ISOC, 7 Stages of the IP v6 Adoption, 
IETF 74, San Francisco, California.  


>> I'm Leslie Daigle and (inaudible).  


   
>> Sorry.  Okay.  So, once again, thanks everybody for coming, 
and we're certainly very happy to have such good turn out in 
today's event.  A couple of practicalities.  We are recording the 
session, and streaming the audio, so that people who couldn't be 
here today have a chance to hear what's going on.  And we are 
providing this during the IETF lunch break, so we're going to keep 
it to one hour, to give people time to get out of here and get to the 
working group sessions that start at 1 P.M. 
   The Internet Society is the organizational home of the IETF, but 
it has a broader issue, to promote the evolution and use of the 
internet for the benefit of all people, throughout the world.  
   From that perspective, we believe that v6 is an important and 
new topic, and the IETF has a key role to play in this and any other 
internet technologies.  So we're hosting this event to bridge 
engineering and the external internet using world, to give a more 
accessible story about the state of affairs of IP v6 and to provide 
an opportunity to, to provide access to people who are actually in 
the trenches at the IETF and the network deployment.  
   I'll direct your attention as well to some of the other work that 
we're doing with IP v6 including recent publication, Internet Society 
organization member of v6 study.  You can find this in our material 
available at the URL on the screen.  Our web site slash IP v6.  
   So, the internet development community has understood for a 
long time, over a decade, that while success of the internet meant 
that IP v4 does not provide enough addresses to allow each 
machine on the network to have its own address, to provide inter 
connectivity.  With that awareness, work was started on IP v6 over 
a decade ago to provide a much larger address space.  That's 
really easy to say, but the reality and the implications are huge.  
   IP v6 is, the real task to the effect that it must spread uniformly 
across all of the global internet.  And it is a major undertaking, truly 
a transformation of the internet.  
   Faced with such daunting tasks, reactions are mixed from the 
engineers developing technologies or deploying technology to 
customers and enterprises or even departments within enterprises, 
and for policy makers as well.  Yes, the internet is now such a part 
of our daily lives and economic reality that whenever there is 
anything that challenges its continued viability, policy makers start 
to feel the urge to step in and take some action.  
   What is common about the reactions to the prospect of such a 
major undertaking is that they generally track the 7 stages we are 
familiar with:  Shock and disbelief, denial, anger, bargaining, guilt, 
acceptance and hope.  And these are all normal reactions, and not 
truly threatening in the aggregate, and it's largely what you're 
going to hear running through the panel today.  
   So, where are we?  The panelists we have here today, who are 
listed on the screen, we'll hear from presently, have firsthand 
expertise in activities related to development standards with IP v6 
and different types of networks as well as working with technical 
and non technical communities to deliver important messages 
about the state of internet addressing.  
   You will hear stories of success, IP v6 can be deployed, as well 
as challenges, frustrations and important challenges ahead.  
   Throughout the course of this panel, you'll hear reflections of 
each of the stages from different perspectives.  It is certainly my 
hope that by recognizing them, the global internet community can 
work on moving forward, rather than being paralyzed in any stage.  
We are at an important turning point for the internet and we really 
can't delay.  The end of an allocative IP v4 is in sight.  Even as 
network providers have their plans for the coming years and 
debating the merits of of deploying IP v6 or building out more 
complex network addresses, translators to use fewer addresses, 
customers are continuing to demand applications at work, not only 
existing applications, but access to new applications being 
developed in all corners of the world.  This means they won't have 
IP v4 addresses, and IP v6 is our best path forward.  
   So, with that, I'm going to turn this over to the rest of the 
panelists who will each provide some prepared remarks, after 
which we'll have some discussion, and I will moderate, taking 
questions from the floor as well.  
   I will give preference to our media guests this afternoon in 
emphasizing that this is a bridging the world event, and it's not 
taking the place of any IETF plenary event, et cetera, or any other 
IETF discussions that may or may not happen on the subject of IP 
v6.  Okay.  With that, Russ.  
   
>> Thank you, Leslie.  For those who are not here for the IETF, I 
just want to give the short who is the IETF, that is on my title slide.  
We're the guys that make the internet work.  
   And we make the standards to allow the inter operability, is what 
makes the internet so important.  
   So, one of those standards is IP v6.  The IETF is the place where 
that was defined.  It became clear that the IP v4 address space 
was going to run out a long time ago, and we set about charting a 
solution to that problem.  That was IP v6 finished within RFC 1883 
in December of 1995.  So you can see, we've been staged for a 
long time.  
   Associate specification with that developed over the next, you 
know, six or seven years, and those have been stable for a while 
as well.  
   The big difference is that there's addresses in IP v4, much 
larger, 128 bits than IP v6.  At the time that the original work was 
done, the transition strategy was dual stack, that is start adding IP 
v6, 
  (It's really loud in here with the plates and everything.)
>> The host the device to the network and when everybody was 
able to communicate over IP v6 start disabling the IP v4 and 
everything would just smoothly transition.  
   There was a problem with that strategy, in that there was no 
economical incentive for deployment of IP v6.  While people did it 
for their own reasons or research reasons, when it was done, it 
worked fine. So the IETF continued to assist with the development 
and deployment of IP v6.  
   The developing new tools as the amount of time to the 
exhaustion, we look at the scenarios and look at it and say what 
other tools are needed to help that.  
   We're working on two at the moment.  For unilateral IP v6 and IP 
v6 only provider networks, both of those (inaudible) for the 
software.  
 
