The Europeon Commision has started an research project with TNO and GNKS to find the causes for a slow IPv6deploymentby looking at bottlenecks and the argument that are used when talking about IPv6 deployment.
Governments, enterprises, ISPs, etc., use a wide variation of arguments for not deploying IPv6 in their ICT environment. Some of these arguments are purely technological in nature, whilst others deal with business or the availability of products. Also, some of the arguments are based on reality, and others are just perceived by people but may be based on, for example, misunderstanding of IPv6 technology.
Here are a few examples of the arguments they cover which you can discuss about:
“I dont gain anything whit implementing IPv6, it only increases costs”
This argument is related to the (lack of a) IPv6 business case. It is assumed that the introduction of IPv6 will require extra investments. This will in most cases be true: at least someone has to determine the impact of the introduction of IPv6. But the costs can often be minimized by doing IPv6 investments concurrently with the introduction of new network devices and service platforms. As far as revenues are concerned: not be able to deliver IPv6 on time, may lead to missed opportunities, missing potential revenues.
“I hear people say that Network Address Translation (NAT, RFC 2663) will do the trick. In that case I can keep my current addresses and network infrastructure.”
Is NAT cascading, or Carrier Grade NAT (CGN), an alternative for IPv6? NAT does prolong the lifetime of current IPv4 networks, but has issues with accessibility (the end-to-end principle) and scalability (the number of concurrent sessions is limited). CGN will provide a short-term solution for ISPs who are not IPv6-ready on time. However their total amount of investments will increase, since they will have to move towards IPv6 anyway later on.
For more bottlenecks and arguments check out http://www.ipv6monitoring.eu/bottlenecks