Technical and Economic Assessment of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
2 of
Adopting IPv6
Industry stakeholders and Internet experts generally agree that IPv6-based networks would be superior to IPv4-based networks. The increased address space available under IPv6 could stimulate development and deployment of new communications devices and new applications, and could enable network restructuring to occur more easily. The redesigned header structure in IPv6 and the enhanced capabilities of the new protocol could provide significant benefits to Internet users, network administrators, and applications developers. IPv6 could also simplify the activation, configuration, and operation of certain mobile networks and services.
Widespread adoption of IPv6 would likely entail substantial transition costs, because the Internet today is comprised almost entirely of IPv4-based hardware and software. Furthermore, as noted above, many of IPV6’s enhanced capabilities have also been made available in IPv4. As a result, producers and consumers may continue to use IPv4 for some period of time (perhaps with further augmentation) to avoid or to defer the costs of upgrading to IPv6. Many of the prospective benefits of IPv6, moreover, appear to be predicated on the removal or modification of Network Address Translation (NAT) devices (see Section 2.1.1), and modification of firewalls and other "middleboxes" that affect direct communications between end-user devices via the Internet. It remains to be seen whether or when such devices will be either phased out or made transparent to end-to-end (E2E) Internet communications and applications.
In this section, we discuss the benefits and costs of adopting IPv6. After first evaluating the potential benefits of deploying IPv6, we discuss the nature and relative magnitude of the costs that enterprises and individuals may incur to deploy IPv6. To make this general discussion more concrete, we also provide a case study that illustrates potential transition costs for a small or medium-sized business. Finally, we discuss transition issues and costs that are of particular importance in assessing the net economic impact of adopting IPv6. We intend to supplement this general benefit-cost analysis with a more detailed assessment to be conducted in the next stage of our work.
2.1 Relative Benefits of IPv6 vs. IPv4
There appears to be a general consensus about the types of benefits that could follow from widespread adoption of IPv6. There is, however, disagreement about the size of those benefits and whether the incremental benefits of IPv6 (versus IPv4) for some or all users would outweigh the costs of an accelerated transition from IPv4 to IPv6.[1] This section discusses the potential net benefits of adopting IPv6, as identified by RFC commenters, RTI interviews, and the available literature.
The principal by-product of deploying IPv6 would be a large increase in the number of available IP addresses. The 32-bit address field in the IPv4 packet header provides about 4 billion (4x109) unique Internet addresses.[2] The 128-bit address header in IPv6, in contrast, provides approximately 3.4x1038 addresses, enough to assign literally trillions of addresses to each person now on earth or even to every square inch of the earth’s surface.[3]
The vast pool of addresses available under IPv6 would, at a minimum, "future proof" the Internet against potential address shortages resulting from the emergence of new services or applications that require large quantities of globally routable Internet addresses.[4] In this regard, there are reasons to believe that demand for IP addresses could expand considerably in future years. The very success of the Internet will likely increase pressures on existing IPv4 address resources, as more and more people around the globe seek IP addresses to enjoy the benefits of Internet access.[5] The burgeoning demand for “always-on” broadband services (e.g., DSL and cable modem services) and the expected proliferation of wireless phones and wireless data devices (e.g., personal data assistants [PDAs]) may further deplete the available IPv4 address space.[6] If consumers are drawn to devices (e.g., smart appliances, in-home cameras and entertainment systems, automobile components or subsystems) that can be remotely accessed and controlled via the Internet and that require fixed, globally accessible Internet addresses, the demand for IP addresses may overwhelm the remaining pool of IPv4 addresses.[7] Although it is difficult to predict whether or when these developments may threaten the existing supply of IP addresses, the availability of virtually unlimited IPv6 addresses would enable Regional Internet Registries (RIRs)[8] and Internet service providers (ISPs) to accommodate any sharp spike in demand.
At the same time, adoption of IPv6 could provide an opportunity to reform and rationalize the current system for allocating Internet addresses, because IPv6 would create a vast new and unpopulated address space. The historical allocation of IPv4 addresses has provided organizations in North America, Europe, and Australia with the majority of currently assigned IPv4 address blocks. A large portion of those addresses remain unused. Although, as discussed below, current allocation policies have improved, no incentives have been created to prevent “warehousing” of IP addresses[9] or to encourage the return of unused IP addresses. As a result, many organizations still have very large address blocks that have never been fully used and may never be reclaimed in the absence of concerted action by governments or by Internet registries.[10] Deployment of IPv6 creates an opportunity to use the lessons learned from the past to develop more efficient allocation policies for IPv6 addresses.