>> Could you speak more into the mic.  It's really noisy with the 
plates, and we're having difficulty.  
>> Is this better?  
>> Yes.  
>> Sorry.  
   
>> And so, that work is continuing in those two working groups 
now, and we'll certainly be done before the end of the year.  So 
that's all I wanted to say about the IETF.  
   
>> So this slide is for IP v4.  Currently, there are 12 slash 8s per 
year, being issued by the registry worldwide.  This distribution rate 
is not slowing down.  It's picking up, particularly in areas like the 
AP region, Asia Pacific, where there are a lot of underserved areas 
right now with network deployment going on and a great demand 
for IP v4 address space.  At the end of last year, December 31,  
2008, there were 34 slash 8s remaining, at IANA for the regional 
registries.  We have drawn down more of those slash 8 in the last 
couple of months.  We expect at the current rate of distribution 8a 
will now last approximately two years.  
   After the IANA runs out, the regional registry with the inventories 
that they have remaining have a regional internet registry policy 
body creating policies, that put requirements on remaining address 
space that they do have the last bit that we do have, for these 
needs that will come in the next couple of years.  
   This is the IP v6 slide.  You can see that there were pretty slow 
uptake dating back to 1999.  The IETF did some great work and 
handed it over to IANA.  In 1999 the IP v6 address space allocated 
down to the regional registries.  We started allocating that address 
space ten years ago in April of 1999.  You can see that there's 
been a significant increase in registration traffic this past year, 
2008.  And ARIN has pretty much followed the region in 
registration traffic, and we're hoping that some of the registries will 
pick up and see that type of activity this year in 2009.  
   This is my last slide.  
   ARIN and the other areas registries have been engaged in the 
awareness campaigns throughout the world.  We've been going to 
trade shows, we've been exhibiting, giving presentations and 
talking to people about IP v4 depletion and IP v6 adoption.  
   Now, back in 2006, 2007, we really kicked this off.  When you 
look at the different stages that the Leslie talked about earlier, it 
was much disbelief and denial that it was going on.  Everybody 
that we talked to, no one wanted to hear it.  They didn't believe we 
were running out IP v4 and were not interested there IP v6.  In the 
last year, however, that shifted.  The audience that's out there 
today is much more receptive to the IP v6 message, and they're 
further along, working towards acceptance.  We're kind of in the 
middle of those stages that Leslie showed there.  I think there's a 
great opportunity for us, with this perceptive audience out there 
today for the internet community, the technical community to come 
together and bring common messages and work with that audience 
and work towards IP v6 adoption. 

   
>> Good morning.  I'm Kurtis Lindqvist from Netnode.  I heard 
before that there are, there's a clear need to move away from v4 to 
v6 and has been noted in the community for a long time.  So why 
haven't we seen more deployment and heard more about it than we 
have?  Well, first of all, it does take some time to deploy the 
technology.  IP v6 is not IP v4.  It is not backwards compatibe.  It 
has technical implications and corporate implications.  There's 
been a long wait for having the technology deployed in the 
operators networks and end users, conductivity, et cetera.  And IP 
v6 doesn't carry any new features or additional revenue streams so 
waiting for support has been getting this done as part of normal 
upgrade cycles and normal deployment.  And as Richard pointed 
out, and there's also been some lack of understanding and 
awareness in many fields, many regions. 

   This might have slowed the progress down.  But it doesn't 
change the fundamental need for it.  Also very (inaudible) that the 
world is and internet is not very homogeneous.  It's very different 
depending on which part of the world you're at.  Different 
organizations or entities are in different phases of v4 depletion and 
v6 deployment.  So why did it take so long?  First of all, IP v6 as it 
was regulated signed, was started in 1994 and internet of today is 
very different than what it looked like in 1994.  It's deployed in 
different models and different ways than was anticipated, and 
migration path from v4 to v6, therefore, is also very different than it 
might have been thought about at first in 1994.  And explanation 
while it might be lack of technical support or regional support, this 
is today very well understood problem and they work on that at the 
IETF having the operators networks. 

