"Almost no websites can be accessed via IPv6, so if I implement IPv6 I can’t even use it to browse the Internet. Then why should I implement it right now?"

It is true that only a small fraction of websites are accessible via IPv6. Currently, about 1% of the world’s top 500 websites can be reached via IPv6 in EU countries, according to our Deployment Monitoring study. People who have ever tried to use IPv6 on their computer might have gained a negative experience with IPv6 because of this lack of content. IPv6 in their eyes performs much worse than IPv4. Extra effort will be needed to convince these people of the opposite.

"Running IPv6 affects the performance of my servers, making it up to 30% slower."

The argument comes from a publication from Gartner (138557). However, the reasoning behind it is not given, and we find this performance difference very unlikely when IPv4 and IPv6 are handled by the router in the same way. Anyway, an organization must always test whether the IPv6 performance of their servers meets the standard set by IPv4. If not, the servers may need to be upgraded or replaced.

"RFC1883 dates from 1995 and since then everybody tells 'we all have to migrate to IPv6'. But for some reason(s) it still has not happened and anno 2009 we still have IPv4 addresses. I do not think it will ever come that far. A 'standard' that after 15 years is still not widely accepted is not going to work…"

This argument addresses scepticism of people regarding the speed at which IPv6 has been introduced so far. This “general feeling” can be addressed by showing the current predictions of the dates that we will be running out of IP addresses. These predictions are scientifically sounder and therefore more reliable than any prediction in earlier times. One should also realize that the main reason why IPv6 is not commonplace today is the fact that everybody is waiting for each other to migrate. Arguments like this maintain the status quo.

"When IPv6 is deployed, an ISP must enable legal interception of IPv6 traffic because of legislation. Since this is an extra investment that may hold back massive uptake of IPv6."

This functionality must be implemented when there is a legal obligation for an ISP to offer interception of network traffic. Therefore, either the manufacturer of the equipment needs to upgrade its equipment to support interception of IPv6, or the ISP must consider using equipment from another manufacturer. This will require investments which may not lead to extra revenues. An ISP may circumvent this requirement by tunneling IPv6 traffic over IPv4.

"There is no demand for IPv6 enabled devices and software, so I don’t need to offer these products on the short term."

This argument indicates the main reasons for vendors not to deliver IPv6 capable products. In fact, both stakeholders (network owners versus vendors) are both waiting for each other to act. The ISP waits for the vendor to offer IPv6-enabled products, while the vendor waits for demand in the market.

"The market of IPv6-capable products is not transparent, so I don’t know which products will work in my situation without experimenting with them."

Many enterprises do not have the time, money or knowledge to decide by extensive experimentations how to migrate towards IPv6 and which products they should buy for this. A lack of easily available transparent information about new products increases the risk of failure of a migration towards IPv6. The market should be (self-)regulated such that it provides the necessary information, in the correct way.