Preparedness to transition

We now look at the preparedness of organisations that have not deployed IPv6 yet but are planning to deploy it and those that have not fully deployed IPv6 yet (those that have not deployed IPv6 in internal networks and Internet facing services). The questions we discuss here are very similar to the questions from Dell [5].

Figure 6 shows the status of planning for IPv6 in various areas. The category in which most organisations have made progress is (somewhat unsurprisingly) “IPv6 allocation obtained”, which is usually the first step. Differences between Australia and China are relatively small in most categories and not significant.

EXIT

Figure 7 shows the state of assessment of IPv6 in the organisation. There is a significant difference between China and Australia in all the categories. China is ahead in all categories, most noticeable in the “Training” category. When compared to the previous figure, assessment is clearly less advanced than planning or policy development.

EXIT

Figure 8 shows the state of IPv6 training provided. There is not much difference between the different training areas (as in Dell [5]). China is consistently ahead in all categories, most noticeably in IPv6 security. When compared to the other preparedness areas, training is the least advanced.

EXIT