   One of the benefits of doing this, is that the migration, transition 
helped us understanding a lot of components of how the internet 
works, and how IP v4 network works.  And deploying this v6, we 
will have to go back and change some of the original ideas and 
change some of the original thoughts about how to deploy this.  
   V4, sorry.  V6 is being deployed, maybe slower than we thought.  
Perhaps not in a way that some customers, so the customers can 
see.  There is operational, there is even deployments towards 
customers and end users, there are cases which we see 
deployments in dozens of users which might sound like a 
staggering number, but in a global scale of things, are quite small.  
And we're also gaining a lot of valuable operational experience.  
We're thinking of what we need to do on the tool side.  How does 
software, et cetera, have to be redesigned to deploy it.  
   You could say, to some extent, IP v6 is where we were in 1994, 
and in the years since then, if you remember, during that time, the 
operational deployment went very fast and we learned a lot as to 
was closer to 2001, and basically the same pace and stage.  
   People are also working on what the operational, sorry, what 
new products and services can be done, with having this IP v6 
deployed and have better understanding, which again, IP v6 
doesn't necessarily make new revenue streams, but it does change 
technology in a way that can allow new products and services to 
be developed.  
   Last slide.  What else has to be done?  Well, there are still some 
technical issues to work out.  And we have to close the gap 
between IP v4 and IP v6 islands, to bridge the transition gap.  That 
would also help a lot more content providers, to be supported by 
v6, and so you'll hear about that later.  And in that way, they can 
provide (inaudible).  And there's more work that can be done to 
provide this to end users.  Most of the core networks today are 
capable of IP v6 being deployed, but without getting the packets 
out to the end users, it doesn't help as much.  And last, what the 
IETF is working on, and what we're working on is transition will 
happen in a seamless way, so you as end users don't have to 
worry about it.  You shouldn't have to care whether your web site 
or e-mail is sent over v4 or v6. 
That's the biggest challenge to make the transition work.  
   
>> Hello.  My name is Loreno Colitti.  I work with Google and I 
have been involved with IP v6 since the early days of Google.  
   So, coming back to the five phases, I'm going to talk about 
acceptance, because we have accepted IP v6, that it's real and we 
need to go there.  
   So, a survey that was recently published.  The results say that a 
lot of people don't see business reasons for v6.  We do see one.  
There are new devices, not necessarily internet or PCs.  There is a 
lot of space to number these.  I can think of the set top boxes that 
come with deploying, or that somebody else has deployed, and 
they don't have the v4 addresses because there's not enough 
space.  And they can't do nat, because the space is so small and 
they cannot do it.  
   So, also, we're seeing a lot of people talk about going to carry 
large scale NAT.  Well, those boxes will be expensive and you will 
have to do a lot of logging to make sure that your legal set 
functions so you're able to pin down the blame for some IP 
address, if a user did something that was against the law.  And 
enforcement.  And of course, if you do NAT, it's a small nightmare.  
It's very hard to maintain NATs, and your support customers go up.  
And actually, speaking of people who have done it, deploying v6 is 
much simpler than just deploying layers and layers of NAT.  It's 
refreshingly simple to look at a network with only global addresses 
and have it work the way you expect it to.  Of course, there's 
business continuity.  If we want the internet to be around in its 
current state, three or four years from now, then we need to use IP 
v6. 
It will allow the internet to continue to operate as we know it.  It will 
allow the development of new applications, new disruptive 
applications that would not be able to be developed if nobody has 
public IP space anymore.  Think of strike, that doesn't work if 
nobody has public IP address.  It will keep the internet open.  This 
is important for you, if you are, if you are not a monopoly provider.  
Network mutuality is an important thing for us as well.  And IP v6 is 
deeply linked to it, because once, when there is an application or 
device, it's easy to discriminate on the basis of different traffic.  So 
unless you have, you better not be the last to adopt it.  And even if 
you don't believe it will happen, you might want to hedge your bets.  
   So, how do we do it?  Well, we started, we're an engineer driven 
company and we have the 20 percent culture that allows us to start 
projects just by spending some of our time on it.  A couple people 
started it as a 20 percent project, and we had a huge influx of 
people who said, I want to help.  All management had to do really 
is get out of the way and allow us to make it easy for us to get 
results, in some ways we can use.  And they, we built a pilot 
network that wasn't expensive.  Once the network was up, we saw 
that the applications followed.  We did it in stages.  The principle 
that guided us in, that I strongly believe is good for deployment is, 
it doesn't have to be as capable as your v4 stack on Day 1.  
Because the traffic levels are not comparable.  But it does have to 
be done properly and it has to be production ready and supported. 
It has to be designed to the same quality standards.  Otherwise it's 
no use to anyone, and people will just say, disable IP v6.  This is 
the mentality we need to move away from, because there is 
nothing inherently on the level about IP v6, and the only problem is 
that these problems are really deployment problems.  Remember, 
it's not rocket science.  
   So we started in mid 2007, and in a year and a half, we got to 
the point where we can say we have Google services over IP v6.  If 
you want to get, that's where we are now.  If you want to do web 
search or Google services, come to us and we'll turn it on.  
   Deployment was (inaudible), yes, so, it, it's not rocket science.  I 
realize in other networks like (inaudible) other networks, there are 
difficult issues to contend with, like rolling CPs or waiting for 
something that's not ready.  If you're on this site, it's actually quite 
easy.  
   So, yes, other people are doing it too.  And one word, so, again, 
if you have production ready IP v6 network, talk to us and we can 
provide all the Google services over IP v6.  Which means, A, that 
you get to use your v6 network.  And you get to find out what the 
problems are, if there are any problems.  People have told us, oh, 
a couple of sublets weren't bridged on our network.  We 
discovered instantly, and now it's reliable.  Also, you get to find 
out, if other people are implementing what I call check box IP v6, 
which means, yes, we do have IP v6, which means our network 
supports it.  
   So, we don't like that, we, our IP v6 network is production quality 
as much as we can make it.  And if you use actually IP v6, for 
example, like to Google, you can find out if your intermediate 
network supports it.  
   Again, by the way, traffic will appear overnight.  When you do 
large deployments, it will just appear out of no where.  There is not 
organic growth.  Last week we turned on just before the IP v6 
conference at Google.  We turned on Google maps and we saw 
three X increase overnight.  
   So be aware of that.  Do not expect, do not point to the lack of 
traffic as the lack of v6, because when all the pieces are in place, 
traffic just, just appears, from no where.  
   So, yes, that was it.  
   
