Tsao Chih-cheng: One problem we see is cost overhead. Upgrading the network infrastructure and equipment for IPv6 applications will increase investments and costs. That is a big negative factor for return-on-investment consideration.
Jeff White: I've had a number of conversations with CXOs where they've characterized it as the "IPv6 tax", if you will. Because the other side of this is, if you look at the economics of it, how do you end up monetizing the investment that you have to make around IPv6? Am I really able to drive incremental revenue through IPv6 deployment? Mobile operators have been talking up the need for more IP addresses for mobile devices for some time. How ready are mobile networks to support IPv6?
CL: We're advancing our v6 plans across multiple networks, one of those wireless. However, if I look at the end-node IPv6-ready state, I would say it's the furthest behind in the wireless world. In the mobile space, there's very few platforms, and none of the ones that are "painful" from an address-utilization standpoint are v6-ready. And the interesting bit is, it was the mobile guys who were pushing really hard to get v6 out the door, but now it's those very same end-nodes that are not ready to consume an IPv6 address or use an IPv6 interface.
Mallik Arjun Rao: From a mobile operator perspective in India, the IPv6 requirement will primarily be driven through mobile once the 3G launches happen next year. Most of our core, including MPLS, is IPv6-ready, because all these nodes have been built in the last 34 to 36 months. So most of my infrastructure is capable of IPv6.
Fred, does the mobile industry have enough time to get everything sorted out?
FB: I think that they probably have time, but they need to get their behinds in gear. From people that I know, it sounds like Nokia's a little bit further ahead than some of the other 3G vendors, and I know that they've all got a lot of plans in place to do stuff. But you're right to say that they're behind.