The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 1 June, 2003
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard1
Anat Hovav* ([email protected])
Department of Management Information Systems Fox School of Business and Management, Temple University
207E Speakman Hall 1810 North 13th Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122-6083 phone: (215) 204-3055
fax: (215) 204-3101
David Schuff ([email protected])
209F Speakman Hall Department of Management Information Systems
Fox School of Business and Management Temple University
1810 North 13th Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122-6083
phone: (215) 204-3078 fax: (215) 204-3101
*Corresponding author
1 Funding was provided for this research project through the Junior Faculty Grant Program at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 2 June, 2003
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
Abstract
The United States has, for a considerable time, enjoyed a position of leadership
over the Internet. The introduction and spread of IPv6, the “next generation” Internet
Protocol, could represent a significant shift in this position. While Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) around the world are adopting IPv6, the United States has been less
aggressive. This paper, through an investigation of early and late adopters of IPv6, seeks
to understand the factors that influence the time of adoption decision. Interview data was
collected from eight ISPs in six countries. That data is applied to a set of proposed factors
derived from Roger’s characteristics of early and late individual adopters, and adapted to
organizational context. We found that those characteristics were useful in explaining time
of adoption of IPv6 for five of the eight cases we studied. Closer examination of the
remaining three cases revealed additional factors. Specifically, relative advantage,
uncertainty and risk, crisis, and power relationships also influence an organization’s time
of adoption.
Keywords:
Internet Standards adoption, Standards, IPv6, Case Study, Internet Service Providers
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 3 June, 2003
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
INTRODUCTION
A recent newspaper article (Kim 2004) cautioned that the United States is in
danger of losing its position as a technology leader. Others have voiced similar
sentiments (Butler 1992; Wrafter 2000). For example, the U.S. has lost market share to
Japan in high-tech manufacturing, office and computing machinery, and in radio and
television communications technologies (Butler 1992). Firms in the United States are no
longer the leaders in the development and adoption of mobile phones, wireless
communications, and m-commerce (Wrafter 2000). Organizations in European countries
(such as Sweden) and the Far East (such as Japan) have assumed leadership roles in these
areas.
The possibility of a similar loss in dominance over the Internet exists, due in part
to stagnation. The basic protocols used for communication over the Internet were
developed by scientists in the United States and the U.S. Department of Defense over 40
years ago. Their adoption as a global standard was in part due to the widespread adoption
of local area networks and personal computers, the use of TCP/IP1 with these platforms,
and the incorporation of TCP/IP into the UC Berkeley Unix Operating System (Leiner et
al. 1997). These protocols have remained basically unchanged (with the exception of “ad-
hoc” solutions to provide additional functionality) since their initial implementation. As a
result, the underlying technology of the Internet has not changed significantly since the
1970s.
1 Transport Control Protocol/Internet Protocol. This is the basic communication protocol used for the Internet.
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 4 June, 2003
The most fundamental change to the Internet proposed to date is the introduction
of a new network level protocol called Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6). IPv6 (also
known as IPng, for “next generation”) offers a number of advantages over the current
standard, IPv4. These advantages include increased address space, mobility, auto-
configuration, multicasting, and quality of service capabilities (for additional details
regarding the key technical aspects of IPv6, refer to Appendix A).
IPv6 is being adopted extensively by ISPs in Japan and China, with other Asian
countries such as Singapore following closely behind. The European Union Commission
(EC) has mandated a timeline for the implementation of IPv6, leading to a slow but
consistent adoption of the new standard by ISPs in Western Europe. In contrast, the
adoption of IPv6 in the United States is minimal. Evidence of this disparity can be seen in
the shift in address allocation between IPv4 and IPv6 (Figure 1) – the United States
currently has 66% of the IPv4 addresses, but only 9% of the IPv6 addresses.
Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses: Top 5 Countries
IPv4 Allocation IPv6 Allocation
United States66%
Japan6%
Canada3%
Great Britain3%
Germany3%
Rest of World19%
United States9%
Japan9%
Germany5%
Netherlands4%
Great Britian2%
Rest of World71%
Figure 1: Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses (IPv6style.com 2004; Palet 2003)
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 5 June, 2003
The goal of this paper is to investigate the factors that prompt certain
organizations to be early adopters of Internet standards while others remain passive. In
the case of IPv6, we are interested in the conditions that impact time of adoption
decisions by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) operating in various regions of the world.
These ISPs serve as a logical unit of analysis because they are the population who are
making the adoption decision for the IPv6 standard. To this end, our study will focus on
the following research question: What are the factors that drive some ISPs to adopt IPv6
early, while others adopt later? Further, we attempt to provide some insight into the
apparent “late adopter” behavior of many ISPs in the United States regarding the
adoption of IPv6.
To address this question, we draw upon Roger’s (1995) characteristics of early
and late adopters. Although these characteristics focus on the individual adopter’s
personality and traits, they provide a useful framework for considering organizational
time of adoption. We establish organization-level characteristics by mapping the
individual characteristics to the literature on organizational adoption. We use the
mapping to create propositions regarding the major influences on time of adoption for
organizations. These propositions are analyzed against interviews conducted with eight
Internet Service Providers in six countries regarding their adoption (or non-adoption) of
IPv6. By examining these cases, we can learn how those individual characteristics can
influence the organizational time of adoption decision. Indeed, we find that several
factors, including sponsorship and regulation that reduce uncertainty and risk, disparities
in resource allocation leading to crisis, and the existence of “killer applications” that
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 6 June, 2003
provide a clear advantage to adopting the new technology, have a major impact on the
time of adoption of Internet standards.
In the next section we introduce the literature regarding characteristics of early
and late adopters as well as the relevant organizational adoption literature. In that section
we map these individual characteristics of early and late adopters to organizations.
Section three describes our methodology and the eight cases studied. Section four details
our analysis of the cases. This is followed by a discussion of the findings and future
research directions. We conclude with potential implications for industry and policy-
setting organizations.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Roger’s Characteristics of Early and Late Adopters
Most current research on the adoption of innovations in an organizational context
describes the innovation and its characteristics (e.g., Rogers 1962, 1983; Eveland and
Tornatzky 1990; Van de Ven 1991: Fichman and Kemerer 1993). For example, Rogers
(1962, 1983) proposed five fundamental characteristics of the innovation: (1) relative
advantage, (2) compatibility, (3) complexity, (5) trialability, and (5) observability.
Environmental characteristics (e.g., Farrell and Saloner 1985; Katz and Shapiro 1986;
Farrell and Saloner 1987; Fichman and Kemerer 1993; Arthur 1996) have also been
found to influence the adoption decision. For example, Katz and Shapiro (1986) and Van
de Ven (1993) discussed the positive influence of sponsorship on the adoption decision.
Generally, the outcome is considered to be dichotomous – either the organization adopts
the innovation, or it does not.
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 7 June, 2003
Another interesting question is the timing of the adoption decision. Rogers’
Adoption/Innovation Curve (1995) places potential individual adopters into five
categories (see Figure 2) on a continuum of time of adoption: (1) innovators, (2) early
adopters, (3) early majority, (4) late majority, and (5) laggards.
Innovators Early adopters
Early majority
Late majority Laggards
Adoption/Innovation Curve
Time
Prop
ortio
n of
ado
pter
s
Figure 2: Adoption Innovation Curve (Adapted from Rogers, 1995)
Those who adopt early (innovators, early adopters, and the early majority) are
characterized as being more “venturesome,” (Rogers 1995, p. 263) having access to
capital, can assimilate technical information, and are less risk averse. They can act as
opinion leaders, disseminating information regarding the innovation to those who have
not yet adopted. The later adopters (late majority and laggards) are more “skeptical and
cautious,” (Rogers 1995, p. 265) waiting for the innovation to become pervasive in order
to take advantage of the network externalities. They are more risk averse and less able to
financially withstand a failure due to the adoption of something new.