>> Hello.  I'm Alain Durand from Comcast.  And I've been in this v6 
game for way too many years, and I should not be here anymore.  
   I'd like to talk about reality, not being in denial, not having the 
rosy glasses on, the reality check on IP v4.  Well, you have seen 
this draft or something similar in different venues.  The IP v4 
address space is going to zero, fairly quickly.  
   Thing to keep in mind is, after the completion of the IANA 
address space, this is not the same as we are running out of oil, 
and no cars running and driving the next morning.  Everything that 
has been deployed still works.  So there's -- don't panic.  
   What is needed?  The address of this graph is what's happening 
in the last days, and there's some uncertainty and the registries 
are working to remove the uncertainty, and there are (inaudible) 
adopted in other regions, about what to do about slash 8 at IANA, 
and what to do in each region, and with the last slash 8 we are 
looking to, and making some policy proposal and policy accepted 
to make room for new entrance, for example.  
   But, the other reality check is IP v6, fine, okay.  We can deploy 
IP v6.  It's more or less difficult, depending on your environment.  
But, there's a saying in IETF, with enough thrust, even a brick can 
fly.  So, we can make this work.  We can deploy it.  Although we 
still have some serious problems, and that's what I call the two 
long tail problems of IP v4.  This is from service provider 
perspective.  First long tail is what is happening in the home, what 
kind of devices are customers using in their homes?  
   Well, it's not just about all the Windows that don't support IP v6.  
It's also about the latest gadgets.  I've seen some cameras, new 
cameras, type of wifi interface and upload pictures on the web.  It's 
really nice service, except that it's all IP v4.  And those devices do 
not upgrade to IP v6.  Same thing with 60 inch TVs with the cable 
modem integrated, and software to go and browse the internet.  
That's all IP v4, no IP v6.  That's a problem.  
   The second long tail is what's going to happen on the content.  
So thank you, to Lorenzo, for getting Google on IP v6.  Probably 
you will have some content providers, among the competitors.  And 
what about the second tier of web services?  
   News agencies.  What about the third tier of of web services, 
like, mom's and pops shops that have open sales.  And all this is 
going to migrate to IP v6 but it will take some time.  Turning on the 
v6 only service is not going to serve neither the needs from the 
customers who have devices that are only IP v4, nor the needs of 
those customers, who want to access content that is only on IP v4.  
So, dealing with both of those realities, we think that we need to 
have the two prong approach.  
   The first one is, embrace IP v6.  We're going to deploy this.  Try 
to get as many end point devices to IP v6 as possible, and as 
much traffic as possible towards IP v6.  
   This is what we call the IP place.  But where we like the network, 
and things are simple, as Lorenzo said, and we know about 
likeness.  The second prong of the strategy is realizing that we 
cannot abandon the IP v4 world.  It's not like we move to this new 
world and the rest is lost.  No.  We need to have bridge, we need 
to create with two prong long tails.  So this about providing v4 
service, without relying on the IP address for customer.  IP 
address per customer.  And we have technologies that have been 
debugged in IETF to do that.  
   And some of this technology may put you at odds, where you ask 
some, you have some cost deployed, this new bridge and some 
costs deployed for IP v6, but maybe diametrically opposed.  But 
some of the technologies can be used.  And the amount of money 
used to deploy one helps you deploy the other.  Of course, this is 
what we like best.  That's the end of of my remarks.  
>> My name is Sebastian Bellagamba, the Regional Bureau for 
Latin America for the Internet Society.  
   I would like to present to you, perspective of the policy, approach 
to IP v6, from the policy point perspective.  This is a partial 
approach, which is basically, on developing countries, as we are 
conducting study, and we develop.  I would say that most of the 
developed countries are more aware of, on this issue than 
developing countries.  And partial in another way, because, I will 
focus on my region, which is Latin America and Caribbean, and I 
will try to, unless turn that, basically, that represents the situation 
for the whole developing world, in some way.  
   In this sense, governments are not as aware as they should be, 
in this field of IP v6, but then they are becoming more and more 
aware of these issues.  
   Basically, I would say, just pointing to the seven stages that 
Leslie talked about before, most of the operating systems, at least 
in Latin America and Caribbean, have not even entered the seven 
stages.  
   And so, what's the focus we have in order to help to understand 
this issue, and to promote the greater awareness of the IP v6 
situation in Latin America and the Caribbean?  Basically, we have 
to look at the new worlds and we have to help them understand of 
the new roles they have in this new technology, technological 
world.  We may see how we historically used to see governments 
purely as regulators.  But suddenly, they have become more than 
regulators in this world.  
   They provide regulation, laws and leadership, as they should be 
in this topic.  But they are also heavy users of technologies and 
also service providers of technology.  This is, it's really key to 
understanding, and to get them to understand what, exactly what 
point are we in this topic of IP v6, in the development of IP v6, 
because basically, that will change the whole perspective of what 
the governments are doing and what they should do in order to 
promote.  
   You have to understand, that for these governments, the 
technology, mostly internet and related technologies, are attracted 
to development and economic growth.  They're seen in a way as a 
key factor, and don't escape the, the situation of the development, 
and they're already into.  
   And, suddenly, the perspectives have changed.  The internet is 
seen now as the de facto telecommunication infrastructure for the 
whole country, and even in the hotels.  
   And that makes them to need sudden stability, and the thing that 
provides stability for the future growth of the infrastructure, is a 
new addressing plan.  And more than that, addressing name.  And 
if you can provide this concept to the guests, that the approach to 
IP v6 document change is needed, and that is true, because we 
thought this in several forms in dealing with governments in Latin 
America and the Caribbean.  So it's key for governments to 
address these continuity of the address of space, through the 
implementation of v6.  What can they do?  
   They have to, instead of more than regulate, they will have to 
provide leadership in, in this transition to v6.  Just one case, in 
Argentina, just addressing their service providers in the 
government, in Argentina, where I come from, the internet is so 
important now, that 75 percent of the internal revenue goes 
through the internet, as now.  So, put it in the other way.  If 
something happens to the internet, the income of the government 
will drop really heavily.  Okay.  
   So, once you understand how key it is for governments, in the 
developing world and how they rely, even how much they rely on 
this kind of technologies.  
   So, things that governments are doing, and they have to do in 
order to promote the transition, this list is not exhaustive.  Okay.  
It's just something that comes to my mind.  But, governments have 
special working groups inside and outside the government.  I 
mean, just to look at their own networks and just to look at the 
transition throughout the whole country.  
   But basically, what they have to do, they have to address it.  This 
issue is not a purely regulatory issue.  This is an issue they have 
to address with the e-mail, with the private sector and with every 
single state that's working in this manner.  
   And, in order to address this transition, they will have to go 
through these steps.  Basically, they have to go through all the 
seven stages in order to end up.  But we are beginning that path, 
or as of now, and okay, we will have to go through that painful 
seven stages, but we will end up having IP transition to v6.  Thank 
you very much.  
   
