The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Paris, France, from 12 to 14 November 2018. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> MODERATOR: Good morning. This is the session where the role of the regulator in promoting the deployment of IPv6. Let me introduce them. On my right we have Pablo Hinojosa from APNIC. And here is Javier Juarez, regulator from Mexico from IFT. Sorry. Chafic Chaya from RIPE and Guillermo Fernandez from IFT, also from Mexico. We have also a remote connection and I think they are working on having him onboard.
Let me start with a brief introduction on base ‑‑ it is not really long. I just want to talk about ‑‑ can we ‑‑ next. IPv4 depletion. We have been having an issue for years now, and the rate that IPv4 has been used and it is being depleted and by now almost all the regions have reached the point where we are using the last resources we have available. And we are applying the policies for depletion that we have already implemented. And we are using them. Only Africa is not in this point of last resources.
But it is expected next year we will reach this point. Also ‑‑ well, that information was taken from Herto. It shows the remaining in each region, all the regions are using the last resources. Some are implementing some measures like lease‑to organizations that seek more addresses. Others are limiting the quantity of others are assigning to their members in order to keep, helping them to adopt IPv6. But the reality is that we are almost at the bottom of the barrel. There is no more IPv4. There is no way to have more. And we are talking about adopting IPv6 for many years now.
Can we have the next ‑‑ thank you. But talking about depletion of IPv4. What happens if there are no more IPv4 addresses? Well, the issue is that the net is working. The net is not going to break. But we are going to have a really tough time adding more equipment to the net and it is going to be difficult adding customers to the network as we don't have any more addresses to assign them. And it is an issue that more and more organizations are facing once they finish, they are stuck. They reach the registry and they can't give them any more addresses. IPv6 adoption, not a new issue as I have told you. A lot of technologies have been developed for adopting the protocol.
Other regions have a policy of free adoption by the operators. For example, in Mexico, we are about as of today about 50%. And different countries have different percentage of adoption.
And now I would like to start to face this meeting with two questions. Is there a problem with the rate that IPv6 is being adopted? Is that the growth rate IPv6 has? It has been heard a lot, that it is not fast enough. But is that at this point really an issue? I would like to start with Chafic. Thank you.
>> CHAFIC CHAYA: Good morning. Thank you, Edmundo. First a pleasure for me to be here with you and thanks for the Federal Institute of Mexico to invite me here. I would like to review some of my experiences that we work and collaborate with our members at services. We are covering around 76 countries in the Middle East, Europe and Central Asia. And we are cooperating and coordinating with all our members in a multistakeholder approach to discuss and promote and see what's the issue IPv6 and other related Internet issues.
So first for sure the IPv6 adoption is not at a level that we are desired and expected, especially that the pressure now is coming from the IPv4 pools which are near to be exhausted, no more IPv4. So what will we do? We can agree that the low adoption of IPv6 is a symptom. And it is not a root cause. So why the adoption of the IPv6 is still low in many of the countries? Is it a technical failure that the new protocol is not working well and IPv6 is broken? Given the fact that Google reports that 25% of the traffic delivered is through IPv6. I don't believe so. And many other examples regarding that mobile USA sky bridge in UK, and Swisscom and other places, all these operators they are deploying IPv6 and connecting millions of users.
Same we can tell for the content. Many operators open inquiries why we don't have content and application that support IPv6. Again if we go to Google or any other international players like Microsoft, Akamai, cloud player, we see that they are running their application and content and they have the IPv6. So it is not the case.
So what's the issue here? It is awareness from our experience I can tell that five years ago, yes. But now I don't believe so. When we approach the ‑‑ when we were approaching the operators and ISPs five years ago the main two reasons or let's say that we capture some of them is that why we need IPv6. We have no demand from the end users. And we have the CVN. It is okay for us. It is working. However, today we can see that almost the majority of our members, around 75% they asked for their IPv6 addresses. And a lot of these operators they have pilot projects or they deployed their IPv6.