Finally, the massive increase in IP addresses made available by IPv6 deployment could reduce the need for NATs. A NAT is a hardware device often placed between a private network and the Internet to allow a large number of hosts on the private network to share a smaller number of globally routable, “public” IP addresses for communications over the Internet.[11] For internal communication, each host is assigned a locally-unique private IP address (see Figure 2-1). As the term implies, a NAT converts the private source address in outgoing communications to a
Figure 2-1. NAT Operating between a Private Network and the Internet
globally routable IP address. In many implementations, an external address is assigned only for the duration of a communications session originated by an internal host, and the internal host cannot receive communications originated from the outside. Because NATs are an effective way for many hosts to share a single or a small group of public IPv4 addresses, they have proven to be a popular way to slow the consumption of IPv4 addresses. Because adoption of IPv6 would eliminate concerns about address conservation, NATs would not be needed for that purpose in an IPv6 environment.[12]
Although NATs provide benefits for end users, as discussed below, they also complicate the use and development of new E2E networking applications.[13] Without NATs, applications such as Voice-over IP (VoIP) and real-time videoconferencing could be implemented much more simply, because a direct connection (i.e., IP address to IP address) could be initiated to any host, without the need to establish additional protocols and procedures to traverse one or more NAT devices. Some commenters assert that without NATs, various features of IPv6 (such as connectivity via a wider range of media and delivery mechanisms, the ability to maintain several simultaneous access paths for multiple parties without manual intervention, improved speed, and quality of connections) could spur the deployment of new E2E applications.[14]
Indeed, advocates contend that widespread deployment of IPv6 (and removal of NATs) would permit a return to the original “open scheme” of the Internet, based on E2E connectivity.[15] One commenter suggests that the existing IPv4 infrastructure can be compared to the code of a large software application—after years of adding work-arounds and patches, it is sometimes simpler to replace the application and develop a streamlined program with which to move forward, rather than to continue patching.[16] Representatives of Nortel Networks have stated that designing the next generation of Internet applications will be simplified when using IPv6 because it avoids the more than 20 years of work-arounds embedded in IPv4, in part, to support E2E applications.[17]
Supporters of IPv6 also believe that, to the extent that use of IPv6 obviates the need for NATs, adoption of IPv6 would stimulate the development and deployment of innovative E2E applications. This would occur, they claim, because applications designers would be able to “focus on core products and services, rather than network logistics.”[18] More specifically, designers could avoid the time and effort needed to develop work-arounds that enable specific E2E applications to operate in a NATed environment. IPv6 supporters contend that those work-arounds may not scale well in all environments,[19] may reduce the performance and robustness of the associated applications, and may increase the cost and complexity of network management.[20] In their view, if designers are not distracted by the need for NAT work-arounds, new services and applications could be brought to market quicker and at a lower cost.
Although deployment of IPv6 promises significant benefits from the concomitant increase in address space, several factors may limit full realization of those benefits, at least in the near term. For example, although concerns about IPv4 address exhaustion drove development of IPv6,[21] steps have been taken to conserve addresses and to improve the efficiency of address allocation.[22] As a result, many observers believe that the United States, Western Europe, and Australia may not experience address space concerns for some time.[23] Even in those areas of the world that are most concerned about potential exhaustion of IPv4 addresses (e.g., India and the Pacific Rim countries), some observers still question whether the problem is so severe as to warrant accelerated adoption of IPv6.[24]
Additionally, in response to concerns about the perceived shortage of IPv4 addresses stemming from historical address allocation policies,[25] the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have reorganized themselves in recent years to ensure that, prospectively, all regions are allocated IP addresses through a fair, transparent, and efficient process.[26] IPv4 address blocks are currently allocated to the RIRs from a common global pool, using agreed upon criteria and methodology.[27] When a region requests more addresses, they are allocated to the RIR on a need-justified basis.[28] As a result of these changes, the regional distribution of remaining IPv4 addresses now mirrors the global distribution of IP networks themselves. Consequently, the allocation scheme should no longer be the cause of any perceived regional shortages of IPv4 addresses.[29]