>> Hello.  I'm Jari Arkko, with Ericsson.  And I want to expand on 
the role of IETF.  And we are of course doing a number of things 
related to IP v6, starting with the core specifications, obviously.  
That work was completed in early 2000s.  But, when we put out the 
specification, we don't forget it.  We actually care about continued 
accuracy of the specifications, and that's often the fact, and we 
have worked for many of the IETF roles, we have maintained 
efforts going on to make sure that we don't have box, we don't 
have security problems.  And in the case of IP v6, we have a six 
man working group that starts with this task to write IP v6 
specifications.  
   A good example of the type of things they are doing, in the two 
years, we discovered fairly serious acuity problem with one of the 
extension headers with IP v6.  The working group fixed that.  
Vendors pushed out new code to take that into account, and we no 
longer have that issue.  
   But that is the small part of the overall effort.  We are mostly 
focused on new things.  Russ already mentioned that we're facing 
new deployment difficulties, or challenges.  We're having new 
situations working quite a bit on that.  But we are showing it on the 
next slide.  The IETF is working quite a bit on new features.  For 
the most part, these are IP diagnostics, in v4 and v6 equally.  In 
some places we are bridging a gap between v4 and v6, to provide 
feature that might be (inaudible) and a good example is source 
validation improvements, which is providing a new standard for v4 
and v6, and for some, something that used to only be vendor 
solution for v4.  So we're hoping that that will help in its part, for 
getting this particular behavior for v6 as well.  
   Also I wanted to highlight the focus of IETF efforts.  Years ago, 
the focus obviously was on the core specifications.  After that, we 
worked on a number of different features, important features, 
ability being one of them.  But today we're doing, the last two or 
three years, I think the focus has mainly been on the new 
deployment situation, realizing the situation we are with, in the v4 
address space, and my understanding what we need to do that, 
and make sure we have the tools to deploy v6, and keep the pain 
tolerable for the addressing situations in IP v4.  
 Just a couple of examples, Alain talked about his work, and how 
that, one of the hotels, in deployment.  
   Another example is our efforts in the behave working group 
which is focusing on translation that allows you to deploy and start 
using IP v6 in an IP v6 only network and still reach IP v4 content 
by doing so.  And we also have a lot of work and mobility 
mechanisms making it possible to provide mobility for mobile 
hosts, in mixed v4 v6 environment.  So it's quite focused on 
understanding what the requirements and the needs of the internet 
community are on this topic.  And if there is something we can do 
to make the v4 pain, or make IP v6 deployment easier, we are 
going to do it.  
   However, it's fair to note that the main effort for the world is 
really not in the standards or the technology.  It's practical things, 
vendors need to implement products.  Providers need to deploy it.  
Everybody needs to plan how they do their addressing in the 
coming years, and so forth.  
   With that, I'll leave it to Leslie.  