There is a common understanding that the IPv6 deployment midterm and long term is cheaper than to go with IPv4 operations. However we can see something and we note something that the operator that they are deploying the IPv6 or don't want to share their experience with others because they have this magic weapon for them or they don't have enough data to make a case study, what is the benefit of the IPv6. So here is I believe the main role that the regulatory authority can play.
So what the regulatory authority can do in this case? The regulatory authority they have the authoritative and the investigative powers. So instead of calling for regulation intervention or regulatory intervention, let's call for what we call let's say regulatory investigation. And I had a chat with my friend from the French regulatory yesterday and he mentioned something really interesting and I will quote from him, I respect the copyright. So he said from a regulator to moderator, which is proven toward excellence with our members either of regulator or Governments. So the regulator has an important part in this to get all the players, all the stakeholders under one roof and discuss with them and see what is the problem or the issue in their market.
I can give some very successful examples that we have now working with Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon. And we have ‑‑ the user from Lebanon who can give us or share with his views. He was the ex‑general director of the Ministry of Communication. Maybe he can elaborate on this. And I believe the French regulatory is, too, maybe. Maybe he can tell us the experience of how this regulation be coming now for moderating the IPv6. So I can submit that the benefit that the regulatory community can give to the global Internet community is to work and investigate why their margin is not behaving as expected or desired. And from there as a particular community we can go and work in this multistakeholder environment to give the right tools to do the right job.
Thank you so much.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Chafic. Now I would like to go to Pablo from APNIC.
>> PABLO HINOJOSA: Thank you, Edmundo. Good morning. It is very nice that you chose IPv6 as a topic for an open forum. And it is a great honor and privilege to be here with former colleagues of the Mexican regulator, formerly ‑‑ it is great as an open forum from the Mexican Government. It's got a big room and it is not easy in this IGF to get such a space. It has been very competitive. The good thing about this is that if the room is not full, there is full transcription. So I hope this is also an opportunity to leave something useful for the record and for posteriority. This is for those of you that don't come from a technical background, it was impossible to predict how successful it was going to be. And at the time the address space of the Internet was around 4.2 billion unique addresses, and at the time it made much sense. So they never thought that it was going to grow as it is today. But 30 years later there is an estimate of more than 20 billion devices currently connected to the network at a global level. So there are around five times more devices than unique IPv4 addresses of the regional Internet protocol. And this means that not every device connected has a unique IP address, public unique IP address. So many work on the one public IP address and behind network translator machines and, of course, this has a lot of implications. So that is why there is this much, much bigger IPv6 space which we obviously support and promote to deploy. The issue is that IPv4 and IPv6 have issues of compatibility. And there needs to be some migration in terms of equipment, et cetera.
So the topic of today as I understood was whether the regulator can play some sort of a role in promoting IPv6 deployment adoption in Mexico, but also in other parts of the world. And this is very interesting. Because, of course, we as the Regional Internet Registry in Asia‑Pacific, APNIC work very collaboratively with all different stakeholders. Our members in particular as Chafic said with providing them with addresses and technical training. It is a very important part of the APNIC's registry.
But this also opens the door for creative and good opportunities for enabling and catalyzing industry and Government efforts in to IPv6 adoption. An example of what we have done together with regulators, and this is at the international level with ITU, actually ITU is having a very important conference at the moment in Dubai, the Plenipotentiary Conference. So APNIC is a sector member of the development part of the ITU. The ITU has most of the regulators as its core part of its membership. And they have been also promoting IPv6 deployment throughout the years. So APNIC and ITU have collaborated in the Asia‑Pacific Region to promote and to build capacity at the technical level because there are indeed a lot in the Government as probably we will hear from our colleague from IFITEL. The Government agencies have networks and they are a very important part of sort of the use of the Internet. And they can be a very good example about sort of promoting IPv6 by them setting sort of the standard.