Organizational Characteristics of Early and Late Adopters
From these descriptions, Rogers (1995) proposed 25 characteristics that
differentiate early adopters from late adopters. Many of these also serve as plausible
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 8 June, 2003
differentiators of organizational adopters. We use these characteristics to form
propositions that link these “differentiators” to early and late organizational adopters by
mapping those characteristics to the literature regarding organizational adoption (see
Table 1). For example, Rogers states that individuals that are more literate are more likely
to be early adopters. This can be extended to organizations. It has been argued that
organizations with higher computer literacy (Goncalves et al. 1999) and higher levels of
technology knowledge (Iacovou et al. 1995; Chwelos et al. 2001) are more likely to be
early adopters of that new technology. Wozniak (1993) found that organizations whose
leadership is more highly educated tend to adopt innovations earlier. This leads to the
creation of an organization-level characteristic titled organizational literacy and
technical knowledge.
Rogers suggests that early individual adopters are better able to cope with
uncertainty and risk than later adopters. Similarly, Harrison et al. (1997) found that
companies that perceive more control over the adoption process (the ability to overcome
obstacles) are more likely to adopt. Lower perceptions of barriers to adopt and lower
levels of uncertainty lead to adoption by organizations (Chau and Tam 1997) while
resistance to change reduces the chance of adoption (Arvanitis and Hollenstein 2001).
Hoppe (2002) found that organizations that are potential adopters, in conditions of
uncertainty, would wait for more information. Therefore, uncertainty about the
technology leads to a lower likelihood of adoption (Luque 2002). On the other hand,
Harrison et al. (1997) found that organizations that are early adopters have a more
favorable attitude towards the new technology to be adopted, and therefore have a lower
resistance to change. Consistent with this, Chau and Tam (1997) found that companies
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 9 June, 2003
that are content with the technology they currently have will be less likely to adopt new
technologies.
Earlier adopters have a higher degree of communication with other organizations.
Those organizations are more highly interconnected through interpersonal networks in
their social system than later adopters. Similarly, organizations where managers talk to
managers in other companies (Huff and Munro 1985), are involved in active information
gathering (Wozniak 1993), and actively seek information from vendors (Huff and Munro
1985) are more likely to adopt new technologies.
Access to information is an important organizational determinant of adoption.
Firms that are embedded in a knowledge network that facilitates access to information
(Arvanitis and Hollenstein 2001), and firms with greater ability to search for information
are also more likely to adopt early (Hoppe 2002). The managers of organizations that are
early adopters have to engage in active knowledge acquisition (Wozniak 1993; Chau and
Tam 1997), read the general media (Huff and Munro 1985; Wozniak 1993), set a trial
phase (Huff and Munro 1985), and create test-beds when information of a new standard
is not available.
Because organizations seek information about a new innovation in order to reduce
the risk of adoption, an organization’s role among its peers can have an influence on time
of adoption. Harrison et al (1997) found that organizations that are “expected” to adopt
by their stakeholders are more likely to adopt. Firms often engage in a “waiting contest,”
refraining from adopting a new innovation until the information learned from the leaders’
experience is available to them (Hoppe 2002). These early adopters become “opinion
leaders” (Wozniak 1993).
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 10 June, 2003
Organizational age is interesting because the evidence of its relationship with
time of adoption is different from the effect of age for individuals. Rogers contends that
age has no effect on time of adoption – an older individual is just as likely to be an early
adopter as a younger individual. However, Luque (2002) found that older firms are less
likely to adopt an innovation because they have less opportunity to choose the latest
innovations (because they are more likely to possess an extensive existing infrastructure).
Rogers lists several characteristics of individual adopters that relate to the effect
of an individual’s wealth on time of adoption. Similarly, there is a relationship between
organizational size and slack financial resources and organizational adoption. The
availability of funding has been shown to have a positive effect on organizational
adoption (Iacouvu et al. 1995; Chwelos et al. 2001). Further, the relationship between
organizational resources and its size has been investigated in the literature. Small firms
often have trouble adopting innovations because they do not have the funding necessary
to invest in the new innovation (Arvanitis and Hollenstein 2001; Hoppe 2002; Luque
2002).
Table 1 lists the complete mapping of the individual characteristics to
organizational factors. Some of the individual characteristics cannot be easily mapped to
an organizational factor. This is not to say that these characteristics are not important. It
only indicates that there are no studies that found the factor had an influence on
organizational adoption decisions. Those characteristics with no clear mapping are
marked on Table 1 with the label “No mapping.”
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 11 June, 2003
Table 1: The mapping of individual characteristics to Organizational Factors
Individual (from Rogers, 1995)
Organizational Factor Sources from Organizational
Adoption Literature Socioeconomic Status Earlier adopters are more likely to be literate than are later adopters Earlier adopters have more years of formal education than later adopters
Organizational Literacy and Technical Knowledge
Wozniak 1993; Goncalves et al. 1999; Iacovou et al. 1995; Chwelos et al. 2001
Earlier adopters have higher social status than later adopters Earlier adopters have a greater degree of upward social mobility than later adopters. Earlier adopters have larger units (part of larger organizations) than later adopters
Organizational Size and Slack Financial Resources
Iacovou et al. 1995; Arvanitis and Hollenstein 2001; Chwelos et al. 2001; Hoppe 2002; Luque 2002
Earlier adopters are not different from later adopters in age
Organizational Age Luque 2002
Personality Variables Earlier adopters have greater empathy than later adopters
No mapping
Earlier adopters may be less dogmatic than later adopters
No mapping
Earlier adopters have a greater ability to deal with abstractions than do later adopters
No mapping
Earlier adopters have a more favorable attitude towards change than later adopters
Attitude Towards New Technology
Harrison et al. 1997; Chau and Tam 1997
Earlier adopters have greater rationality than later adopters
No mapping
Earlier adopters have greater intelligence than later adopters.
No mapping
Earlier adopters are better able to cope with uncertainty and risk than later adopters
Organizational Attitude Towards Risk
Chau and Tam 1997; Harrison et al. 1997; Arvanitis and Hollenstein 2001; Hoppe 2002; Luque 2002
Earlier adopters have a more favorable attitude towards science than later adopters
No mapping
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 12 June, 2003
Earlier adopters have higher aspirations than later adopters
Role of Organization among Peers
Harrison et al. 1997
Earlier adopters are less fatalistic than later adopters.
No mapping
Communication Behavior Earlier adopters have more social participation than later adopters Earlier adopters have a higher degree of opinion leadership
Role of Organization among Peers
Wozniak 1993; Harrison et al. 1997; Hoppe 2002
Earlier adopters are more highly interconnected through interpersonal networks in their social system than later adopters Earlier adopters have more agent contact Earlier adopters seek information about innovations more actively
Degree of Communication with Other Organizations (Competitors and Suppliers)
Huff and Munro 1985; Wozniak 1993
Earlier adopters are more cosmopolite than later adopters
No mapping
Earlier adopters have more change agent contact than later adopters.
No mapping
Earlier adopters have more access to mass media communication channels Earlier adopters have greater exposure to interpersonal communication channels Earlier adopters have greater knowledge of innovations
Access to Information Huff and Munro 1985; Wozniak 1993; Chau and Tam 1997; Arvanitis and Hollenstein 2001; Hoppe 2002
Understanding “Time of Adoption” of IPv6
Much of the current research on adoption focuses on the adoption of new
technology. There has been comparatively little research on the adoption of standards
(Lyytinen et al. 1998). In this section we use the broad categorizations created in the
previous section (and described in Table 1) to create propositions for the major influences
on early and late adoption of the IPv6 standard. Once defined, the propositions will be
verified against interview data collected from eight ISPs. Table 2 summarizes the factors
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 13 June, 2003
and their potential relationship to the time of adoption of IPv6. Specific information
about the characteristics of IPv6 is provided in the next section.
Table 2: Impact of Organizational Factors to Time of Adoption of IPv6 Organizational Factor Impact on the time of adoption of IPv6
1 Organizational Literacy and Technical Knowledge
ISPs in general are “technically-savvy organizations.” However some have been more exposed to IPv6 than others. Extensive knowledge of IPv6 can lead to an early adoption.
2 Organizational Size and Slack Financial Resources
Early adopters require slack financial resources to reduce the level of risk involved in being an early adopter.
3 Organizational Age Older ISPs are likely to have a larger allocation of IPv4 addresses. Also, older ISPs also have more IPv4 based infrastructure that might be incompatible with IPv6 and are thus less likely to be early adopters.
4 Attitude towards New Technology
ISPs that consider themselves innovators are more likely to experiment with IPv6.