  LESLIE DAIGLE:  Great.  Thank you all very much.  So, now I 
would like to open up for some discussion.  And I'm certainly 
inerested to know if the media have any questions.  I might feel 
obliged to insert some of my own questions.  Can we have a mic 
over here, please?  
>> We have two mics and two runners.  
>> Steven (inaudible) from C F News.  You both mentioned new 
applications that could be, you could have with IP v6 that you can't 
have IP v4.  Can you be more specific?  What is it that people 
could do with IP v6 that they can't otherwise?  
>> The big thing is that the world, the way people use the internet 
has changed.  The expectations, the thing you're carrying around 
in your pocket is always on and always connected.  That means 
that we need an address space that allows every device to be 
always on and always connected.  So, we have a group working on 
on low power battery operated devices that are in your home, on 
your desk, or on your thermostat, and so on.  And so if you 
imagine every home in the world being equipped with such 
equipment, the number of addresses you need exceeds the space 
that's available in IP v4, and you just can't do that with only 32-bit 
address.  Lorenzo, do you want to build on that?  
>> My major concern is that, so, we don't know what those 
applications will be.  This is the point.  They didn't know in 1980s 
that the world was going to come along.  So, we have two choices.  
We can either stay to the original architecture of the internet, 
where you can deploy applications by simply deploying a machine 
here and a machine there and having them talk to each other, 
which is what we had in the 1990s.  They said I'm going to write 
this thing called web browser and all I need is a server here and 
client there, and hey, I can look at pages.  
   So, we have two alternatives.  We can either keep that 
architecture, where you are essentially future proofing the internet 
by allowing anything that's possible using communications 
medium, or, if you choose to deploy NAT, you're essentially saying, 
this is what the internet looks like.  Let's keep, let's morph the 
architecture to allow an, into an architecture that allows us to keep 
doing what we're currently doing, which means essentially, web, 
you know, client server, essentially client server applications with 
small number of servers and large number of clients.  This is what 
the internet currently does, but it could do so much more.  Russ's 
point.  Once you have devices that speak IP, carry around with 
every, you know, every person that's working around and having 
them constantly connected talking to each other. 
The sky is the limit.  So we don't know the applications.  But we 
know, if we want the enable new ones that don't look like the ones 
we have today, we need to keep the architecture up.  That's my 
point.  

  LESLIE DAIGLE:  I think to add to that, part of the problem is that 
IP v6 is not the question.  It's the answer.  
   The question is, do we want to continue to have an internet that 
continues to be expanded by innovations from anywhere?  In which 
case, we need to deploy IP v6 to continue to have global broccoli.  
(Inaudible) and it's something that we're doing in technology in that 
regard.  It's better for you if you eat it, but it's not necessarily that 
appealing in its own right.  