So with ITU we have had very good opportunities to do technical trainings for technical people from the Government. And they go back home and improve the capacity of their networks to deploy IPv6. So that is one example. And I'm happy to work during this panel to talk about other possible examples.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Pablo. Chafic had mentioned the French regulator. And I would like to give him the floor.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you, Chafic. Thank you very much. I don't like to take the spotlight from the speaker, but I will give you a concrete example of what the French regulator is doing for promoting the transition to IPv6. And in this case our active promotion started in 2016 with a report submitted to the Government with the concern of ccTLD of France in which it contained several actions that should be put in place in France. It is mainly six sections which are lead by example, providing widespread IPv6 training and creating a roadmap for the transition to IPv6, improved coordination, better information for users and finally prepare the end of IPv6. If I take the example apart, we start with ourselves and we put our website on IPv6. And funny fact, we are the only website hosted in IPv6 for our hosting provider. This is funny but it is the case in 2018.
Second thing that we put in place is an observatory we call barometer and in this barometer what we are doing is what we call data driven regulation. So what we do is that we collect information from operators and optionally from hosting providers as we don't regulate them. And then we gather other information from the different links of the technical chain so that we have an overview of all the actors within France either transit provider, ISPs, mobile operators, hosting providers, and eventually for next year it will be the administration and the companies. But information about the devices and operating system that work only in IPv6 or that need IPv4 to work with IPv6. So that won't help us get rid of IPv4.
And this observatory was like well appreciated by the ecosystem because it helps them see also how the different actors are forecasting their transition. So there is not only actual data, but forecasts about the transition for one year, three years. And we have even data that we can publish about five years. And we had like different ‑‑ a difference in the transition I would say strategies. So we need ‑‑ we need to know why. So for this case, we set up in place a workshop last month. Also with the consent of APNIC and the Internet Society. And there are many people here who were there. And we had ISPs, hosting providers, associations, public society, mobile operators. Also we had Government there to see first the problems for this transition and the second time what are maybe the solutions for this problem.
First it is important to know the problem because now we have many people that are looking for solutions for nonexisting problems to IPv6. So the fact that we have not published it yet the results of this workshop, that's what we are planning to do in the next month. So gathering people around the same table here as Chafic said we are not working on a regulator. We were there to gather different people who don't speak with each other around the same table to deal with several issues related to the transition of ISPs, transition with hosting provider and transition within administration and companies. But at the same time transverse issues like quality of service and security on IPv6, training for IPv6 and IPv4 and how to anticipate this because it is something that should be anticipated 10 or 15 years before so that the different actors are ready and they are aware about what they should do.
So even if we don't have like a legal background, it is a soft law approach that helps make the different actors approach of the importance of IPv6, makes the Government also aware about something that is invisible for the end user. We can sell better 5G than IPv6. Why not link an IPv6 to 5G? This is another issue. As a regulator we are here to moderate, to facilitate and to make people speak with each other so that they can work together towards accelerating this transition because at this space we can't cope with the scarcity of IPv4, especially at the RIPE level.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Now we have Guillermo. Yes. We will be taking questions at the end of the ‑‑
>> AUDIENCE: Yeah, I tried to answer his question. Because I'm the board member of one of the Telcos. We actually turned on the IPv6 by February this year. And until now, right now the IPv6 cable is up to 75% already, from 0.5% to 75%. And you are asking why the Telco or ISP have to turn to the IPv6. I give you a very simple reason. Because if you are going to provide your customer a solution, a startup company or any spending industry, when they want to do the Internet service they need an IP address. But IPv4 is gone. IPv4 has run out. Right now I tell you the truth, if you want to get an IPv4 from the market, one IPv4 address costs you 15 U.S. dollars. But if you go to the IPv6, almost free. And so there is a reason for my company, we have no choice. And so we can provide as much address to the Internet company, they are going to start or expansion.