5 Organizational Attitude Towards Risk
Organizations that are more risk averse are more like to be late adopters.
6 Role of Organization among Peers
Organizations that are considered innovators (or standard setting organizations) are more likely to be early adopters and act as opinion leaders.
7 Degree of Communication with Other Organizations (Competitors and Suppliers)
Given the distributed nature of the Internet, communication among ISPs is a fundamental requirement. ISPs need to actively look for information about IPv6.
8 Access to Information ISP’s with sufficient resources can create test environments and create knowledge about the new standard. Other ISPs rely on independent consortia for information.
Based on the above organizational characteristics of early and late adopters and
the literature on organizational adoption, we constructed six propositions regarding the
influence of organizational characteristics on the time of adoption of IPv6. Because there
is no clear theoretical direction regarding age (Characteristic 3), we have no specific
proposition for that factor. Recall that although Luque (2002) contends that older
organizations are likely to adopt later, Rogers does not see age as an influence on
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 14 June, 2003
individual adoption. Therefore, it is unclear what impact organizational age will have on
the adoption of IPv6. However, we include organizational age in our analysis of the cases
because of its potential relevance.
Proposition 1: Organizations with higher levels of technological savvy are more
likely to be early adopters of IPv6 (Characteristic 1).
Proposition 2: Organizations, regardless of their size, are likely to be early
adopters of IPv6 if they have enough slack funding available (Characteristic 2).
Proposition 3: Organizations that are networked and have access to information
about IPv6 are more likely to be early adopters (Characteristics 7 and 8).
Proposition 4: Organizations that have the ability to create test environments will
be early adopters and will later leverage their knowledge and become opinion leaders
(Characteristics 6 and 8).
Proposition 5: Organizations that are more risk prone are likely to be early
adopters (Characteristic 5)
Proposition 6: Organizations that are considered innovators are less resistant to
change are likely to be early adopters (Characteristics 4 and 6).
METHODOLOGY
In this study we are examining how the characteristics of individual ISPs
influence their decision to adopt IPv6. Yin (1994) suggests that exploratory studies that
try to answer questions as to “how” something is done should use case methodology.
Eisenhardt (1989) suggests that case studies may be used when little is known about a
phenomenon, or if in the early stages of research on a topic. Although adoption research
is not new, examining standards adoption is a relatively unexplored research area
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 15 June, 2003
(Lyytinen et al. 1998). This is especially true in the context of the Internet, and therefore
warrants the type of rich analysis this methodology can provide. For this study, we have
selected a multiple case design with a single unit of analysis for each case (also called
“type 3” case study methodology (Yin 1994)). This design can provide more compelling
evidence by supplying multiple data points by which to test theory.
Eight Internet Service Providers from six countries were used in our study. The
cases varied in size and age, serving to reduce these characteristics’ potential as sources
of bias. The subjects represent distinct regions of the world such as North America,
Western Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. We chose countries that varied in their level
of economic development, varied existing Internet infrastructure, and varied access to
communities involved in IPv6.
Within each ISP, one or more senior technical managers were selected as
interview subjects. These managers are directly responsible for infrastructure
implementation decisions within their respective organizations and therefore reasonably
represent both a managerial and technical perspective view regarding the adoption of
IPv6. In cases where more than one manager was interviewed, they were interviewed as a
group. Upon agreement to participate in the study, either face-to-face or telephone
interviews were conducted with the managers. The interviews followed a scripted set of
open-ended questions. Follow-up questions were asked when clarifications were needed.
The set of questions were developed from the list of factors derived from the literature.
The questions were phrased in such a way as to be “neutral” so that the interviewee
would not be led to answer in a particular way. For example, the question that addresses
related technologies was “What is the current availability of applications that take
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 16 June, 2003
advantage of IPv6?” and not “Do you agree that there are a lot of available applications
that take advantage of IPv6?”
In each case there were at least two interviewers present. One interviewer asked
the questions and recorded the responses. The second interviewer also wrote down the
interviewee’s responses to ensure that the responses were being recorded correctly. After
the interview was complete, each interview was summarized. The summaries were
compared for consistency and accuracy. Inconsistencies were resolved by follow up e-
mails or phone conversations with each interviewee. The final summaries were sent to
each subject for their review and comments. If necessary, further phone calls or e-mails
were used to clarify answers.
Table 3 lists the ISPs studied, their geographical location and their actual adoption
position.
Table 3: Internet Service Providers Used in this Study Subject Location Actual Adoption Position
1 CA North America Early 2 BI Middle East Late 3 GL Middle East Late 4 BG North America Early 5 CL Europe Early 6 GN Middle East Late 7 NX Europe Early 8 ST Asia Early
It should be noted the categories “early” and “late” as described by Rogers (1995)
are two ends of a continuum. An ISP may be considered neither an early nor a late
adopter and could fall within the “early majority” or “late majority” categories of Rogers’
adoption curve (refer to Figure 2). This could occur if the organization has some
characteristics of an early adopter and some characteristics of a late adopter. For the
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 17 June, 2003
purposes of this study, we have three categories of adopters – “early adopter,” “majority
adopter,” and “late adopter.”
THE CASE OF IPV6
In order to provide a richer context for analyzing the cases, the following section
describes the unique characteristics of IPv6 and why it is a particularly interesting
standard to study. We begin by explaining how we collected the information about the
state of adoption of IPv6. We continue by detailing topics such as the nature of IPv6 as an
infrastructure standard, lack of central governance sponsorship or champion, and the IPv4
address allocation issue.
To better understand these unique issues, we studied the web sites of the regional
IP address allocation agencies such as Réseaux IP Européens (RIPE), the Asia Pacific
Network Information Centre (APNIC), and the American Registry for Internet Numbers
(ARIN)2. These agencies are responsible for the allocation of Internet resources around
the world. In addition, we interviewed several individuals that are involved with the
deployment of IPv6 in various capacities. We conducted interviews with the following:
1. A senior networking engineer (from a leading networking company) that was part of
the initial design of IPv6.
2. The president of the IPv6 forum and the chair of the EU commission IPv6 Task
Force.
3. The main designer of Euro6IX.
4. Marketing Director of the North America IPv6 Task Force.
5. A member of Japan’s IPv6 Council
2 RIPE’s web site is http://www.ripe.net, APNIC’s web site is http://www.apnic.org, and ARIN’s site is available at http://www.arin.net.
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 18 June, 2003
6. The chair of the RIPE IPv6 work group of 6BONE registry.
IPv6 is an infrastructure technology
According to Goncalves (1999), there is a difference between the adoption of
infrastructure technologies, intermediate technologies and advanced technologies.
Infrastructure technologies (also called “architecture technologies”) are the most removed
from the user. Their value-added is difficult to clearly convey to the users (Gawer and
Cusumano 2002). IPv6 is an example of an infrastructure technology – it underlies other
technologies that take advantage of its features. However, on its own its value is difficult
to convey to the user. The user often does not know whether their ISP is using IPv4 or
IPv6. Instead, users will look for applications that require the features afforded by the
infrastructure technology.
Vendors providing the value-added applications depend on the market structure of
a given industry. In general, successfully driving the adoption of an infrastructure
technology requires either vertically integrated companies to create complimentary
technologies (e.g., IBM’s mainframe architecture) or third party vendors (e.g., Microsoft
and Intel) to collaborate and develop “killer applications.” IPv6 is not owned by anyone,
it is not patented, and there is no licensing involved. Therefore, in order to drive its
adoption, ISPs or other technology companies (e.g., hardware, software, or consumer
electronics vendors) must develop Internet-based applications that will (1) take advantage
of specific capabilities of IPv6, and therefore (2) cannot be implemented using IPv4.
For example, in the case of the “Wintel” standard, new versions of Windows (the
application) take advantage of the advances in Intel processors (the infrastructure). In the
case of the mainframe, IBM introduced applications that took advantage of their own new
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 19 June, 2003
hardware. However, in both cases the technology was championed by the vendor (e.g.,
Intel and IBM). In contrast, IPv6 was proposed and developed by an independent,
voluntary group (IETF) and is not championed by any single company. As of 2004, IPv6
is being promoted by the IPv6 forum and regional and national task groups. In the words
of the Marketing Director of the North American IPv6 task force, “there is no one entity
that is out to make money of the introduction and the adoption of IPv6.” Instead, profit
can only be made from the introduction of complementary technologies that will take
advantage of the new standard.
