Experts Views on their Higher Education Institutions Readiness and Deployment of IPv6

Abstract

This study is conducted to investigate experts' views to determine the Omani higher education institutions readiness and deployment of IPv6. In particular, the study aims to assess the institutional awareness, current environment, policy, planning, and resources. Descriptive method was followed and two study instruments were designed and implemented, namely questionnaire and semi structured interviews. Both instruments were validated and implemented on a sample of (12) experts for the questionnaire and (5) for the interviews. The results revealed that IPv6 was not sufficiently attended to by the Omani HEIs and it is partially planned for, implemented, and/or deployed. Efforts should be made to help establishing strategies, research and teaching content. Based on the findings of the research, conclusions and recommendations are suggested.

Full text

International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology E-ISSN 2277 – 4106, P-ISSN 2347 – 5161
©2020 INPRESSCO®, All Rights Reserved Available at http://inpressco.com/category/ijcet
Research Article
717| International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.10, No.5 (Sept/Oct 2020)
Experts Views on their Higher Education Institutions Readiness and
Deployment of IPv6
Ali Al Musawi#; Shubair Abdulla#*, Samih Said#, Abraham Varghese^, Issa AlghatrifiΨ
#Sultan Qaboos University, P. O. Box 32, PC 123 Al-Khodh, Oman
^Higher College of Technology, P. O. Box 74, PC 133 Al-Khuwair, Oman
Ψ University of Technology and Applied Sciences Nizwa, P. O. Box 477 PC 611 Nizwa, Sultanate of Oman
Received 10 July 2020, Accepted 03 Sept 2020, Available online 04 Sept 2020, Vol.10, No.5 (Sept/Oct 2020)
Abstract
This study is conducted to investigate experts’ views to determine the Omani higher education institutions readiness
and deployment of IPv6. In particular, the study aims to assess the institutional awareness, current environment,
policy, planning, and resources. Descriptive method was followed and two study instruments were designed and
implemented, namely questionnaire and semi structured interviews. Both instruments were validated and
implemented on a sample of (12) experts for the questionnaire and (5) for the interviews. The results revealed that
IPv6 was not sufficiently attended to by the Omani HEIs and it is partially planned for, implemented, and/or deployed.
Efforts should be made to help establishing strategies, research and teaching content. Based on the findings of the
research, conclusions and recommendations are suggested.
Keywords: IPv6, Higher Education Institutions, Deployment of IPv6
Introduction
Internet Protocol (IP) is an Internet protocol that
allows devices to communicate with each other. IPv6 is
the new version of IP that uses a 128-bit addressing
structure to support the increasing number of Internet
users. It “provides a platform that includes support for
real-time flows, provider selection, and host mobility,
from start to finish, final security, automatic
configuration, and automatic reconfiguration” (Ismail
& Abidin, 2009, p. 444). This allows all the connected
devices to obtain unique addresses and communicate
with each directly through basic protocol translator
(Mudziwepasi & Scott, 2014). The transition to IPv6
remains inevitable, necessary, and important for all
beneficiaries. However, IPv6 was made primarily to be
compatible with the older version (IPv4) so that both
versions can work together until the transition to IPv6
is complete and, thus, the users can benefit from the
advantages of both protocols at the same time (Main,
Zakaria and Yusof, 2015).
Literature Review
To assess the institutional readiness to migrate to IPv6,
factors can be classified into two sets: physical factors
including the deployment, equipment and cost; and
human factors those comprise information, training,
and motivation (Main, Zakaria & Yusof, 2015).
*Corresponding author’s ORCID ID: 0000-0002-1133-5979
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14741/ijcet/v.10.5.4
Some prominent higher education institutions (HEIs)
have started migration process to IPv6 through
research, benchmarking, and planning. For the
deployment process, universities provided
experimental research labs for IPv6 along with
collaboration with cross-institutions schemes. In
addition, they directed their computer science
departments to train the students with pertinent skills
for future jobs (Alsulaiman, 2015). The environment
setup at a university should allow the entire body of
staff and students to access IPv6 based services and to
collaborate with external partners. In addition, it
should enable the technicians to examine the
application of IPv6 standards at the same time (Perkins
et al, 2012).