To capture fully the address benefits of IPv6, stakeholders will need to take early steps to create mechanisms that allocate IPv6 addresses fairly and efficiently. The North American IPv6 Task Force (NAv6TF) indicates that some organizations have had trouble getting IPv6 addresses recently and suggests that allocation procedures may need to be changed so that IPv6 addresses can be obtained more easily. Otherwise, NAv6TF avers, widespread IPv6 adoption (and the potential associated benefits) might be stalled or precluded.[30] At the same time, VeriSign emphasizes the need for allocation policies that discourage “warehousing” of IPv6 addresses to prevent inefficient consumption of those addresses.[31]
More importantly, adoption of IPv6 may not prompt a return to the “open architecture” originally envisioned by the designers of the Internet. In fact, as the commercialization of the Internet has proceeded, the network has diverged considerably from the original end-to-end design, and there is little evidence that a substantial number of stakeholders want to return to that design.[32] Although NATs may frustrate application designers and service providers, users and network administrators often realize economic and security-related benefits from using NATs in their networks. By reducing the number of “public” Internet addresses that an organization may need, use of NATs can reduce that organization’s payments to Internet service providers (ISPs) for address space. Moreover, although it was not their original purpose, NATs are often used to provide anonymity for a network and its hosts. In effect, NATs provide a form of “security through obscurity,” thereby enabling network operators to block externally initiated contacts and to hide internal hosts.[33] Networks that adopt IPv6 may therefore be reluctant to dispose of their NATs, even if address conservation is no longer a concern.
Additionally, concerns about security in the rambunctious Internet environment have prompted organizations to deploy a range of “middleboxes” (e.g., firewalls, intrusion detection and prevention systems) that, like NATs, break or purposely inhibit E2E communications. Indeed, those devices have become essential elements of most current enterprise networks and are commonly used to enforce network security policies that have emerged since the Internet was first developed.[34] Few, if any, network operators will be likely to remove those devices should they decide to implement IPv6. In short, the ability to exploit the virtually unlimited IPv6 address space to support a growing number of networked devices or to stimulate development of innovative E2E Internet applications and services will likely be offset by several relevant factors—a continuing supply of IPv4 addresses, any perceived difficulties with obtaining IPv6 addresses, a possible reluctance to eliminate NATs and other middleboxes that affect E2E applications, and an absence of compelling applications that require E2E connectivity.
A number of commenters contend that IPv6 will provide a greater level of security than is available under IPv4. NTT/Verio states that because IPv6 was “designed with security in mind,” it is inherently more secure than IPv4, which does not have integrated security fields.[35] Other commenters note that support for Internet Protocol Security Architecture (IPsec) is “mandatory” in IPv6, but only “optional” in IPv4, which should lead to more extensive use of IPsec in IPv6 networks and applications.[36] BellSouth suggests that incorporating IPsec into the IPv6 protocol stack may reduce incompatibility between different vendors’ implementations of IPsec.[37]
Widespread deployment of IPv6 may indeed produce security benefits in the long term. The near-term benefits are less clear, however. Although IPsec support is mandatory in IPv6, IPsec use is not. In fact, many current IPv6 implementations do not include IPsec.[38] On the other hand, though optional, IPsec is being widely deployed in IPv4.[39] Several commenters state that there are no significant functional differences in the performance of IPsec in IPv6 and IPv4 networks.[40] Any differences in performance are attributable to the presence of NATs in most IPv4 networks, which interfere with E2E communications using IPsec.[41] Thus, to the extent that NATs persist in IPv6 networks, they may reduce the security benefits available via the new protocol.[42]
The principal impediment to widespread use of IPsec appears to be the absence of a public key infrastructure (PKI) and associated trust models, which are necessary to effectively manage widespread IPsec operations.[43] In this regard, the social and business aspects of establishing identities and trust relationships (e.g., privacy concerns and legal considerations) will likely be more difficult to resolve than the technical issues.[44] Until these issues are resolved and the required security infrastructure is created, IPv6 is not likely to stimulate any more use of IPsec than IPv4 does today.[45]
Furthermore, experts generally agree that implementing any new protocol, such as IPv6, will be followed by an initial period of increased security vulnerability and that additional network staff will be necessary to address new threats posed by a dual network environment.[46] IPv4 currently benefits from 20 years of identifying and addressing security issues. As IPv6 becomes more prevalent, many security issues will likely arise as attackers give it more attention. On the other hand, the experience gained from running IPv4 networks will help bring security levels in IPv6 networks up to the level of current IPv4 networks fairly rapidly.[47]