Relatively little information exists regarding IPv6
One of the issues facing early adopters is the risk associated with the adoption of
a new standard. The risk is a result of uncertainty as to the future of that standard. An
adopting organization can reduce its risk if they can leverage their knowledge about the
new standard to encourage its adoption. In the case of IPv6, the lack of a single champion
and a lack of a mandate from a central governing body increase the uncertainty and risk
associated with its adoption.
In many cases the developing vendor supplies early adopters with information
regarding the features of the technology, technical specifications, and training (Gawer
and Cusumano 2002). In the case of IPv6, adopters are forced to rely more heavily on
their own test beds (which require significant investment), internal training, trade
publications, or support from consortia and governments.
Because IPv6 was developed by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)3 (a
voluntary consortium with limited funds), there is no significant marketing effort
encouraging IPv6 adoption. This is in sharp contrast to Intel, which used the “Intel 3 More information about the IETF is available through its website at http://www.ietf.org.
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 20 June, 2003
Inside” campaign to promote its brand name. IPv6 is already embedded in Cisco routers,
Microsoft’s Windows XP operating system, and some Nokia phones. However, most
companies do not publicize this support for IPv64. In addition, the amount of information
available in trade publications is limited. For example, a survey of four top trade
magazines (see Appendix B for the search methodology used) revealed that the number
of articles regarding IPv6 between 1998 and 2004 totaled 97, compared to 743 articles
about Windows XP and approximately 1,500 articles about XML (both championed by
Microsoft). Although the number of articles increased from a few (between five and nine
per year) in the years 2000 through 2003 to about 40 in 2004, it is still a fraction of the
number of articles published regarding the other standards. This lack of information can
lead to uncertainty regarding the value of IPv6 and the complexity of its implementation.
In some regions there are major efforts to create test beds and distribute
information on IPv6. Such efforts are the 6BONE and the Euro6IX. These efforts are
mostly concentrated in Europe. In addition, the IPv6 forum conducts information sessions
in various regions of the world. According to the President of the IPv6 forum, the
attendance of these formal information sessions in the Far East is overwhelming. In the
United States, however, attendance is very low. Overall, he stated, there is very little
interest in seeking out information about IPv6 in North America.
IPv6’s lack of a champion and sponsorship
As mentioned above, there is no private sponsorship for IPv6. None of the major
Information Communication Technology companies have adopted IPv6 as its platform or
is advocating its adoption as the next Internet Protocol. Also, government sponsorship for
IPv6 is generally limited, varying by region. In Asia, there are various levels of 4 Although an IPv6 ready logo program was initiated in 2003, it is limited in scope and very low in funding.
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 21 June, 2003
sponsorship depending on the country. Japan, for example, provides tax incentives and
has invested over eight million yen in the promotion of IPv6. In Pakistan, the government
provides some training. The European Union (EU) has mandated the implementation of
IPv6 as a long-term goal to increase the competitive position of the European community.
The EU also provided over 180 million Euros for research and development. However,
the mandate is not accompanied by financial incentives for the commercial sector (i.e.,
ISPs). In North America, however, there are no financial or regulatory incentives.
IPv6 solves the IPv4 “address crisis”
The concept of “crisis” is not new to Information and Communication
Technologies. Microsoft consistently forces upgrades by discontinuing support and
maintenance of older products. This practice also forces complementary technology
upgrades (i.e., faster processors to run the newest version of Windows). In the case of
IPv6, if all major networking component providers announce the discontinued support of
IPv4, they could create this type of crisis, forcing ISPs to upgrade their networking
equipment to be IPv6-compatible. However, since there is no single sponsor of the
technology, vendor-induced “forced crisis” does not occur.
However, there is another form of crisis created by the limitations of the current
IPv4 standard. Specifically, IPv6 solves an intractable problem of the current IPv4
standard – the allocation and availability of network addresses. The number of IP
addresses currently available under IPv4 is limited and fixed. The result is that IPv4
addresses are a scarce resource with limited growth capabilities. Further, the class
structure of current IP addresses created an uneven distribution of addresses. For
example, a class A address, when allocated to an organization, can hold approximately
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 22 June, 2003
two million addresses. An organization that receives a class A address has control over
these addresses, whether they use them or not.
IPv4 addresses were allocated on a “first come-first serve” basis, and not on the
basis of need. This also creates a highly uneven distribution of addresses. The United
States and Canada own over 70% of all IPv4 addresses, Europe owns a little over 20%
and the rest of the world owns less than 10%. Xerox (which was allocated a class A
address in 1991) currently owns more addresses than the entire Republic of China (which
owns about 31,000 addresses). The result is a major concentration of a scarce and limited
resource over a relatively small population.
The impact of organizational age
As mentioned above, the effect of organizational age on time of adoption is
unclear. Older organizations traditionally have more investments in existing
infrastructure and thus are less likely to be early adopters. At the same time, older
organizations usually have more funding, skills and experience and are thus better
positioned to absorb the risk involved in early adoption. In the case of IPv6, age has two
additional important attributes. Newer ISPs are more likely to have equipment that is
already IPv6 compatible, making the upgrade less costly and less complex. Likewise,
since IPv4 addresses were allocated based on a “first come, first served” scheme, newer
ISPs are more likely to have a resource deficiency. Age is not independent from the other
characteristics discussed in this section – instead it is tied closely to the cost to upgrade
and available funds, and crisis. Much like other ISPs, newer ISPs are more likely to adopt
IPv6 early if they have sufficient funds or if they are facing an address crisis.
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 23 June, 2003
In the next section we analyze the eight case studies in light of the propositions
we introduced previously and in the context of the unique characteristics of IPv6.
ANALYSIS OF CASE STUDIES
Subject 1 – CA
Although not a traditional private Internet Service provider, CA provides Internet
connectivity for a major Canadian University and eight other organizations, including
hospitals, other universities, and research institutions. CA is a highly “technical savvy”
organization. In order to gain this knowledge, CA had to acquire knowledge about IPv6
early. This knowledge was acquired through participation in a community network of
adopters such as 6NET and CANARIE’s CA*net, a national optical network for research
and development. They also gain knowledge through the creation of test environments,
facilitated by the ample slack resources available to the organization. Although they see
stability as an important aspect of their overall strategy, their mission is one of
innovation, as they are charged with servicing a research environment. Their mission
compels them to offer IPv6, regardless of the risks associated with being an early adopter.
Based on Proposition 1 through 6, CA has the characteristics of an early adopter.
CA has taken a leadership role in offering IPv6 to their clients thus acting as an
early adopter. They explicitly stated that they were not waiting for other organizations
to implement the new standard, and they will provide IPv6 connectivity to any client who
requests it.
Subject 2 –BI
BI is one of the top five Internet Service Providers in its market (out of about 40
ISPs). BI is a subsidiary of the national telecommunications company, which historically
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 24 June, 2003
has been public, but is currently being privatized and therefore has control over most of
the infrastructure in its country. BI is a highly bureaucratic organization and will try to
protect as much of its investment in the existing infrastructure. As a result, BI resistance
to change is high, preferring stability to innovation. BI has little technical knowledge
regarding IPv6. They are not involved in any IPv6-related community, they get most of
their information from trade magazines, and they do not have funds to create test beds. BI
perceives the implementation of new technologies as risky, increasing the levels of
uncertainty associated with the implementation of IPv6. In addition, BI does not have the
slack resources required to fund highly uncertain projects. Based on Propositions 1
through 6, BI has the characteristics of a late adopter.
BI has taken a late adopter position in regards to IPv6. They have no plans to
implement IPv6 in the foreseeable future. They did not study the new standard or its
benefits, nor do they know what will be the cost to upgrade.
Subject 3 - GL
GL and BI are operating in the same region, and GL has similar characteristics to
BI with the exception of its age and position in the market. This ISP is relatively new to
the market. GL has been providing international telephony and data services in its market
for the last five years, but their ISP division has been in existence for less than two years.
While BI is the incumbent, GL is a new entrant trying to gain a market share. They define
themselves as leaders in services but not in the implementation of infrastructure.