   Any other questions from, comment from the panelists?  Any 
questions?  
>> Peter Cristi, Internet Research Group.  It's an interesting 
discussion.  I think what you're doing is painting a really good 
historical story as to why IP v6 didn't work yet.  And the answer I 
hear, correct me if you disagree, is, whether or not there's new 
applications, there's no economic incentive for all the people that 
need to participate, to move forward.  
   So, it leads, in my mind, to, it may be a retrospective question, if 
you go back in time, what should have been done differently?  Or 
who should have been involved in this to create those economic 
incentives?  The last chart that was up there said, vendors need to 
do development.  Service providers need to implement services.  I 
spend a lot of time in the commercial world of the internet, and I 
don't know of any vendors, the vendors I know, whether they're 
service providers, or technology vendors, are intelligent people 
who optimize their resources based on what their customers want 
to pay for.  And what you're saying is, unfortunately, no one really 
wants to pay for IP v6.  In the previous days of the internet, the 
United States government plays the major role in enabling its 
happening.  Do we need high level economic incentives? 
Do we need high level governmental incentives?  If so, don't we 
need a stronger forcing function than a bunch of slides suggesting 
things that other people should do and are not doing?  What I'm 
trying to get to is, I'm not sure what you want people to do, or why 
you expect anything to change.  You don't seem to have a program 
that would dictate that things actually get better.  
>> Alain, do you want to speak?  Alain and Kurtis.  
>> I'm not sure, but, the lack of incentives is what got us here.  
What I'm not observing is lack of backward compatibility.  What I'm 
observing is, until recently, if I want to deploy IP v6 network, I can 
do it in my own part of the universe, but I can't talk to the rest of 
the universe.  So, what is slowing down the adoption of v6 is more, 
if I do something right, in my own environment, fine.  But if I want 
this to be useful, I depend on everybody else in the universe to do 
the same thing.  
   And until everybody else has done it, what I've done in my own 
little backyard is useless.  
>> No economic incentives.  
>> Well, economic incentive is somewhat different.  Economic 
incentive will be, if I do something, then I get the benefit.  So, what 
we have been doing in the IETF, and what, the method that we 
have brought to the table, we need to have wages, so I can deploy 
something to work with this technology, and get a benefit from it.  
   So that this technology will become deployable incrementally.  
Every single technology that was deployed successfully in the last 
fifteen years has been incremental.  If you do it in your corner, you 
get benefits.  And if everybody does it, everybody gets benefits.  
Until recently, it was not possible to do backwards IP v6.  
>> I agree with what he said.  But I think it's also, very often you 
end up in a discussion that people deploy the customers without 
economic incentive.  But, that was assuming that somehow would 
get a new service recharge extra for you.  So we see deployment 
happening as part of upgrade cycles.  As you see, operators 
deploy new software and get that added with them, or the vendors 
can, I guess as part of the normal standard upgrades.  So, there 
has, you know, in the end you want to have an added economical 
constraint for the burden, as you got for the important cycles.  The 
last people to upgrade will be the end users, because frankly, it's 
(inaudible) model.  And again, it's, you don't get anything external 
if there's more address space.  I don't think there was economical 
gain to it.  You also rely on services.  In the western world, we tend 
to (inaudible) we don't feel the pain. 
If you you are in the other regions, there's more need for this.  You 
feel the pain.  And they're also the first adopters.  So there are 
other triggers, other drivers than necessarily economical gain.  
>> Richard next.  
>> Yes, we've asked similar question to people, when we go out 
and we talk to them about depletion and IP v6 adoption.  And a lot 
of people responded to us, that really, the disincentive to them, 
has been readily available IP v4 address space, new addresses.  
And there is really nothing that would drive them there.  A lot of 
people predicted in late '90s, early 2000, is the only thing that 
would drive it large scale is the depletion of the IP v4 address 
space, and I think we're finding that those folks that made those 
predictions are partially correct.  As we move in, we find we're two 
to three years away from depleting the address space altogether, 
there seems to be a lot of interest in IP v6 deployment.  
>> Can I turn the question around?  If there is no economic 
incentive, so, do you consider the avoidance of future costs to be 
an economic incentive?  
>> No, no.  But, the avoidance of future cost is normally what a 
government does.  I mean, what you're pointing out is there's some 
external participants who you didn't bring in, is what I hear, that  -- 
when I say economic incentive, I just think people will do things if 
there's a reason to do it.  And if you had brought in government, if 
there had been some way in which the people that you need to do 
bridges, or have the incentive to do bridges, it just doesn't seem 
that you seem to be stuck in a non virtuous cycle where something 
needed to pump the prime and move forward.  If you talk to battery 
vendors right now, they're really frustrated, because for years, 
they've gone to the auto companies and said if you invested money 
in the technology, we could make them much more suitable for 
cars.  Until two years ago the car manufacturers were not 
interested. 
Now they say, we desperately want lithium in batteries for cars.  
You can't do it overnight.  You have to qualify it for two years.  So 
now everybody is asking, what, how do you fix that other than 
sitting and doing panels?  Who could we involve?  
>> I'm going to jump the queue and use my prerogative as 
moderator to reemphasize something he said, which is that, there 
is no master plan for deployment of technology in the internet, and 
that's a feature.  
   It's a feature, because it means that different pools can develop 
at their own rate.  And what you saw, someone in Lorenzo's line is 
that different pools develop themselves, and then pools pool into 
larger groups, and that's where you see the spike on his graph.  
   The report that was referenced earlier, that said that claims are 
made, that it says there is no business incentive for moving to v6, 
actually says, there's no direct or concise business incentive for 
moving to v6, but customers are asking for it.  
   And the but part is actually rather important for understanding 
the entire context.  And it goes back to the issue of what 
customers actually want is continued applications that work.  
Which means that they want continued global addressing in the 
network, because that's how we understand how to engineer that.  
Which means the answer, at this point is v6.  
   Were there any mistakes in the process of developing IP v6 and 
trying to deploy it?  No doubt.  Are there lessons to be learned?  
Yes.  I was at the Google conference last week and I heard a 
gentleman stand up and say they had done the deployment in 2003 
with minimal capital.  So the cost question is not even all that 
serious, if you take the measured approach to it and understand 
that the internet is a continuously evolving environment.  And if 
you're in this business, you need to continuously evolve.  
   So, I think, the argument of what are we doing and why are we 
having panels to stand up and talk about this is much more about 
saying, in order to, for this pool to learn about what success that 
pool has had, we need to talk about it and encourage people to 
understand what works, what doesn't and how do we work the 
problems that are still not addressed.  That's how we work as a 
community.  
   So, that's my speech.  I think, Sebasain and Jari have been 
waiting.  
   
