-stack for fixed, mobile and
   enterprise. (2) Yes, we are adding specific services cards inside our
   FTTH equipment for dealing with CGNAT.  Metro and backbone are
   already Dual Stack.

   Answer 6: (1) Yes, Enterprises customer demand is high and the
   transition is on going through Dual-Stack. (2) No big plan for
   transport network.

   Answer 7: No such requirements

   Answer 8: (1) Yes, mobile.  The Internet APN is not yet enabled for
   IPv6, this will be done soon. 464XLAT will be used to save on RFC1918
   address space.  (2) Yes, PGW; Metro is already IPv6 and Backbone is
   currently IPv4/MPLS.  No native IPv6 planned as for now.

   Answer 9: (1) Yes, Dual-Stack for all 3.  Not all services are
   available on IPv6.  IPv6 adoption has been stated from many years but
   still not finished.  Dual-Stack is used. (2) No, at the moment it is
   6PE solution.  No plan to migrate on native IPv6.

   Answer 10: (1) Yes, all 3.  Ongoing transition with Dual-stack and
   464XLAT. (2) No plan for Metro and Backbone.




Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


   Answer 11: No such requirements.

   Answer 12: (1) Yes, mobile and fixed.  To mitigate IPv4 exhaustion in
   12 months, Dual-Stack is used. (2) No (hopefully).  Managed by
   software upgrade.

   Answer 13: (1) Yes, on Mobile and Fixed.  Mobile: IPv4 exhaustion for
   the RAN transport and IPv6 roll out ongoing.  Fixed: Enterprises are
   requesting IPv6 and also competitors are offering it.  Mobile: dual
   stack and 6VPE; Enterprise: Dual Stack and 6VPE. (2) No, maybe only a
   software upgrade.

   Answer 14: (1) Yes, fixed.  IPv4 address depletion, on going, Dual-
   Stack with NAT444. (2) No.

   Answer 15: (1) Yes, Mobile.  Running out of private IPv4 address
   space and do not want to overlap addresses.  Transition on going
   through 464XLAT. (2) Not yet, this is not the most pressing concern
   at the moment but it is planned.

   Answer 16: No, already on Dual-Stack for many years.  Discussing
   IPv6-only.

   Answer 17: (1) Yes, all 3, strategy on going, Dual-Stack, MAP-T. (2)
   Yes, CPE, BR Dual-Stack.

   Answer 18: (1) Yes, Mobile, due to address deficit.  It would be very
   likely 464XLAT. (2) It is not clear at the moment.  Still under
   investigation.  CPE, Mobile Core, NAT.  For IPv6 native support no
   plans for today.

   Answer 19: No.  Difficult to do it for enterprises, and don't really
   care for residential customers.

   Answer 20: (1) Yes, fixed, mobile.  IP space depletion.  Mobile and
   Backbone are already done, Fixed is becoming Dual-Stack. (2) Yes,
   ordinary CPE and small routers.  Some of them needs just software
   upgrade.  Backbone done, no plan for metro and backhaul.

   Answer 21: No such requirements

   Answer 22: (1) Yes, mobile, we have few enterprise requests for IPv6;
   fixed already Dual-Stack.  We are in the exhaustion point in public
   IPv4 usage in mobile so we need to move to IPv6 in the terminals.
   Dual-Stack deployment is ongoing. (2) No, all devices already support
   dual-stack mode.  No migration needed.  We already support IPv6
   forwarding in our backbone.




Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


   Answer 23: No, already Dual-Stack

   Answer 24: (1) Yes, fixed.  DS-Lite. (2) Yes, BNG supporting CGNAT.

   Answer 25: (1) Yes, fixed.  DS-Lite will be deployed. (2) Yes.

   Answer 26: (1) Yes, Mobile (Fixed already Dual-Stack).  IPv4
   depletion and Business customers are asking for it.  Dual-Stack will
   be deployed. (2) No.

   Answer 27: (1) Yes, Mobile.  Dual-Stack is on going. (2) Yes, MBH,
   mobile core.

   Answer 28: No such requirements.

   Answer 29: (1) Yes, fixed and mobile, enterprise is not certain.
   IPv4 addressing is not enough, fixed and mobile should be started in
   12 months. (2) Telco Cloud, BNG and PEs already support IPv6.

   Answer 30: (1) Yes, all 3.  Government has pushed.  Dual-Stack for
   FBB in 12 months. (2) Yes, RGs have not good readiness, but not much
   could be done about it.  PPPoE access does not create problem in
   access and aggregation.  BNG should only change configuration.

   Answer 31: (1) Yes, mobile for 5G sites.  Plan to use IPv6 soon. 6VPE
   in the beginning, then migrate to Dual-stack. (2) IP BH devices
   already support IPv6.

   Answer 32: No.

   Answer 33: Yes, Enterprises.  We are running short of IPV4 addresses.
   In our Internet Core IPV4/IPV6 Dual Stack was already introduced.
   The rollout of IPV6 services is slow and we started with business
   services.  From customer perspective Dual Stack is still a "must
   have" and this will be true for many years to come.  Another thought
   is related to regulatory obligations.  Anyway a total switch from
   IPv4 to IPv6 will not be possible for many more years.

   Answer 34: No, we have no plans to introduce new wave of IPv6 in our
   network.

   Answer 35: (1) Yes. Fixed, Enterprise.  IPv4 addressing is not
   enough.  Dual Stack deployment is ongoing. (2) Yes, CPE for metro and
   backbone.

   Answer 36: (1) Yes, Fixed, Enterprise.  Dual-Stack. (2) Yes, CPE for
   IPv6 service delivery support.




Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                                              October 2020


   Answer 37: Yes, mobile and enterprise. 6PE is deployed on the PEs,
   and dual-stack.  The PE supports IPv6 by modifying the live network
   configuration or upgrading the software.

   Answer 38: Yes, both home broadband and enterprise services support
   IPv6.  IPv6 services are basic capabilities of communication
   networks.  Currently 6RD, dual stack (native IPv6) in the future.
   The dual-stack feature does not require device changes.  The home
   gateway is connected to the switch and the BNG.  The Dual Stack can
   be supported through configuration changes.  Both the metro and
   backbone networks use MPLS to provide bearer services and do not
   require IPv6 capabilities.  IPv6 is not enabled on both the metro and
   backbone networks.  IPv6 services are implemented through 6VPE.

   Answer 39: (1) Yes, Enterprises B2B needs more IP addresses.  Dual-
   Stack is already on going. (2) No, BNG/mobile core and NAT.  Metro
   and Backbone already support today.

   Answer 40: Not for now.

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













Fioccola & Volpato       Expires April 18, 2021                [Page 24]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/