However, their mission is to become the leader in their market by providing better
services then the more established ISPs. To facilitate this, GL is less bureaucratic and has
lower resistance to change. Much like BI, GL has little technical knowledge regarding
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 25 June, 2003
IPv6. Although they have some awareness of the limitations of IPv4, they do not have
extensive knowledge of the features of IPv6. They are not involved in any IPv6-related
community and they get most of their information from trade magazines. GL would like
to be able to experiment with new technologies by setting up test environments but they
do not have the funds to do so. Therefore, they closely follow opinion leaders (mostly in
the United States). Based on Propositions 1 through 6, GL has the characteristics of a late
adopter.
Despite GL’s mission to become a service leader, their approach to the adoption
of IPv6 is that of a late adopter. They do not plan to implement IPv6 in the foreseeable
future. However, GL’s approach appears not to be in their best interest. They
acknowledge the existence of a major shortage in IP addresses and they describe the
difficulties in getting new addresses and the effort and time requires in managing the
addresses they have. However, they have made no attempt to study the addressing
possibilities of IPv6. In addition, GL follows the United States in their adoption decision
regardless of the disparities in the allocation of IP address that exists between ISPs in the
United States and ISPs in the Middle East.
Subject 4 – BG
BG is a technology group in a North American government agency servicing
internal clients. They currently support an extensive IPv4 infrastructure and are a part of
a highly bureaucratic organization. Therefore, their resistance to change is expected to be
high. At the same time, part of BG’s mission is to test and evaluate new technologies for
their client base.
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 26 June, 2003
BG is highly technically savvy organization. As of 2002, BG maintained an IPv6-
based test environment with seven sites and about 40 users with an expected growth of
four to five sites a year. These sites are one of the very first test beds created for IPv6.
BG is also involved with the North American IPv6 taskforce and therefore has access to
information about the new standard. In addition, BG’s test beds have been used to study
issues such as the cost of upgrading from IPv4 to IPv6, compatibility and transitioning,
and security. As a result, BG acts as an opinion leader. The risks associated with early
adoption are irrelevant to BG due to the extensive funding they receive as a government
agency. As a result, BG has enough slack resources to fund test beds.. Based on
Propositions 1 through 5, BG has the characteristics of an early adopter, although
Proposition 6 provides some evidence that they might be more reluctant to adopt early
(due to their bureaucratic nature and high resistance to change).
BG considers themselves an early adopter of new technologies and they place
more importance on innovation than consistency of service. They did not wait for other
ISPs to implement IPv6, but they are aware of the need for interoperability among ISPs.
What appear to drive BG to implement IPv6 are its features and the potential for new
applications or the relative advantage they can gain from an early implementation of the
new standard.
Subject 5 – CL
CL is a small, European consulting company that is providing end-to-end
solutions using IPv6. CL began as a networking and Internet consulting company for
Internet Service Providers and other companies. They began to offer connectivity
services recently, when IPv6 was first introduced in their country. CL defines themselves
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 27 June, 2003
as leaders in the implementation of technology. They have already implemented IPv6.
Some of their clients (university and educational institutions) are already on IPv6. They
expect 80% or their other clients to be using IPv6 within two years.
Most of CL’s equipment is compatible with the new standard and the equipment
that is not compatible can be connected to an IPv6 network. CL is a relatively small and
versatile company thus, they are accepting of change. However, they do not have large
slack funds. Nevertheless, CL believes that it is more risky to ignore IPv6 than to
implement it. In addition, they do not believe the cost of implementation to be
prohibitive. CL is highly technically savvy organization. They are heavily involved with
the IPv6 forum and Euro6IX and act as opinion leaders in the European community. CL
has the characteristics of an early adopter.
However, CL sees the implementation of IPv6 as a necessity to remain
competitive. CL therefore has implemented IPv6 extensively, acting as an early adopter.
The main reason CL has adopted the new standard is because of its features. CL is
offering home automation and mobile computing services. The auto-configuration,
mobile capabilities, and the ability to implement Universal Plug and Play allow CL to
design and offer new applications and services. A second driver is the cost of IP
addresses. CL operates in an environment with relatively few addresses. Buying
additional IPv4 addresses was very costly. CL preferred to invest those funds in the
adoption and implementation of IPv6.
In the first five cases the characteristics of the ISPs match their adoption position,
supporting Rogers’ characteristics of early and late adopters and their general
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 28 June, 2003
applicability to an organizational context. For example CA’s characteristics suggest that
CA will act as an early adopter and they are indeed early adopters. BI and GL, on the
other hand, have the characteristics of later adopters and they are indeed later adopters.
Yet, BI has a reason to behave as a later adopter. BI is the incumbent ISP in their country
and they are trying to protect their investment in the current infrastructure. GL’s behavior
as a late adopter might appear counter intuitive, but its lack of knowledge and resources
to set up test environments force them into following an opinion leader which operates
under a different set of constraints than they have. With the exception of their resistance
to change, BG has the characteristics of and behaves as an early adopter. In the case of
CL, their lack of slack funds doesn’t prohibit them from becoming an early adopter of
IPv6 because they do not want to miss the opportunity to leverage the capabilities
associated with IPv6 into value-added services.
In the remaining three cases, the implied adoption position does not completely
match the actual time of adoption decisions that were made.
Subject 6 – GN
GN provides mobile Internet access. It provides services to handsets, personal
digital assistants, and laptops with wireless modems using wireless technologies such as
the Wireless Application Protocol (WAP). GN’s user base is ten times larger than the
next largest mobile ISP in their market. Their strategy is to maintain their position as a
market leader by adopting innovative technologies while maintaining a stable
infrastructure. Therefore, GN’s aversion to risk is relatively high. GN defines themselves
as leaders in services but not in the implementation of infrastructure. Being a relatively
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 29 June, 2003
new ISP and servicing a less traditional market, GN’s resistance to change is relatively
low.
GN studied the issues surrounding the implementation of IPv6. They are aware of
the features afforded by the new standard and its capabilities. They monitor providers in
the United States, and their adoption decisions are influenced by major vendors and
global ISPs (such as Cisco, UUNET and the NAPs). However, GN is not involved in any
IPv6-related community, consortium, or task force, nor do they have the funds to create
test beds. GN does not have excessive financial resources, but they state that the cost to
upgrade from IPv4 to IPv6 is minimal since most of their equipment is IPv6 ready. They
maintain that cost is not the reason they are not implementing IPv6, but acknowledge that
the cost to maintain backwards compatibility is an issue. Based on propositions 1 through
6, GN has characteristics that make them a majority adopter.
Although GN studied the implementation of IPv6, they do not plan to implement
IPv6 in the foreseeable future, making them a late adopter. This statement, however,
needs to be qualified. GN follows the United States in terms of Internet standards. Yet,
GN services a mobile Internet market that uses European rather than North American
wireless standards. In the event that the newly proposed 3G wireless standard prevails,
GN will have to implement IPv6.
In the case of GN, much like in the case of BG, the features of the new standard,
the ability to create new applications and the competitive advantage gained from the
implementation of the standard are the main drivers for its adoption. The difference
between the two cases is that BG has the resources to test the technology and drive the
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 30 June, 2003
market while GN is taking a more passive role, watching the market trends and waiting
for the right time to implement.
Subject 7 – NX
NX is a small, European ISP with about 3,000 customers. It is the third oldest ISP
in its market, having been in business since 1992. The company offers both traditional
ISP services and consulting services. NX defines themselves as leaders in the
implementation of technology. As a service provider they believe that advance
knowledge is important and can provide them with a competitive advantage. Thus, they
are accepting of change and are not risk averse. NX is a technically savvy organization.
They are a small ISP and have limited funding, yet they are testing the implementation of
IPv6 (with servers that run both IPv4 and IPv6) internally. NX is planning a full
implementation (of native IPv6 servers) in the near future but they will need to rely on
financial aid and intend to apply to their government and 6BONE. NX’s small size and
their financial limitations combined with their technical knowledge and their low risk
aversion position them as a majority adopter.
However, NX sees IPv6 as an opportunity to offer “turnkey” services for
organizations transitioning to the new protocol. They expect clients to start requesting
IPv6 in the near future. In their plans to adopt IPv6, they act as an early adopter. The
main reason NX believes in the viability of IPv6 is because the European Union (EU)
supports the adoption of the standard. According to NX management, the EU believes
that IPv6 is essential for the future development of Europe. The EU introduced a 10-year
telecommunications mandate in which the adoption of IPv6 has a key role. This mandate
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 31 June, 2003
ensures the acceptance of IPv6 as a standard and makes an individual’s aversion to the
risk involved with being an early adopter irrelevant.