The third thing is very important is the cost. Doing IPv4 and IPv6, not that dramatic. In the very beginning time last year my technical people told me there would be, you know, a duplicate team to do the IPv4 and the IPv6. From February this year until now, actually it is not. That is not true. And, of course, there is a certain thing you need to work with. First of all, because in the mobile market there is two major providers. One a (inaudible) and the other one is the Android system. Android it is an easy one. Because people can do it by themselves. For ARIPO you need to have a certificate. You need to have a report. Send it to the ARIPO computer and the computer verifies your environment is ready for V6. And then ARIPO will turn on. And ARIPO is turned on ‑‑ you only have two time slots, depends on the countries.
If you don't turn on now, you need to wait another six months for turn on. So that's a quick answer for the people question about the IPv6.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. We are keeping with the presentations. And we will take questions at the end. Thank you. Now we are ‑‑ we have Guillermo.
>> GUILLERMO FERNANDEZ: Good morning. Could you please play the presentation for me? Thank you. My name is Guillermo Fernandez. What I am here to tell you is the journey that we have as the regulator have gone through to migrate the transition or portals to IPv6, how we do it. Because the one standpoint is the regulator wants from the board of the IFT and the others we were trying to experiment as a user, as an end user. What I am about to tell you how did we take this project, how did it ‑‑ what became necessary and how we done it. What are we now at this point? Next, please.
Well, as a colleague said for those of you who are not technical background, just about to tell you a little bit about the business unit that I am ‑‑ I am the head. I am in charge of running the IFT infrastructure. I am responsible about all the things, network, PCs, applications and all that stuff. Telephones, whatever.
In addition to that I'm responsible for the information security role. So I'm also ‑‑ I have a team which is in charge of all the cybersecurity measures, all the procedures and standards, methods, controls that are implemented to prevent this information leaks and that type of thing. And we are also advisors of the business units and their projects that they are planning that use ICTs in place.
So that's the role of the unit I run. A little bit of background is that IFT's infrastructure was held from the predecessor. It was a former regulator in Mexico. The thing with that infrastructure is that it was particularly old and it was bound to leasing contracts. So we had to let all the infrastructure to keep functioning until we had ‑‑ we had to change it by contract. And none of those equipments were IPv6 ready. They were only functions in IPv4 and a lot of cybersecurity measures has to be taken because we have some serious things to take care of before we could even think about migrating to IPv6. So those was the first step. What the next ‑‑ next slide, please. What made necessary this project? As our colleagues already said, IPv4 addresses are depleted. We have no assignment on our IP4 addresses. Every time we change our ISPs we are have to change our ENS managers and have to make a little steps before we meet ‑‑ we made the change of ISPs. The DNF replication worldwide picks between 2 and 72 hours. That means that every time we change our ISP we have to wait until some time before our portals, our websites, our e‑mail service was ‑‑ were replicated all over the world. We were like invisible in that period of time.
Well, every time we change the ISP was a funny thing, because the ‑‑ as some of you may know when you change the IP address of an e‑mail service it has to generate some validation. If not you get classified as Spam. Those were the type of problems we had with the IPv4 broadcasting we had before. The first step we took we have to deploy a global traffic manager solution which made us independent from our ISP and DNS service. We are now authoritative name space of our portals. And we have to install some video, anti‑video solution before we even start planning or implementing our transition to IPv6.
Next slide, please. How we take this project in play, yeah, now? The first thing it is an obvious one but not that obvious because we have to think it through and to ‑‑ they put it in place, we have to train all the staff from workshops, papers. I mean going to some ‑‑ even schools and courses and all that stuff because we found out that not all the technical staff in the unit have experience or skills to make this transition. So that was a very, very first important thing we did.
We had to make an assessment, to make an assessment of the situation we were in. We have to establish some scope of the project. We put this ‑‑ we establish this project in to phases. Phase 1 is only public portals and depending on the use cases we have in place for the end of phase 1. We are ‑‑ we will evaluate if we migrate our internal to how IPv6 protocol. The time frame for the phase 1 was one year. So we are about to finish if and hopefully we will end this year by having portals, our main portals in IPv6. The requirements we have, so we will take this project on as the renewal, main cybersecurity equipment as I was telling you before.