Universities perceive that they will be able to raise
their cost effectiveness by migrating to IPv6. For
example, the Canadian McGill University planned the
migration and easily deployed it since IPv6 support is
built into the university’s existing technology
resources. Consequently, they were able to rapidly
empower the enhanced protocol support and enable
maximum compatibility (F5 Networks, 2019). The
British University of New Hampshire (UNH)
implemented its IPv6 deployment by starting in a
minor controlled environment. Building on this small-
scale test network, they expand the deployment to all
other parts of the university. Technical issues may
involve experimenting of IPv6 and support provision to
campus networks.

Ali Al Musawi et al Experts Views on their Higher Education Institutions Readiness and Deployment of IPv6
718| International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.10, No.5 (Sept/Oct 2020)
Table 1: Comparative technical issues of some universities (*)
Institution
Technical status
Start
IPv6
Procedures
Research/Training/Strategies
Collaboration
University of
Southampton
1996
Established IPv6
networks team
IPv6 research implications are
reflected on more projects.
1. Partnered on the European Union
IPv6 Task Force
2. Chair the IPv6 Working Group.
University of
Pennsylvania
2005
Most of the campus has
IPv6 enabled in the
network
Has useful deployment strategy
documentation and staff training
material on IPv6
National University
of Singapore
2006
Integrate IPv6
requirements in various
infrastructural projects
Migration strategy to IPv6 started
with the network infrastructure
and online services
Peer with IPv6 research and education
partners over the years in Singapore,
Los Angeles and Hong Kong.
*Source: (Alsulaiman, 2015); (Infoblox & UNH, n.d).
UNH upgraded its student house wireless network and
implemented its IPv6 addressing strategy. Beside this
technical effort, the university prepared the students
and staff to efficiently deploy, administer, and
implement the future IP (Infoblox and UNH, n.d). Table
1 shows comparative technical issues of three
universities.
Training of a university’s human resources in the
field of IPv6 should start by collecting information on
the institution’s employees especially in IT domains.
The institution should prepare appropriate training
programs to improve the level of awareness and skills
of its staff and students and to bridge the gap between
their IPv4 knowledge and the next level of IPv6
knowledge. The training program should achieve the
staff and students’ satisfaction in completing a crucial
training so they boost their potentials and skills in IPv6
and become confident in implementing job projects (F5
Networks, 2019).
HEIs are also required to design and develop
courses to prepare their students with the proper IPv6
skills for the job market. Status in computing
curriculums shows that IPv4 is being taught in
computer network courses rather than IPv6. Al-
Sulaiman (2015) was surprised that although IPv6 was
implemented in academia and research laboratories,
current curricula are still teaching IPv4 in the
classroom. IPv6 can be included in curriculums such as
education technology, network programming,
distributed systems, Internet applications, network
security, and graduation projects (Alsulaiman, 2015).
Yang (n.d.) states that some experts consider IPv6
as a topic for public policy discussion as it requires
equitable access to IPv6 address, governmental
involvement, and migration cost including training,
new equipment, and configuration. In addition to the
incentive from public sector to help IPv6 uptake.
According to his research conclusion, this suggests
important obstacles to the implementation of IPv6
connectivity and the difficulties in creating demand for
the standard using traditional policy means. “It seems
reasonable to look for common technical and economic
factors that can influence decisions about the standard.
The obvious candidates that limit IPv6 diffusion are the
fixed costs of upgrading equipment and administrative
capacity to operate under the new protocol.” (Patrik
and Rajabiun, 2009, p. 5).
Many end users are not aware of the likely global
problem of Internet address depletion. Surveys
revealed that there were low levels of interest in IPv6
among public and private sector IT managers.
Moreover, the public IT professionals demonstrated a
lower level of IPv6 awareness than their counterparts
at the private sector did. They tremendously
questioned that IPv6 could help them reach their
organizational IT objectives and failed to realize the
importance to upgrade (Denardis, 2006).
In the Middle East, it seems that some Saudi
universities have some IPv6 activities by ensuring
connectivity, updating the security policy to cover IPv6,
providing testing environment, and enabling the IPv6
production environment (Alsulaiman, 2015). In Oman,
previous research shows the need to strengthen the
HEIs infrastructure to meet the ever-increasing
students' needs to employ emerging online
technologies such as social media in their learning (Al
Musawi & Ammar, 2015). The factors isolated from the
literature to improve the readiness of the Omani HEIs
for IPv6 migration can be summarized in providing the
stakeholders with sufficient time for planning, financial
resources, assuring the applications compatibility, and
securing the network environment. Al Musawi, et al.