Subject 8 - ST
ST is an ISP located in Asia. Their customers include both private users and small
and large corporate accounts. ST has been in business for three years - during that time,
the size of their market has tripled. ST defines themselves as followers and state that
consistency of service is more important than innovation. Thus, they are risk averse and
prefer stability over radical change. ST does not have the financial resources to invest in a
major upgrade. However, they state that the cost to upgrade is not a major issue since
most of the technology they use is already compatible with IPv6. ST can be considered
somewhat technologically savvy. They have a sufficient knowledge of the features
afforded by IPv6 but they lack information regarding implementation, such as the length
of time to complete the upgrade and the amount of training that will be required
(although the training will be free, provided by their government). ST is not involved
with IPv6-related communities, consortia, or task groups (the IPv6 forum does not have a
representative in their country). Considering ST’s characteristics and Propositions 1
through 6, ST should be a late adopter.
However, ST behaves as an early adopter. They are planning to start the
installation of IPv6 within six months and complete it within a year. They intend to
implement IPv6 in the near future because they are facing a major address shortage. ST
states that getting addresses is a serious problem. They must demonstrate that they have
run out of addresses before they can request additional ones. In addition, the price of a
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 32 June, 2003
block of IP address has doubled in the last few years. Given their current growth, they
will need to quickly acquire additional addresses.
Unlike the other ISPs, ST is defines itself as a late adopter. Yet the lack of IP
addresses in their region forces them to adopt the new standard. This is despite lacking
the slack financial resources available to CA or BG, and without the extensive
government support available to NX.
Table 4 summarizes the attributes of the eight cases, the implied time of adoption
based on the six propositions, and their actual time of adoption based on our interview
data. It is evident from this analysis that in some cases our propositions regarding the
factors’ prediction of early and late adopters were confirmed, while others were not. In
the next section, the implications of this analysis will be discussed.
DISCUSSION
The first five cases listed in Table 4 include two late adopters and three early
adopters. In these cases, the implied time of adoption based on the ISPs characteristics
and the six propositions match their actual adoption time. This provides support for our
contention that applying Rogers’ characteristics of early and late adopters is also useful in
an organizational context.
However, the adoption decision of the remaining three cases did not match the
outcome that was predicted using Rogers’ attributes. Two of the ISPs were predicted to
be in the “middle majority” based on their characteristics. Interestingly, one of them
acted as an early adopter (NX) and the other as a late adopter (GN). The final case (ST)
was the most surprising. ST’s characteristics were that of a late adopter but ST behaved
as an early adopter of IPv6. One explanation for our findings is that there might be
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 33 June, 2003
additional factors that influence an organization’s time of adoption. To better understand
what these additional factors might be, we revisited the unique characteristics of IPv6
described previously and the data collected in the cases.
Table 4. Summary of the Analysis Evidence of Factor by Subject
Propositions/ Factors
CA BI GL BG CL GN NX
ST
P1 Technological savvy
Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No
P2 Slack resources
Yes No No Yes No No** No No
P3 Access to information
Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No
P4 Ability to create test environments
Yes No No Yes Yes No No*** No
P5 Low aversion to risk
Yes No No Yes Yes No No No
P6 Innovativeness/ Low resistance to change
Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No
Implied time of
ISPs adoption of IPv6
Early Late Late Early Early Majority Majority Late
Actual time of ISPs adoption of IPv6
Early Late Late Early Early* Late Early Early
Propositions supported
All All 1, 2, 3, 4,
5
1, 2, 3, 4,
5
1, 3, 4, 5,
6
2, 3, 4, 5
1, 3, 6 None
*CL is the only company we talked to that is providing IPv6 services commercially **Although GN has little excess funding, the cost to upgrade is not an issue ***NX has technically done some testing, but it is extremely limited.
The existence of a killer application
One of the unique features of IPv6 is that it is an infrastructure technology,
removed from the user, thereby requiring a “killer application” to drive adoption.
Therefore, we expect that an early adopter will be:
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 34 June, 2003
1. An ISP that is vertically integrated and provides end-to-end Internet solutions (such
as CL). In this case the ISP is likely to benefit from the IPv6-related applications it
offers.
2. Where there are “killer applications” being developed. For example, European
telecommunications companies have recently introduced 3G phones, which rely
heavily on IPv6. GN stated that if the 3G wireless standard prevails, they will adopt
IPv6 (this is because GN’s wireless services depend on the European wireless
standards). The constraint of a “killer application” can explain GN’s behavior. They
realize that if Europe moves to 3G, they will have to upgrade to IPv6 quickly.
Evidence of this is seen in their high level of technical knowledge and their existing
infrastructure, which is already IPv6-compatible. However, they are declining the role
of a “first mover,” since they do not have the funds necessary to create test beds and
are highly risk averse.
In summary, the relative advantage that can be gained from the introduction of a
new technology or standard can encourage speedier adoption by organizations that might
otherwise adopt late.
The impact of uncertainty and risk
The risk involved in the adoption of IPv6 is exacerbated by the lack of central
governance or a private champion. This risk is associated with the levels of uncertainty
surrounding the new standard. Under these circumstances, first movers will adopt the
new standard if:
1. They have ample slack financial resources and the investment in the new technology
is so minimal compare to the potential gains that it is worth the risk (i.e., CA, BG).
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 35 June, 2003
2. The levels of uncertainty can be offset financially through government sponsorship.
This support can reduce the economic risk involved in early adoption.
3. Government regulations can also reduce the level of risk and uncertainty about the
future of a new standard. If a government mandates the implementation of a new
standard, that standard will become dominant (at least in that country or region),
ensuring some market of related products. This is consistent with the behavior of NX.
Despite NX’s implied position as a “majority” adopter, they are adopting IPv6 early.
NX believes that the European Union mandate will force the widespread adoption of
IPv6 – in this environment, by adopting early they are positioning themselves to be
opinion leaders.
Another aspect of uncertainty is the pervasiveness of information about the new
standard. IPv6’s lack of a champion, combined with the limited marketing capabilities of
the IETF and the IPv6 forum, has resulted in a limited amount of information available to
adopters. ISPs that are involved in private consortia such as 6BONE, Euro6IX and
CANARIE (for example, CA, BG, and NX) have greater access to information. Others
(for example, BI and GL) have less access leading to uncertainty about the technology.
In summary, we must also consider certain environmental factors when
considering the time of adoption in an organizational context. Organizations that are in
the middle majority might become early adopters if they have financial or regulatory
support from their governments (e.g., NX), while organizations that do not have such
support will tend to remain in the middle or become late adopters (e.g., GN).
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 36 June, 2003
The impact of crisis
A third factor that may affect organizational time of adoption is crisis. As
previously discussed, crisis could be externally induced (such as a vendor discontinuing
product support or a government mandate) or inherent in the technology (such as the
limited number of possible IPv4 addresses). ISPs might adopt a new standard, even if
there is uncertainty as to its success, because they face a crisis of sufficient severity.
The existence of a crisis explains the behavior of ST. ST has the characteristics of
a late adopter. As a relatively small ISP with limited financial resources, it is risk averse
and does not consider itself a leader. However, it is acting as an early adopter. ST stated
that the main reason for their adoption of IPv6 is a lack of IPv4 addresses and the related
sharp increase in the cost of those addresses. In 2000, the cost of a “class C” address was
between $1,050 and $1,275 per year. In 2002, the cost was between $1,900 and $2,300 a
year.
Interestingly, ISPs in the Middle East (especially GL and GN), which rely on the
European address pool do not perceive a crisis at this point. They acknowledge that
getting addresses is becoming more difficult (and somewhat more costly) but they do not
consider their lack of addresses to be at a crisis level. However, GL and GN are in a
country that, in the short term, has a sufficient supply of IPv4 addresses (one IPv4
address for every two people). This is in strong contrast to ST, where addresses are in
short supply (it has only has one IPv4 address for every 730 people). Thus, it appears
that difficulty in obtaining new IP addresses does not always lead to perception of a
crisis.