The first year of this project we didn't have all the equipment ready to be changed. The ISP have to be ready to broadcasting in IPv6 because in Mexico in 2016 there were only two carriers formally giving that service in Mexico. Now this is a different reality. We have a lot of ISPs in Mexico giving IPv6, but back two years ago when I was starting to plan this project, there were only two formally giving services and when we have to get the IPv6 sizing. Next slide, please.
The execution of this product so far this year as I was telling you this period took place this year, we have three public biddings. Two of them were to put in place a network center. And the second one was to put in place a security operation center and the change of ISP that now supports IPv6 probably in ‑‑ IPv4. The last phase of this constructing journey was to get the IPv6 assignment, which requires ‑‑ there are some requirements that we had to fulfill in order to get the assignment. The policy and road and plans of protocols and the procedures that has a very heavy limit to take place and be executed.
Next slide, please. After those steps having been taken we are expecting at the end of this year we will be finally having all our public portals published in IPv6. And there will be the journey where we will be having as a regulator and as an end user.
So there are some final thoughts we have from this experience we have had with this project. We think that for our Government ‑‑ from a Government standpoint we have to make some adjustments on our constructing procedures so that this transition for the IPv6 assignment gets easier. And it is necessary to take more actions towards promoting the transition in to companies. So overall it means small ones. It is very important to share experiences. We have put in place a website which is a compilation of all these practices, papers and library and experiences from IPv6 transition and ‑‑ papers we have compiled. And well, that has been the experience we have had so far.
In the next slide you will see the URL of the IPv6 website. So next slide, please. I invite you to visit our website. This is in Spanish. But hopefully we will get important information. Not all the papers and the communication there are in Spanish. A lot of them are in English. And well, you are invited to visit it. And that has been the journey we have had in transitioning the Mexican transition to IPv6. Next slide, please. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Guillermo. And now we have Javier from the commissioner from IFT in Mexico.
>> JAVIER JUAREZ: Thank you, Edmundo. Good morning, everyone. I'm almost the last one. And it is important because as regulators we have to ease in carefully to all the experts.
I will start by saying that a long, long time ago when I was studying my master's here in France in 2005 a teacher told us that in order to promote the IPv6 adoption we needed a killer application. This year in the IETF meeting in Montreal I saw this teacher and I asked him if ‑‑ his view and how we had that killer application. And he told me yes, the Internet of Things is the killer applications to foster IPv6 adoption. I agree with him because every device connected to the Internet needs an IP address unless it is analog, iPad like this one. Otherwise all the cars, the wearables, the Smartphones they will need an IPv address. We don't have IPv4 addresses anymore. We need to move to the IP Protocol. As one colleague said we have no choice, we have to move to the IPv6. Regarding this and since the name of this panel is the role of the regulator in promoting the deployment of IPv6, I would like to share with you what is in my view the role of the telecom regulator.
The IFT, the telecom regulator in Mexico has to ‑‑ has to promote the efficient development of the telecom sector. If we want to accomplish that goal, we need the spectrum, we need the rollout of networks, telecom networks and, of course, we need to transfer to the IPv6 protocol. We cannot think an efficient telecom sector without IPv6. So far we have already mandated that in the interconnection of public telecom networks in Mexico carriers have to use ‑‑ they must use the IPv6 protocol.
Also for the traffic has changed at the Internet traffic change point, the telecom operators are supposed to use IPv6. The last said the telecom operator in France has an approach of subregulation. They have something like regulating with data and with that approach they have ‑‑ they say that with information, the right information the market could move in the right direction. With the same approach we have kind of an observatory in our website. And in that observatory we want to promote the genetics of IPv6. We have access to guidelines and best practices and statistics among other useful information.