(2018) recommended that there is a need to
investigate the extent to which the status provides for
IPv6 readiness in terms of: awareness, current
environment, planning, deployment and infrastructure,
policy frameworks, training, research, human
resources, and courses provision as perceived by
Omani HEIs faculty, administrators, and ICT personnel.
This paper describes the findings of the last stage of
a two-year funded research project provided by the
Sultan Qaboos University (SQU) with the aim of
providing a better understanding about the readiness
of Omani HEIs for IPv6 transition.
Research Significance
This study will help the decision makers to choose the
most appropriate approach to follow in terms of
strategizing and deploying IPv6 in their universities. It
will also assist the process of implementing the IPv6
adoption in these institutions. As the research in this
area in the Omani context is scarce, this research
project can represent a preliminary introduction for

Ali Al Musawi et al Experts Views on their Higher Education Institutions Readiness and Deployment of IPv6
719| International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.10, No.5 (Sept/Oct 2020)
further research that can be applied through a range of
HEIs.
Research Objectives and Questions
This study was conducted to investigate experts’ views
to determine the Omani higher education institutions
readiness and deployment of IPv6. In particular, the
study aims to assess the institutional awareness,
current environment, policy, planning and HRD. The
study attempts to answer the following questions:
1. To what extent does the awareness towards IPv6
exist in the Omani HEIs?
2. What is the institutional current status to support
the deployment of IPv6?
3. What levels of planning, policy and human
resources development exist for adopting IPv6?
4. What IPv6 related research and course provisions
do these institutions hold?
5. What are the main concerns and issues facing the
Omani HEIs in terms of IPv6 readiness and
deployment?
Method
Descriptive method was found the most appropriate to
answer the questions of this study.
• Study instruments
The researchers designed the following two study
instruments in light of the literature reviewed and the
results of the preliminary questionnaire used and
published earlier (Al Musawi, et al., 2018):
1. A questionnaire was designed and validated
through a panel of experts who adapted it to the
Omani context; the instrument was modified
accordingly. The questionnaire was then pilot
tested and reliability coefficients of (0.84) was
attained which means that the reliability was
ensured. The instrument consisted of several
sections in addition to participants’ demographic
information to gather their views on the
awareness, current environment, policies, research
and course provisions, and concerns as indicators
of the Omani HEIs readiness and deployment of
IPv6 (see appendix 1). The data were collated
using electronic means; and analyzed using
percentages to provide answers for research
questions.
2. A semi-structured interview inventory was
designed to allow for more sub-questions during
the actual interview. A panel of expert validated
the instrument and their suggestions were
included. The instrument consisted of several
sections in addition to participants’ demographic
information to further investigate their views on
the same above issues. The data were transcribed,
coded and analyzed using patterns and thematic
analysis to provide answers for the research
questions.
• Community and sample
Although all the Omani HEIs were included in the study
community, the research participants were sampled
purposively. Those who were identified by their
institutions as ‘experts’ on IPv6 were few in number
and, therefore, only (12) individuals were the subjects
(respondents) of this study. They were first
approached via telephone to invite their participation,
emailed the questionnaire to obtain their responses
and then (5) of them were interviewed for in-depth
study of their initial responses. Table 2 shows the
distribution of the research sample.
Table 2 Study sample (n=12)
Variable
Type
No
Job
IT Personnel
6
Faculty
4
Administrator
2
Institution
Public
10
Private
2
Experience
1-5
1
6-10
4
>10
7
Findings and discussions
• Awareness
To answer the first study question: “To what extent
does the awareness towards IPv6 exist in the Omani
HEIs?” The participants were asked to describe the
status of IPv6 awareness amongst the their staff given
the following options: (1) everyone has been trained;
(2) recruiting new people with IPv6 knowledge; (3)
creating a structured training program; (4) self-
education about IPv6; (5) no current plan. Fig 1 shows
the responses of the study sample.