>> Yes, I'm not sure what you said, Leslie, I would distinguish 
between economic incentives, on business drives.  And I think in 
some way, I mean, if there were better business drivers, we pay 
some implementation of v6, I mean, it would be much more quick.  
But the economic incentives are there.  I mean, as I tried to point 
out in my presentation, several countries depend on the internet 
related technologies for their future growth and economic 
development.  
   And the answer they have for that future growth is IP v6, and 
independently of the mistakes or whatever they have done in the 
past.  They need more addresses in order to grow, and the only 
addresses they can get is v6 addresses.  And so, there is some 
clear economic incentive in that area, to me at least.  
>> Yes, and I agree with everything that others said before me on 
the panel.  I would add one thing, which is that timing is important.  
No one really does anything before they have to.  That wasn't the 
case in the 1990s.  Now it is the case, that we have to do 
something.  
   The other thing that I want to talk about is what Alain said about 
backwards compatibility.  That was really the key mistake from my 
perspective and we're trying to fix that now.  
>> To add something about governments, governments do talk to 
us.  They are aware of the problem.  They, I was talking to the 
European Commission, IP v6 task force yesterday, and they do not 
want to intervene.  And our industry does not want them to 
intervene, because the industry has been successfully, has been 
very successful in a self regulated way.  If you go to the various 
forums that, that discuss policy, that is what they, they strongly 
believe this is the way to go, if you go to them.  
   So, the question really is, is the industry long sighted enough to 
do this by themselves?  Because if they arrive into a state, the 
complete prediction here, would be that nobody does anything 
because the natural equilibrium for IP v6 deployment is not to do 
anything.  I cannot increase my profit by doing something 
intellectually, because I can't connect to anybody.  So, IP v4 
address space runs out.  The market may or may not fall.  And at 
some point, governments look in and say, look, this is a 
concentrated market there.  There's no possibility, in your 
entrance, because you 200 people are all on v4 space.  You know 
what, we'll come and regulate.  So, we need to ask ourselves if 
that's what we want.  And I don't know.  
>> I'd like to agree with what he said.  I think this industry can and 
will step up to the task.  I'd like to point to another story.  A couple 
years ago, 2005, we started defining something in cable apps.  
And we knew about v6 and part of the specifications of doc 302 
main priority were to have more bandwidth and IP v6.  So, now we 
are starting by the capable and deploy them.  And we talk about 
abilities, (inaudible) so as an example of an industry trying to be 
forward looking, and doing the right thing.  

  LESLIE DAIGLE:  Okay.  Well, sadly, although it feels like we're 
just getting started, I'm afraid we're out of time.  So I would at this 
point like to thank our panelists very much for taking time to be 
here and share their insight.  
  (Applause.)
   
  LESLIE DAIGLE:  And I'll thank all of you for coming.  The 
material for this session, including the audio cast will be available 
from the URL that is on the screen.  And we'll be considering doing 
similar things like this on different topics in the future.  So any 
comments or feedback you have on today's session will be greatly 
appreciated.  Thank you, all.  
  (Applause.)