Of course, we have a lot of things to do. In the future we need to create maybe a national policy, a wholistic policy for the transition. It could include, for example, the creation of more statistics. By now we only have traffic statistics that, in fact, is the reference to Cisco and Google. We need, for example, how is the network equipment, websites that supports IPv6. We can work together with other stakeholders, like NIC Mexico. Maybe we need to create that task force IPv6 to see what is happening around the world. Create the inventory of carriers that are already providing IPv6 services. Last year my team was trying to contract IPv6 services. And when they call to the telecom providers the telecom operators, they don't have any idea of what we are talking about.
Maybe we need to create a partnership with universities. We need to train the human resources that understands IPv6 because by now almost all the technical courses, all the technical programs are based on IPv4. And last but not least, maybe Governments should create demand of IPv6 services.
As you can see these are some ‑‑ it is not an ambitious agenda. But I think it will be a very important contribution for the IPv6 adoption. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Javier. We are running out of time. I think we have a remote connection.
>> REMOTE PARTICIPANT: Hello. Yes, I want to know if you hear me.
>> MODERATOR: Yeah. Thank you. Go ahead, please.
>> REMOTE PARTICIPANT: Okay. Thank you to give me this opportunity to talk. So I'll be very short. My name is Mongo. I am working for (?) And we are located in all the continents. And I am working in Africa in Cameroon. I will not go through my presentation. But I will just give a little experience for what we have done since three, four years.
Like many of you were saying in Africa, Africa has seen some IPv4 prefixes but we do not ‑‑ we in our case we do not stand and we prefer you to move forward and use IPv6. Why do we prefer you use IPv6? Because we are working in academic fields. And as ‑‑ and we are an association working with academy. And it was necessary to understand IPv6 and implement it within our own networks. And in our country in Cameroon all our ISP already has IPv6 prefix. For instance, our provider has its IPv6 since 2006. So it means 12 years ago. And how do we proceed? There were some training of technical staff. But the most important thing I want to mention here we do a lot of advocacy towards management staff. Because it was ‑‑ IPv6 is not really a technical issue as of today. The most important is the commitment of people who want to ‑‑ who want to ‑‑ who want to implement it.
So we take a lot of time to do many advocacy.
And we have many issues when we try to implement it, but at last it was ‑‑ it is working since two years. Our forecast, if I can give you some focus is that we want to convince our members, our members are the University, to use IPv6 for their daily needs and also for the research. We are collaborating with on IPv6 certification with AFRINIC. And right now in our office we have a session on training people before they make the first exam certification on IPv6.
And in our region in Central Africa we want to engage gradually all our ISPs in the subregion on IPv6 deployment in our different offices. And what I can suggest to regulatory is to among other solutions, of course, it is to promote IPv6 deployment within Government networks. And even the regulatory itself and also at last do not focus on plan but start to deploy somewhere because I know that in some countries, in Africa there are many plans. But some organizations have not already deployed something on IPv6. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Well, now we have a short time. We can have questions now.
>> AUDIENCE: Let me give a clear. My ‑‑
>> AUDIENCE: Sorry. Just to get back to you and to the remarks concerning ‑‑ was it me or ‑‑
>> MODERATOR: I need to make a short ‑‑ need to be short questions because we need to close the panel.
>> AUDIENCE: So it was just correction remarks more than questions. Because, for example, the issue of cost of IPv4 is not a problem for big companies. It is more they prefer the cost of IPv4 to the cost of change to IPv6. Just to correct the remark. It is true that there is an issue with iPhone but not a problem. But to come back to the observatory issue, the most important is not to get statistics. The most important is to get individual statistics of different actors and get podiums so they see the risk between each other. One correction remark also IoT is not the killer application, I think so. Because most of the constructive IoTs are not against nets because they don't want their devices to be front to Internet, blocking inbound traffic for IoT object.
So so far it can work well with IPv4. And we need to be more critical concerning IPv6 because there are still quality issues. We don't have the same SLA on the equipment that are compliant and compatible IPv6, but they are hard coded for IPv4 and not IPv6. The fact of saying that IPv6 is good I do agree. We need to be critical so we can advance.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. I think we have a minute for each of the panel ‑‑
>> AUDIENCE: Can I comment?