Fig 1. Awareness about IPv6
Fig. 1 shows that 50% of the experts viewed that their
universities’ staff are aware of IPv6 through their own
self-education followed by 33.3% of the respondents
thought that there is no current plan in
implementation to raise the awareness. This finding
indicates that the awareness towards IPv6 is generally
low with only self-efforts and initiatives to educate the
staff members. The responses patterns of the

Ali Al Musawi et al Experts Views on their Higher Education Institutions Readiness and Deployment of IPv6
720| International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.10, No.5 (Sept/Oct 2020)
interviewees support this finding in that the
respondents viewed that “…the university staff are not
informed at all about the IPv4 depletion” said
interviewee 1. Interviewees 2 and 3 contended that
they were both adequately, but not specifically,
informed on this issue. Interviewee 4 mentioned “…I
think that our software developers are knowledgeable
about IPv6”. This again shows that the awareness
towards IPv6 generally needs more attention by the
HEIs.
• Current status/environment
To answer the second study question: “What is the
institutional current status to support the deployment
of IPv6?” the participants were asked to describe the
IPv6 situation at their institution given the following
options: (1) have been deployed; (2) deployment in
progress; (3) deployment is being planned; (4) no
current plan. Fig 2 shows the responses of the study
sample.
Fig 2. IPv6 situation
Fig. 2 shows that 41.7% of the experts viewed that IPv6
has not been deployed followed by 33.3% of the
respondents thought that there is no current plan to
deploy it in their institution. This finding shows that
IPv6 is not largely considered for implementation by
the HEIs. Despite this, most interviewees viewed that
the current network supports IPv6. However,
interviewee 5 thought “…I would say that the existing
network partially supports IPv6 and can be upgraded
to support IPv6”.
Findings above reveals that awareness in th Omani
HEIs about IPv6 is generally low with exception of the
self-learning efforts among their staff members to
educate themselves. The HEIs administration do not
put enough efforts to inform their staff the new
protocol. This is attributed to the fact that IPv6 is new
to the country’s context in general and HEIs in specific.
These results support findings of Denardis (2006) and
F5 Networks (2019) studies which revealed that IT
professionals demonstrated at public and private
sector’s showed low level of IPv6 awareness and called
on the universities to prepare appropriate training
programs to improve the level of awareness and skills
of their staff. The findings also show that the Omani
HEIs should give more attention to raising awareness
towards IPv6 on campuses.
• Planning, policy and resources
To answer the third study question: “What levels of
planning, policy and human resources development
exist for adopting IPv6?” the participants were asked to
describe if any plan for deploying IPv6 to Internal
Network exist at their institution. They were given the
following options: (1) already planned; (2) will be
planned within 2 years; (3) will be planned within 3
years; (4) no plans at all. Fig 3 shows the responses of
the study sample.
Fig 3. IPv6 plans
Fig. 3 shows that 41.7% of the experts viewed that
their institutions have no plans to deploy IPv6 followed
by 25% of the respondents thought that than plans are
envisaged within 3 years. This finding supports the
previous one and show that HEIs are not in the process
of planning for IPv6 deployment.
To further investigate this finding, the respondents
were asked to state the reasons for not planning IPv6
transition. They were given the choice to select one or
more options. The options included: (1) the financial
costs of IPv6 transition are too high; (2) our transit
operator does not ensure IPv6 connectivity; (3) our
infrastructure does not support IPv6; (4) there is no
proper support from our suppliers/vendors; (5) IPv6
security mechanisms are not as proven and reliable as
in IPv4; (6) we do not have enough knowledge and
experience. Fig 3 shows the responses of the study
sample.
Fig 4. IPv6 plans
Fig. 4 shows that 58.3% of the study sample viewed
that their institutions do not have enough knowledge
and experience to deploy IPv6 followed by 33.3% of
the respondents thought that their transit operator
does not ensure IPv6 connectivity. This finding
emphasizes the internal and external factors impeding
IPv6 planning process characterized by the lack of
qualified human and technological resources. However,
interviews 1, 2 and 4 perceived “…there are sufficient
human resources to implement IPv6 but little or no

Ali Al Musawi et al Experts Views on their Higher Education Institutions Readiness and Deployment of IPv6
721| International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.10, No.5 (Sept/Oct 2020)
training is provided to develop their knowledge and
skills in this area”. Most of the interviewees echoed this
finding by identifying other lack of resources
“…although IPv6 is one important factor in the
institution, (it)… neither has a defined organizational
policy nor IT procurement resources to deploy it”.
• Research and education
To answer the fourth study question: “What IPv6
related research and course provisions do these
institutions hold?” the participants were asked to
determine whether or not their institution conduct any
research on IPv6. Fig 5 shows the responses of the
study sample.
