[discuss] IPv6 Deployment and IG (was: Re: Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013)

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Wed Dec 25 07:17:07 UTC 2013

On Dec 24, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 25/12/2013 09:56, Roland Perry wrote:
>> ...
>> IPv6 deployment does not having anything like as much as a hard deadline
>> to deal with.
> No. It is happening at a natural rate, as operators and content providers
> see the need arising. Since there is no prospect of the supply of IPv6
> addresses running out for the next few centuries, there is no issue
> specific to IPv6 that calls for a governance discussion.

"IPv6 Deployment" could refer to many different aspects of IPv6, and 
I am not certain that we can definitely state that there is no need 
for greater cooperation among all Internet stakeholders regarding its
deployment.  If you are simply referring to rate of deployment, that
might be the case, but that isn't the entire picture.

For example, it is now recognized that IPv6 deployment is going to be 
both prolonged and asynchronous.  The implication of this is that we
will have a period of production IPv6 usage while production IPv4 is
also in use, and many would say this is just fine presuming that it is 
occurring based on actual market need.  Even so, the opportunity for 
consumer confusion abounds (does a given Internet service provide IPv4,
IPv6, or both; how do I distinguish between a website on just IPv4
versus one fully-connected to both IPv4 and IPv6, etc.)   This type
of issue is generally considered a "truth in labeling/advertising"
matter, and while it may not be an issue today, it has high potential
in the near future (particularly when products like Internet-of-things
IPv6-only sensors appear, and when connectivity services with CGN-based
IPv4 compatibility approach scaling limits)   Saying that something is 
"on the Internet" today when it actually is not IPv6-reachable is likely 
a form of unintended misrepresentation, since dual-stack is the official
transition strategy and IPv6 is now in production.  

Another issue relates to the net neutrality aspects of continued IPv4
usage via CGN gateways.  As folks may (or may not) be aware, carrier 
grade nat solutions results in each IPv4 address being used for an 
ever increasing numbers of user connections, and there are some rather
interesting implications for services that open large numbers of 
connections or that require translation at real-time speeds for audio
or video streaming...  This raises a potential for impact to various
competing services entirely due to "proper" network management reasons. 
These same CGN devices also are very problematic for legitimate law 
enforcement activities, requiring complex log synchronization and new
retention requirements.

The IPv6 deployment rate may not be issue (if one accepts market-based 
deployment model) but "IPv6 deployment" still has significant potential 
for issues in consumer confusion, indirect net neutrality implications, 
tracking issues for law enforcement due to widespread CGN use, and more.
I do not think that "IPv6 Deployment" can be readily dismissed as a
potential topic rich with Internet governance/coordination implications.


Disclaimer: My views alone.

More information about the discuss mailing list