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 37 June, 2003
Although forced crisis has been a common issue in information technology, there
is no forced crisis related to IPv6. The EU mandate is a long-term transitional plan, and
therefore does not introduce a crisis. In addition, none of the major networking
component providers have discontinued (or announced plans to discontinue) IPv4
support.
The impact of resource concentration and power
Organizations in the United States have control over a significant majority of
available IPv4 addresses. IPv4 addresses must be unique and there are a finite number of
them, making them a scarce resource. As the need for IP addresses escalates, the price of
each address will increase, in turn increasing their value to the companies that currently
own them. From a resource allocation perspective, the United States has little incentive to
promote the adoption of IPv6. This introduces a fourth factor, power. As stated in Hart
and Saunders (1997), power relationships can impact organizational adoption decisions.
In this case, ISPs in Europe and the Far East might drive the adoption of IPv6 in an
attempt to equalize control over the Internet. To quote the European Union commission
report: “The risk of IPv4 addresses becoming increasingly scarce by 2005, coupled with
the uneven distribution of address space between North America and the rest of the
world, is sufficiently serious for action to be taken now and swiftly...” (Communications
of the European Communities 2002, page 7)
Figure 3 presents a summary of the predictors of the time of adoption of IPv6. We
found that in addition to organizational characteristics, the degree of relative advantage,
uncertainty and risk, crisis, and power relationships all may influence the time of
adoption.
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 38 June, 2003
OrganizationalCharacteristics
(Roger’s characteristicsof individual adopters)
Time ofAdoption
(Early or late)
Prop
ortio
n of
ado
pter
s
Time
Framework for Predicting Time of Adoption for IPv6
Relative Advantage
Uncertainty andRisk
Crisis
PowerRelationships
Figure 3: Framework for Predicting Time of Adoption for IPv6
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
This study has two limitations. First, although IPv6 is an interesting case for
examination, the factors that we found relevant to its time of adoption may not apply to
other standards. For example, the limited number of IPv4 addresses is a unique problem.
Second, attempting to predict whether an ISP would be an early, majority, or late adopter
of IPv6 was only straightforward (see Table 4, page 28) when all six factors indicated a
single outcome (for example, in the case of CA, all factors indicated that the ISP would
adopt IPv6 early). Predicting the time of adoption when the factors were directionally
opposite was more difficult, and resulted in the outcome being predicted by a careful
examination of the case data (instead of, for example, a simple count to find a majority).
Because this analysis, in part, relied on the authors’ judgment, it is possible that this did
not accurately capture the relative weights of each factor, resulting in inaccurate
predictions of the time of adoption.
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 39 June, 2003
Future research should focus on addressing these limitations. The six factors we
derived from Roger’s characteristics of early and late adopters could be applied to other
standards (along with the additional four factors we discovered through our analysis).
Also, determining the relative weight that should be given to each of these factors would
increase our level of understanding of the relative importance of each factor. In addition,
the perspective of this study has been from the adopting organization (in this case, the
ISP). Future studies should consider this issue from varying perspectives, such as vendors
(of infrastructure technologies and advanced technologies), the development community,
the end user, and regulators and policy makers.
Another interesting lens through which to study the timing of Internet standards
adoption is to more fully investigate the role of power and control over resources. This is
especially interesting in the case of IPv6 because of the scarcity of IPv4 addresses.
However, this has implications for all Internet standards because of the widely varying
levels of sponsorship, combined with the Internet’s overall lack of central governance.
CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study was to more clearly understand the adoption of the
Internet-based protocol standard IPv6. Specifically, we sought to learn why some Internet
Service Providers adopt that standard earlier than others. To address the problem, we
investigated the factors that drive an ISP’s time of adoption? To that end, we adapted
Rogers’s characteristics of early and late adopters to organizations. Our study also found
that in addition to these characteristics, the following factors may impact organizational
time of adoption of a new standard: (1) the relative advantage associated with the new
standard, (2) the levels of uncertainty and risk involved with being an early adopter, (3)
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 40 June, 2003
the existence of crisis, and (4) the power relationships resulting from control over the
existing standard.
The fourth factor, power relationships, provides some insight into the apparent
“late adopter” behavior of many ISPs in the United States regarding IPv6. One might
argue that the majority of ISPs in the United States are not acting as early adopters from a
strategic and power position. Given the considerable control that organizations in the
United States have over the current pool of IPv4 address, it is to their advantage to
maintain the status quo.
If that trend continues, the possibility exists for the emergence of two “Internets,”
one based on IPv4 and the other based on IPv6. This is most likely to happen if strong
forces in Europe and Japan drive an absolute implementation of IPv6 (also known as
native IPv6) while ISPs in the United States remain with their IPv4-based networks. The
existence of two Internets will require the implementation and maintenance of
transitional technologies (networking components that will translate between the two
protocols) and conversion points where the two networks are connected. The need for
these transitional technologies will result in increasing cost to maintain a global Internet
and the existence of highly concentrated points of failure resulting in communications
failures between the two networks. If maintenance costs in terms of funds and
coordination become prohibitive there might be a complete breakdown of the global
information superhighway.
In addition, services that are available to customers on the IPv6 Internet may not
be available to customers on the IPv4 Internet (one such service is high-speed, always-on,
mobile Internet connectivity via a cellular phone). This disparity will increase as greater
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 41 June, 2003
numbers of “killer applications” for IPv6 are introduced. This increasing difference in
service levels between the two networks could eventually cause the United States to lose
its dominance over the Internet.
Therefore, we see two alternatives for organizations in the United States looking
to retain their key role in the development of the Internet: either the development of an
IPv6-based killer application or government intervention. This intervention could take
one of two forms, both of which reduce the risk involved in early adoption. The first is a
mandate (as can been seen in the case of the European Union). The second is a partial
subsidization of some aspect of adoption (as can be seen by the funding of training in the
ST case, or by the tax incentives given in Japan).
REFERENCES
Arthur, W. B.“Increasing Returns and the New World of Business,” Harvard Business Review, (74:4), 1996, pp. 100-109.
Arvanitis, S., and Hollenstein, A.H. “The Determinants of Adoption of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology – An Empirical Analysis Based on Firm-level Data for Swiss Manufacturing,” Economics of Innovation and New Technology, (19:5), 2001, pp. 377-414.
Butler, A. “Is the United States Losing its Dominance in High-Technology?” The Federal
Reserve of St. Louis Review, (74:6), 1992, pp. 19-34. Chau, P.Y.K., and Tam, K.,Y. “Factors Affecting Adoption of Open Systems: An
Exploratory Study,” MIS Quarterly, (21:1), 1997, pp. 1-24. Chwelos, P., Benbasat, I., and Dexter, A. “Research Report: Empirical Test of an EDI
Adoption Model,” Information Systems Research, (12:3), 2001, pp. 304-321. Commission of the European Communities. “The Next Generation Internet – Priorities
for Action in Migrating to the New Internet Protocol IPv6” [online], 2002. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2002/com2002_0096en01.pdf [last accessed 03/30/2004]
Eisenhardt, K. “Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review,” Academy of Management
Review, (14:1), 1989, pp. 57-74.
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 42 June, 2003
Eveland, J. E. and Tornatzky, L. G. “The Deployment of Technology,” In: The Processes
of Technology Innovation, L.G. Tornatzky and M. Fleischer (eds.), Lexington Books, Lexington, Massachusetts, 1990, pp. 117-148.
Farrell, J. and Saloner, G. “Standardization, Compatibility and Innovation,” Rand Journal
of Economics, (16:1), 1985, pp. 70-83. Farrell, J. and Saloner, G. “Competition, Compatibility, and Standards: The Economics
of Horses, Penguins and Lemmings.” In: Product Standardization and Competitive Strategy, H. L. Gabel (ed.), Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1987, pp. 1-21.
Fichman, R. G. and Kemerer, C. F. “Adoption of Software Engineering Process
Innovations: The Case of Object Orientation,” Sloan Management Review, (34:2), 1993, pp. 7-22.
Gawer, A. and Cusumano M.A. Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft and Cisco
Drive Industry Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 2002.