Fig 5. Research
Fig. 5 shows that 75% of the study sample viewed that
their institutions do not conduct any IPv6 research.
The interviewees were asked to determine the number
and type of publications in this area, interviewee 3
stated that the whole institution “…published less than
5 articles during the last 2 years in areas related to
IPv6…” the interviewee added “Unfortunately, this is
really insufficient, no projects at all…we need to be
active in the future…”. The participants were also
asked to determine whether or not their institution
provide any IPv6 courses or related contents. Fig 6
shows the responses of the study sample.
Fig 6. Course provision
Fig. 6 shows that 66.7% of the study sample thought
that their institutuions do not provide any course in
the area of IPV6. This and above findings show that
HEIs need to keep itself up-to-date and give more
attention to research and teaching delivery as a vehicle
to train and prepare the next generation in this
important field.
Findings above show that IPv6 implementation
does not take the priority at the Omani HEIs despite it
was found that the current network supports IPv6.
Some of this late action can be attributed to the lack of
planning for IPv6 deployment due to internal and
external factors, namely deficiency in qualified human
technological resources. The literature shows that
some universities, such as McGill University and
University of Southampton, have started the
deployment process of IPv6 (F5 Networks, 2019).
While these universities has also provided
experimental research labs for IPv6 (Alsulaiman,
2015), the findings of this study shows that the Omani
HEIs do not conduct any IPv6 research. The study
sample thought that this is unacceptable and there is a
need for more activity. This means that these
institutions need to update their research rapport and
give more attention to research and teaching to
prepare their students for the job market. Course and
curriculums based on the IPv6 content need to be
redesigned and taught by the academic computer
department (Alsulaiman, 2015; Infoblox & UNH, n.d).
• Concerns and issues
To answer the last study question: What are the main
concerns and issues facing the Omani HEIs in terms of
IPv6 readiness and deployment?” The participants
were asked to rate their opinions towards IPv6
benefits for their institutions using a scale of five
categories: strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and
strongly disagree with values of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
respectively. Fig 7 shows the responses of the study
sample.
Fig 7. Benefits of IPv6
Fig. 7 shows that 41.7% of the study sample agreed
that IPV6 has benefits to their institution but,
interestingly enough, 50% were either neutral or
diagree to those benefits. This finding shows hesitation
or reluctance among the experts themselves to adopt
Ipv6. To further invesigate this point, the participants
were asked to rate their opinions towards IPv6 value
for their institutions using a scale of five categories:
strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly
disagree with values of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 respectively. Fig 8
shows the responses of the study sample.
Fig 8. Value of IPv6

Ali Al Musawi et al Experts Views on their Higher Education Institutions Readiness and Deployment of IPv6
722| International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol.10, No.5 (Sept/Oct 2020)
Fig. 8 shows that 33.3% of the study sample agreed
that IPV6 has benefits to their institution but the same
ratio of respondents was neutral in addition to 16.7
diagree to this value. This finding substantiate the
previous one and indicate that some HEIs
administrators and faculty members are not advcates
of the adoption of IPv6. When the interviewees asked
about their justifications for this trend, they raised the
several reasons. For example, interviewee 1 said
“Although it is important, it is not necessary to
implement IPv6 on our network in the foreseeable
future“. Most of the interviewees support this by
arguing, “No need for fast IPv6 deployment as no plan
has been set yet”. Interviewee 2 clarified, “IPv6 is not
mature enough in our institution to deploy with
confidence that it will perform as expected”.
Interviewee 4 added, “There is not a strong enough
return on investment to deploy IPv6”. Interviewee 5
commented, “Technically speaking, IPv6 is required for
deployment only on Internet-facing servers”. It seems
that the participants view that IPv6 deployment as a
vehical for financial investment with the least efforts
and change.
Findings above show some hesitation among the IT
experts to adopt Ipv6 due to some financial constraints
and reluctance to change. This finding is corroborated
by research findings elswhere (Yang, n.d.; Denardis,
2006; Patrik and Rajabiun, 2009). These accounts
found that these experts preferred to stick with
traditional technology and not to upgrade to the new
protocol despite the fact that some universities
perceive they raise cost effectiveness by migrating to
IPv6 (F5 Networks, 2019).