The implications of IPv6 and IPsec deployment for law enforcement are similarly ambiguous. Widespread use of IPsec to encrypt communications may reduce law enforcement agencies’ ability to monitor criminal activities over the Internet, particularly when IPsec is used in conjunction with IPv6 mobility.[48] To the extent that deployment of IPv6 enables the assignment of static IP addresses to most or all end-user devices, adoption of IPv6 could enhance the traceability of illegal or harmful communications back to their source.[49] Users could still employ NATs to give themselves some anonymity, even in IPv6 networks, and thus limit traceability of their communications.[50] Furthermore, IPv6 has a “privacy extension” option in its autoconfiguration feature that enables users to randomize their IPv6 addresses or to generate temporary addresses that are independent of the identification label embedded in user devices.[51] Such addresses are traceable to the ISP or customer demarcation point but are more difficult to trace beyond those points. As a result, it may be challenging for law enforcement authorities to trace a specific node or device as it moves between attachment points or over extended periods of time.[52] Authorities will have to develop new tools and procedures to address these potential problems.[53]
In summary, it is likely that in the short term (i.e., the next 3 to 5 years) the user community will at best see no better security than what can be realized in IPv4-only networks today. During this period, more security holes will probably be found in IPv6 than in IPv4, and IPv4 networks will continue to have at least the same level of security issues as they do currently. In the long term, however, security may well increase as a result of increased use of IPsec.
Various commenters anticipate a rapid growth in the potential number of mobile or portable devices that may connect to the Internet. NTT/Verio notes that the use of mobile phones for email and database browsing in Japan has been growing rapidly.[55] Sprint suggests that the emergence of mobile data services such as wireless data, picture mail, and text messaging could drive the adoption of IPv6.[56] Motorola argues further that IPv6 offers exciting opportunities for wireless sensor networks and for machine-to-machine communications, potentially leading to a large proliferation of devices that will connect to the Internet.[57]
Many experts believe that, whether used in a mobile or a portable environment, IPv6 can better support such devices than currently available options under IPv4.[58] According to Microsoft, “IPv6 better handles mobile applications and services.” [59] NAv6TF suggests that IPv6 allows devices to attach to networks at different points more easily than is currently achievable using IPv4 alternatives, principally through the use of stateless address autoconfiguration and neighbor discovery capabilities.[60] Sprint suggests that IPv6 will permit more optimal routing of mobile traffic because IPv6 mobility specifications are being designed to eliminate “triangular routing.”[61] The simplification of mobile networking in IPv6 could enable Internet users to remain seamlessly connected and easily reachable when portable or mobile devices move from their home networks to other unaffiliated networks.[62] The possibility of continuous Internet connectivity for laptops, mobile phones, PDAs, sensors, and other mobile or portable devices, in turn, could spur development of myriad new applications in both the public and private sectors.
Internet transmission currently is a “best effort” scheme—users cannot expect that “high priority” traffic will be handled any differently from other traffic.[63] For business IP-based services to flourish, service providers will likely need to provide quality of service (QoS) support for those customers. This would require, among other things, the ability to identify different classes of traffic and to provide sufficient instructions to the connecting networks so that messages are delivered with acceptable performance characteristics (e.g., error rates, delay).[64]
The evidence suggests that, as presently implemented, IPv6 provides no better QoS support than does IPv4.[65] However, the IPv6 packet header contains a field—the “flow label”—that is not found in IPv4 and that is intended to assist with QoS. The flow label allows a user or provider to identify, with greater specificity (or “granularity”) than is available under IPv4, those traffic flows for which the provider requests special handling by network routers.[66] The IETF has not yet finalized the standards needed to enable developers and service providers to use IPv6’s expanded QoS capabilities. According to IETF RFC 2460, “There is no requirement that all, or even most, packets belong to flows, i.e., carry non-zero flow labels [such as QoS] . . . [and] protocol designers and implementers [should] not assume otherwise.”[67] One expert has indicated, however, that “without the flow label and hop-by-hop option processing of IPv6, [optimal QoS operations] would not be possible.”[68] Accordingly, more work, particularly more standardization work, is needed before any potential QoS benefits of IPv6 can be realized.[69]
Another constraint on the widescale implementation of QoS, either in IPv6 or IPv4, would be the lack of QoS support in any network segment in the transmission path. Such a deficiency could negate QoS gains realized in the rest of the network path. From a commercial standpoint, moreover, service providers will not offer QoS support unless the offered differential in service quality translates into increased revenues from customers (i.e., only if QoS utilization translates to improved service for the user and higher revenue for the provider).