>> MODERATOR: ‑‑ for closing remarks.
>> AUDIENCE: Let me say that the people talking about IPv6 they are looking for the killer application. You don't need to wait for a killer application. Let me tell you that the mobile is a killer application for IPv6. And mobile in general is, you know, you don't need to worry about too much security issue, particularly in mobile device. And some concern you are talking about a security issue. I do agree that it is an ISP, particularly you are serving for the customer need Internet services. My company basically originally is a national carrier. So we have all kinds of applications you can think about from mobile to fixed line to ISP. So we find actually the really important killer application is turn on the mobile. When you turn on the mobile, that v6 is jumping and you are talking about ISP service. I do agree, there is some security issue, you need to think about it. At this moment the ISP service is only 25% but mobile is 75% now. So I mean at least turn on the mobile services. There is a real killer application. Don't wait for the IoT. IoT ‑‑
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Thank you. We need to close the panel.
>> JAVIER JUAREZ: Maybe for sure we could have different views about a killer application. If we need or not a killer application to move to IPv6, the point is that IPv6 is exhausted and we need to move forward. And as regulators we have to watch carefully to the market, to the needs and make some actions to foster that IPv6 adoption. Thank you.
>> CHAFIC CHAYA: Thank you. To sum up, I agree with Mr. Sibe and our colleague there and there is no magic. And one solution to push for the accuracy deployment. It depends from one country to another. The first step is to investigate the situation. And based on this investigation we can put the steps and agenda, how to go with it. But one comment that ‑‑ there are some common points in this agenda. And one of them is the IPv6 task force. I believe that the IPv6 task force in countries is very important. So the stakeholders can discuss everything under one roof and they can ‑‑ we can say they can put the national strategy for IPv6 for the country. It is a very important step.
Second collaboration, working together. Sharing information is very important. We can't do this alone. Third, training. We need skills. We need the know‑how. And here comes the role of the technical community of IR or for ourselves CC. We are doing our best in giving and sharing all the technical expertise with our members. Even we do some dedicated meeting with regulators on Governments on a high level to give them the awareness of the importance of IPv6.
And here I will leave 30 second to the doctor from Lebanon to share his views because we did a nice job for Lebanon for the last two years. Give us how you approached in the Government perspective. Thank you. English for our colleagues Mexican. English for our colleagues from Mexico.
>> AUDIENCE: Okay. In fact, first thank you for ‑‑ thank you very much to give me the floor. In fact, in Lebanon with the Orange Telecom but separate RI we have started in 2015 maybe to make preparation of all issues concerning the introduction of IPv6 in our infrastructure with collaboration of all Lebanese. Maybe something like 40 or 50 ISPs. And each ISP has his own infrastructure. So with the support of RIPE and Mr. Chafic and our team in Orange Telecom, which is the public telecom operator in Lebanon, all of the preparation issues, technically software speaking, hardware speaking where already everything is ready in June 2016.
And with the collaboration of ISPs and the DSPs, data service providers, we have made this issue. Now ‑‑ so a little conclusion. And everything was ready in June, July 2016. But from this day to today we are waiting to launch really the transition. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. And Pablo, please.
>> PABLO HINOJOSA: I won't take much time. I was just very impressed about Guillermo's quality of presentation in terms of its technical aspects. Through it I know that some in this Forum fully grasped what was behind his presentation. When we are talking about IPv6 deployment, that's exactly what the people involved need to get through. And I don't think that is neither a policy or a regulatory question. It is basically a technical aspect to go through. So that would be my last contribution.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Pablo. And Guillermo.
>> GUILLERMO FERNANDEZ: Thank you. Just not much to be ‑‑ I just agree that the IPv6 transition is not necessarily a technical issue. It is a commitment one. Training is really necessary and hard stuff to be taking first care of. And I couldn't agree more about this clear app that Commissioner Juarez said because mobile is an application. IoT mobile, it is an application that's the killer app of IPv4. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Very sorry, we are really over time. Thank you.