Conclusions and recommendations
This study was conducted as the final part of a research
project through which Al Musawi et al. (2018)
recommended to investigate experts’ views to
determine the Omani higher education institutions
readiness and deployment of IPv6 in terms of:
awareness, current environment, planning, policy
frameworks, research, human resources, and courses
provision. In general, the results of this study revealed
that IPv6 was not sufficiently attended to by the Omani
HEIs and it is partially planned for, implemented,
and/or deployed. Efforts should be made to help
establishing strategies, research and teaching content.
Since this sample of this study is small in number, its
results are not generalizable and transferrable except
for the contexts similar to this research context. Future
research should look into ways to strategize and
implement for IPv6.
Based on the findings of this research, the followings
were recommended:
1. Migration plans and strategies should developed
and disseminated throughout the Omani HEIs.
2. IPv6 should be injected in the curriculum with
computer sciences and educational departments to
cooperate in delivering the courses.
3. Research groups should be created and work on
IPv6 supported with funded research.
4. Training courses and workshops should be
conducted to staff and students.
Acknowledgments
We express our gratitude to the SQU for the generous
grant awarded to us.
References
Al Musawi, A., Shubair A., Samih S., Abraham V and Alghatrifi, I.
(2018). Analytical Review on the Stakeholders Perceptions
about IPv6 Readiness and their Implications to the Omani
Higher Education Institutions, International Journal of Current
Engineering and Technology, 8(4), 1041-1046, DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14741/ijcet/v.8.4.22, Available at
http://inpressco.com/category/ijcet
Al Musawi, A. and Ammar, M. (2015). Students Use of the
Internet and Social Networking Sites for Learning and Other
Activities at Sultan Qaboos University, International Journal of
Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2),
142-161, Inderscience Publishers.
Alsulaiman, L. (2015). IPv6 drivers for the academic sector &
case studies, PPT presentation, IPv6 Saudi Arabia Task Force,
http://ipv6.sa/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/IPv6-Adoption-
in-AcadimiaLaith.pdf
Denardis, L. (2006). Ipv6: Politics of the Next Generation
Internet, Phd, Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Available:
Https://Vtechworks.Lib.Vt.Edu/Bitstream/Handle/10919/26
485/Denardisetd.Pdf
F5 Networks (2019). Canadian University Gets Ready for IPv6
with Easy-to-Deploy F5 Solution;
https://f5.com/solutions/customer-stories/canadian-
university-gets-ready-for-ipv6-with-easy-1340
Infoblox and UNH- University of New Hampshire (n.d). Assigning
and Managing IPv6 Addresses in Higher Education
Environments; White paper, https://www.infoblox.com/wp-
content/uploads/infobox-whitepaper-assigning-and-
managing-ipv6-addresses-in-higher-education-
environments.pdf
Ismail, M. and Abidin, Z. (2009). Implementing of IPv6 protocol
environment at university of kuala lumpur: Measurement of
IPv6 and IPv4 performance. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Future Computer and Communication, Apr. 3-5,
IEEE Xplore Press, Kuala Lumpar, pp: 443-449. DOI:
10.1109/ICFCC.2009.145
Main, A., Zakaria, N. A., & Yusof, R. (2015). Organisation
Readiness Factors Towards IPv6 Migration: Expert Review.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1882-1889.
Mudziwepasi, S. & Scott, S. (2014). Exploring Technical
Deployments of IPv6 on University LANs, IJCSI International
Journal of Computer Science, 11(1)-2, 187-193.
https://www.ijcsi.org/papers/IJCSI-11-1-2-187-193.pdf
Patrik, K. And Rajabiun, R. (2009). Ipv6 And Spam, Paper
Presented at 2009 MIT Spam Conference, Available:
https://pdfs.Semanticscholar.Org/
F509/4449e846aabe805dbc1ce593b9b0dd11a7d1.pdf
Perkins, C., Popoviciu, C., Cheng, D., Lopez, D., Brzozowski, J. and
Tsou, T. (2012). Exploring IPv6 Deployment in the Enterprise:
Experiences of the IT Department of Futurewei Technologies,
https://www.ietfjournal.org/exploring-ipv6-deployment-in-
the-enterprise-experiences-of-the-it-department-of-
futurewei-technologies/
Yang, X. (N. D.). Concerns On Ipv6 as a Public Policy Issue, Paper
Presented at International Telecommunication Union Seminar,
Available: https://www.iu.int/ dms_pub/itu-t/oth/06/ 2c/
t062c 000 0010001pdfe.pdf