Experts have suggested that IPv6 will reduce network administration costs in the long run if enterprises reorganize their networking structure and operating processes to take advantage of IPv6’s capabilities and remove NATs from their networks.[70] For example, the autoconfiguration feature available in IPv6 can simplify the connection of hosts and other devices to the Internet, thus reducing management overhead for network administrators.[71] The vast number of addresses available under IPv6 could simplify (and thus reduce the costs of) subnet management because each subnet could be given substantially more address space than the number of nodes that could be connected to it.[72]
If adoption of IPv6 motivates an organization to dispense with NATs, network administrators could more effectively use ping, traceroute, and other tools to diagnose network problems or to debug applications between pairs of hosts.[73] Removal of NATs could also simplify use of multivendor networking solutions.[74] Furthermore, decreasing the number of processing functions in a network (e.g., by eliminating NATs) could reduce the number of components that can fail, increase network resilience, and reduce management complexity and support costs.[75]
To the extent that the administration cost savings of IPv6 depend on the removal of NATs, the potential savings may be constrained by the likely persistence of those devices in an IPv6 environment. More generally, immediate reductions in administrative costs flowing from adoption of IPv6 will probably not offset the costs of transition to IPv6,[76] although the cumulative savings could eventually exceed transition costs. Most networks will likely not see a net reduction in costs for at least 5 to 10 years after initial IPv6 deployment, depending on the priority assigned to upgrading of systems, specific network complexities, and other issues that could arise during transition.[77] Additionally, some experts have stated that there will not be aggregate administrative reductions because new IPv6 issues related to new/advanced applications and projected increases in Internet traffic could require added costs, including additional administrative activities.[78] However, this development still implies a decrease in the cost per unit of information exchanged.
In summary, during the extended transition period in which IPv4 and IPv6 support will be required, the operation expense (OPEX) for network operations will likely see a measurable increase not decrease. Any OPEX cost reduction will probably not be realized until significant operational experience has been gained at all levels of the network, including the application developer and user levels. This may not accrue for 10 or more years, if ever.[79]
Removal of NATs would likely result in fewer processing steps and reduced transmission bottlenecks.[80] The change to a fixed header size in IPv6 could yield processing efficiencies, and deployment of IPv6 could also allow routing tables to be reduced in size and redesigned for maximum efficiency.[81] Some experts have said that such benefits will result only when IPv6 use is widespread.[82] The potential increase in overall network efficiency, moreover, may be difficult to correlate with adoption of IPv6. A much better benchmark, and the metric of greatest interest to the user community, is whether the performance of E2E and other applications improves significantly when using IPv6 transport.
As the foregoing discussion indicates (and as Table 2-1 summarizes) adoption of IPv6 can potentially produce measurable benefits for users, equipment vendors, and service providers. The largest likely benefits will be realized in the areas of increased address space (and associated
Table 2-1. Overview of IPv6 Benefits
|
Benefits |
Magnitude of Potential Benefits |
Timing Issues |
Likelihood of Occurrence |
Key Factors in Realizing Benefits of IPv6 |
|
Increased address space |
Large |
U.S. does not face a near-term shortage |
Medium/High |
Removal of NATs Growth in number of end-to-end and other applications |
|
Simplified mobility |
Large |
New applications will likely flow from Asian test markets |
Medium/High |
Growth/demand for new applications |
|
Reduced network administration costs |
Modest |
Cost may increase during transition |
Medium (in the long term) |
Removal of NATs |
|
Increased security |
Modest |
Unclear when large scale adoption of IPsec will occur |
Low/Medium |
Development of PKI Removal of NATs |
|
Improved overall network efficiency |
Modest |
Efficiency may not improve until after large scale transition |
Low |
Removal of NATs |
|
Improved QoS capabilities |
Modest/Small |
Few benefits in the near future |
Low |
Ongoing standardization and subsequent implementation of QoS “flow label” field |
Source: Estimates based on RFC comments and discussions with industry stakeholders.
innovations in services and applications) and improved mobility. Additional work must be done (e.g., removal of NATs, standards setting) to fully capture the potential benefits. Although the long-term benefits may be considerable, the short-term benefits for many organizations may not exceed the costs of moving from IPv4 to IPv6 on an accelerated basis.