Goncalves, V., Palma-Dos-Reis, A., and Duque, J. “Portuguese Financial Corporations’
Information Technology Adoption Patterns,” Interfaces, (29:4), 1999, pp. 44-57. Hart, P. and Saunders, C. “Power and Trust: Critical Factors in the Adoption and Use of
Electronic Data Interchange,” Organization Science, (8:1), 1997, pp. 23-42. Harrison, D.A., Mykytyn, P.P., and Riemenschneider, C.K. “Executive Decision About
Adoption of Information Technology in Small Business: Theory and Empirical Tests,” Information Systems Research, (8:2), 1997, pp. 171-195.
Hoppe, H.“The Timing of New Technology Adoption: Theoretical Models and Empirical
Evidence,” The Manchester School, (70:1), 2002, pp. 56-76. Huff, S. L.M., and Munro, M. C. “Information Technology Assessment and Adoption: A
Field Study,” MIS Quarterly, (9:4), 1985, pp. 327-339. Iacovou, L.C., Benbasat, I., Dexter, A. “Electronic Data Interchange and Small
Organizations: Adoption and Impact of Technology,” MIS Quarterly, (19:4), 1995, pp. 465-485.
IPv6style.com. “Statistics: IPv4 Address Assignment Ranking” [online], 2003.
http://www.ipv6style.jp/en/statistics/ipv4assign/ [accessed March 27, 2004].
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 43 June, 2003
Katz, M. L. and Shapiro, C. “Technology Adoption in the Presence of Network Externalities,” Journal of Political Economy, (94:4), 1986, pp. 822-841.
Kim, J. “U.S. Could Lose Technology Dominance, Executives Say,” Washington Post,
2004, January 8, page E05.. Leiner, B., Cerf, V., Clark, D., Kahn, R., Kleinrock, L., Lynch, D., Postel, J., Roberts, L.,
and Wolff, S. “The Past and Future History of the Internet,” Communications of the ACM, (40:2), 1997, pp. 102-108.
Luque, A. “An Adoption-Value Approach to Technology Adoption in U.S.
Manufacturing: Evidence from Microdata,” Economics of Innovation and New Technology, (11:6), 2002, pp. 543-568.
Lyytinen K., Rose G., and Welke R. “The Brave New World of Development in the
Internetwork Computer Architecture (InterNCA): or How Distributed Computing Platforms will Change Systems Development,” Information Systems Journal, (8:3), 1998, pp. 241-253.
Palet, J. Presentation: European IPv6 Task Force Status, IPv6 Task Force Steering
Committee, 2003. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, 1962. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations (2nd Edition), The Free Press, New York, 1983. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations (4th Edition), The Free Press, New York, 1995. Van de Ven, A. H. (1991). Managing the process of organizational innovation, In:
Changing and Redesigning Organizations. Huber, G.P. (ed.), Oxford University Press, New York.
Wrafter, M. “Europe Threatens U.S. Internet Dominance. Vision Consulting.” [online],
2000. http://www.markwrafter.com/groove/penned/vision/00/060300.html. [Accessed March 22, 2004]
Wozniak, D. G.“Joint Information Acquisition and New Technology Adoption: Late
Versus Early Adoption,” Review of Economics and Statistics, (75:3), 1993, pp. 438-445.
Yin, R. K.Case Study Research Design and Methods. Sage Publications - Applied Social
Research Methods Series, Thousand Oaks, California, 1994.
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 44 June, 2003
Appendix A: Comparison of IPv6 to IPv4
Category Advantage of IPv6 Why it is Important Addressing The address space in IPv6 is much
larger than IPv4 (16 bytes instead of 4 bytes). This means that IPv6 allows for 3.4 x 1038 addresses, compared with 4.2 x 109 possible addresses with IPv4.
The number of unique IPv4 addresses is dwindling rapidly. This is mostly a problem in undeveloped countries.5 It is also anticipated to become a problem if the 3G wireless standard replaces the current 2.5G and if smart homes proliferate.6
Configuration A client running the IPv6 protocol can automatically configure itself with a unique address, eliminating the need for static addresses or previous methods of auto configuration such as DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol).
The management of multiple IPv4 clients within an organization involves tracking the assignment of addresses either for each client, or for “pools” of clients.
Data Delivery There are new header fields in IPv6, which indicate the type of information being sent within each packet. This information can be used to prioritize traffic and guarantee Quality of Service (QoS)7. However, it is important to note that the actual implementation of QoS is still in the “research and development” stage as IPv6 alone is not sufficient for implementing end-to-end QoS.
For the transmission of multimedia data over the Internet, the fast and reliable delivery of IP packets is critical. Prioritization is one method of increasing speed and interactivity within the existing network topologies.
Routing IPv6 packets are moved from segment to segment using a simplified, hierarchical routing structure.
Routing under IPv4 is only partially hierarchical, relying also on large flat routing tables that can exceed 70,000 entries. Routing under IPv6, with its significantly smaller routing tables, requires less overhead at the router and is therefore more efficient and faster.
5 In Pakistan, a class C address in 2000 cost between $1050 and $1275 a year . Due to a lack of addresses, the price of a class C address almost doubled. By 2002, a class C address cost between $1900 and $2300 a year. 6 “'Smart' Homes for Smart People,” Wired News [online], 1999, http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,17676,00.html [accessed 3/27/2004]. 7 Suydam, M. “Blazing trails: By paving paths for packets, MPLS could clear the way for IP convergence,”– CommVerge [online], 2002 http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednmag/index.asp?layout=article&articleid= CA214592&rid=0&rme=0&cfd=1 [accessed 3/27/2004].
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 45 June, 2003
Security IP security standards (IPSec), previously optional under IPv4, are now required under IPv6.
Standardized, layer 3 security reduces hacking activities.
Mobile Current implementation of mobile IPv4 requires the use of a foreign agent (FA), a home agent (HA), and a care-of (CO) address. The FA has to communicate the CO address through a tunnel back to the HA on the user's home network. The packets from the corresponding node to the mobile unit always have to go through the HA. IPv6 uses similar but more efficient process. The auto-configuration feature of IPv6 enables the mobile nodes to configure its own address without the help of any servers other than a router. Route optimization signaling enables a mobile IPv6 node to inform its correspondent node about its new care-of address. This allows both mobile node and the correspondent node to send and receive packets using the shortest path between the two.
No special mechanism is necessary on organization’s networks to support Mobile IPv6, other than home agent (embedded in IPv6 protocol). The large address space ensures that the auto-configured address on the mobile node does not conflict with the existing addresses of the network. Resulting in ubiquitous support for mobile Internet access and increase support of wireless devices such as PDAs and Pocket PCs by ISPs.
Multicasting The built-in multicasting in IPv6 allows a server to send a single packet with multiple addresses. The ISP will do the final routing. This reduces the bandwidth required for multimedia applications and broadcasting.
Allows several levels of multicasting and the creation of routing trees. This is a more efficient routing mechanism for applications such as Jini, which depend upon the ability to “discover” compatible devices on the network. Similar mechanism is used in Universal Plug and Play. Also, improve the distribution of multi media applications such as video steaming.
(Adapted from Microsoft, 2000)8
8 Microsoft Corporation. Introduction to IP version 6 [online], 2003.
http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/2/5/525343cc-7ba4-4e3b-a96a-c7a040d98d2d/IPv6.doc, [accessed March 27, 2004].
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
© Anat Hovav and David Schuff Page 46 June, 2003
Appendix B: Procedure used to search trade journals
To compare the amount of information about IPv6 that is available to managers,
we compared the number of articles on that topic to the number of articles on two other
standards that have been introduced at approximately the same time. The search was
restricted to years 1998 through 2004. The following describes the procedure used to
complete the search.
Four top trade publications were searched for the number of articles published on
three topics: IPv6, Windows XP, and XML. Those publications were:
1. InfoWorld 2. Information week 3. Computer world 4. CIO magazine
The search was conducted by visiting the web sites of all four publications.
However, the sites did not provide equivalent search facilities. For example, all sites
featured an “advanced search,” however the search engine of InfoWorld magazine
behaved erratically and displayed different results every time a search was repeated,
therefore the search was conducted six times for each technology and the results were
then consolidated after eliminating duplicate entries. To triangulate the search results, the
ProQuest and ABI/Inform bibliographic database were used
For keywords that returned excessive number of matches, the search was
restricted to article titles only. The search results were then separated by year.