2.2 Stakeholder Costs of Adopting IPv6
The potential costs associated with deploying IPv6 comprise a mixture of hardware, software, labor, and miscellaneous costs. The transition to IPv6 is not analogous to turning on a light switch; instead, many different paths to some level of IPv6 deployment can be forged. Each organization or user throughout the Internet supply chain will incur some costs to transition to IPv6, primarily in the form of labor and capital expenditures required to integrate IPv6 capabilities into existing networks.
Expenditures and support activities will vary greatly across and within stakeholder groups depending on their existing infrastructure and IPv6-related needs. By and large, ISPs offering service to a large group of customers will likely incur the most transition costs, while independent users will bear little, if any, costs.[83] Factors influencing these costs include
· the type of Internet use or type of service being offered by each organization;
· the transition mechanism(s) that the organization intends to implement (e.g., tunneling, dual-stack, translation, or a combination);
· the organization-specific infrastructure comprised of servers, routers, firewalls, billing systems, and standard and customized network-enabled software applications;
· the level of security required during the transition; and
· the timing of the transition.
Table 2-2 provides a list of potential costs incurred by stakeholder group and gives a percentage breakdown by cost category. Table 2-3 provides
an item-by-item list of the costs to deploy IPv6 by stakeholder group; this is a relative comparison of costs and should not be used to infer the actual size of each cost. As part of the discussion in this section we
Table 2-2. Overview of IPv6 Costs
|
Stake-holders |
Total Cost |
Transition Cost Breakdowna |
Timing Issues |
Key Factors in Bearing Costs |
||
|
HW |
SW |
Labor |
||||
|
Hardware Vendors |
Low b |
10% |
10% |
80% |
Currently most are providing IPv6 capabilities |
Rolling in IPv6 as standard R&D expense; international interest and future profits incentivize investments |
|
Software Vendors |
Low/Mediumc |
10% |
10% |
80% |
Currently some are providing IPv6 capabilities |
Interoperability issues could increase costs |
|
Internet Users |
Low/Medium |
10% |
20% |
70% |
Very few currently running IPv6; HW and SW will become capable as routine upgrade; size of enabling cost should decrease over time |
Users will wait for significantly lower enablement costs or (more probably) a killer application requiring IPv6 for end-to-end functionality before enabling |
|
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) |
Highd |
15% |
15% |
70% |
Very few are offering IPv6 service; no demand currently; very high cost currently to upgrade major capabilities |
ISPs see low or nonexistent ROI, high costs, and high risk |
Source: RTI estimates based on discussions with 26 industry stakeholders, RFC responses, and extensive literature review.
aThese costs are estimates based on conversations with numerous stakeholders and industry experts. Several assumptions underlie them. First, it is assumed that IPv6 is not enabled (or “turned on”) or included in products and no IPv6 service is offered until it makes business sense for each stakeholder group. Additionally, the hardware and software costs are one-time costs. However, labor costs could continue for as long as the transition period and possibly longer.
bFor hardware vendors producing high-volume parts that require ASIC changes, the costs could be very high and would not be offered until the market is willing to pay.
cSoftware developers of operating systems have and will incur a relatively low cost; however, application developers will incur greater costs, designated as medium.
dThe cost for ISPs is particularly high if the ISP manages equipment at user sites, because premises equipment is more costly to manage and maintain.
|
Item |
ISPs |
Enterprise Users |
|
Hardware |
|
|
|
Replace interface/line cards |
|
M |
|
Replace routing/forwarding engine(s)b |
M |
|
|
Replace chassis (if line cards will not fit) |
M |
M |
|
Replace
firewall |
M |
M |
|
Software |
|
|
|
Upgrade network monitoring/management software |
L |
L |
|
Upgrade operating system |
M |
S |
|
Upgrade applications: |
|
|
|
· Servers (Web, DNS, FTP, mail, music, video, etc.) |
|
S |
|
· ERP software (e.g., PeopleSoft, Oracle, SAP, etc.) |
|
L |
|
· Other organization-specific, network-enabled applications |
|
L |
|
Labor |
|
|
|
Train networking/IT employees |
L |
L |
|
Design IPv6 transition strategy and a network vision |
L |
M/L |
|
Implement transition: |
|
|
|
· Install and configure any new hardware |
L |
L |
|
· Configure transition technique (e.g., tunneling, dual-stack, NAT-PAT translation) |
M |
M |
|
· Upgrade all software (see Software section above) |
S/M |
S/M |
|
· Extensi |