Migration cost optimization for service provider legacy network migration to software-defined IPv6 network

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Dawadi, BR, Rawat, DB, Joshi, SR, Manzoni, P, Keitsch, MM. Migration cost optimization for service provider legacy network migration to software-defined IPv6 network. Int J Network Mgmt. 2021; 31:e2145, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1002/nem.2145. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.[EN] This paper studies a problem for seamless migration of legacy networks of Internet service providers to a software-defined networking (SDN)-based architecture along with the transition to the full adoption of the Internet protocol version 6 (IPv6) connectivity. Migration of currently running legacy IPv4 networks into such new approaches requires either upgrades or replacement of existing networking devices and technologies that are actively operating. The joint migration to SDN and IPv6 network is considered to be vital in terms of migration cost optimization, skilled human resource management, and other critical factors. In this work, we first present the approaches of SDN and IPv6 migration in service providers' networks. Then, we present the common concerns of IPv6 and SDN migration with joint transition strategies so that the cost associated with joint migration is minimized to lower than that of the individual migration. For the incremental adoption of software-defined IPv6 (SoDIP6) network with optimum migration cost, a greedy algorithm is proposed based on optimal path and the customer priority. Simulation and empirical analysis show that a unified transition planning to SoDIP6 network results in lower migration cost.U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), Grant/Award Number: CNS 1650831 and HRD 1828811; ERASMUS+ KA107; Nepal Academy of Science and Technology (NAST); Norwegian University of Science and Technology; University Grant Commission (UGC), Nepal, Grant/Award Number: FRG/74_75/Engg-1Dawadi, BR.; Rawat, DB.; Joshi, SR.; Manzoni, P.; Keitsch, MM. (2021). Migration cost optimization for service provider legacy network migration to software-defined IPv6 network. International Journal of Network Management. 31(4):1-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/nem.2145S124314APNIC.IPv6 capability measurement.https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6. Accessed April 22 2020.Google Incl. IPv6 user access status.https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html. Accessed February 16 2020.Rawat, D. B., & Reddy, S. R. (2017). Software Defined Networking Architecture, Security and Energy Efficiency: A Survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 19(1), 325-346. doi:10.1109/comst.2016.2618874Dai, B., Xu, G., Huang, B., Qin, P., & Xu, Y. (2017). Enabling network innovation in data center networks with software defined networking: A survey. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 94, 33-49. doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2017.07.004Kobayashi, M., Seetharaman, S., Parulkar, G., Appenzeller, G., Little, J., van Reijendam, J., … McKeown, N. (2014). Maturing of OpenFlow and Software-defined Networking through deployments. Computer Networks, 61, 151-175. doi:10.1016/j.bjp.2013.10.011Gumaste, A., Sharma, V., Kakadia, D., Yates, J., Clauberg, A., & Voltolini, M. (2017). SDN Use Cases for Service Provider Networks: Part 2. IEEE Communications Magazine, 55(4), 62-63. doi:10.1109/mcom.2017.7901478Dawadi, B. R., Rawat, D. B., & Joshi, S. R. (2019). Software Defined IPv6 Network: A New Paradigm for Future Networking. Journal of the Institute of Engineering, 15(2), 1-13. doi:10.3126/jie.v15i2.27636Shah, J. L., Bhat, H. F., & Khan, A. I. (2019). Towards IPv6 Migration and Challenges. International Journal of Technology Diffusion, 10(2), 83-96. doi:10.4018/ijtd.2019040105Rojas, E., Doriguzzi-Corin, R., Tamurejo, S., Beato, A., Schwabe, A., Phemius, K., & Guerrero, C. (2018). Are We Ready to Drive Software-Defined Networks? A Comprehensive Survey on Management Tools and Techniques. ACM Computing Surveys, 51(2), 1-35. doi:10.1145/3165290Contreras, L. M., Doolan, P., Lønsethagen, H., & López, D. R. (2015). Operational, organizational and business challenges for network operators in the context of SDN and NFV. Computer Networks, 92, 211-217. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.016Amin, R., Reisslein, M., & Shah, N. (2018). Hybrid SDN Networks: A Survey of Existing Approaches. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 20(4), 3259-3306. doi:10.1109/comst.2018.2837161Audi Marc Amjad A.The Advancement in Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and Economic Development: A Panel Analysis. MPRA.https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/93476/. Published 2019. Accessed November 29 2019.Main, A., Zakaria, N. A., & Yusof, R. (2015). Organisation Readiness Factors Towards IPv6 Migration: Expert Review. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1882-1889. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.427Dawadi, B. R., Rawat, D. B., Joshi, S. R., & Baral, D. S. (2019). Affordable Broadband with Software Defined IPv6 Network for Developing Rural Communities. Applied System Innovation, 3(1), 4. doi:10.3390/asi3010004Nikkhah, M. (2016). Maintaining the progress of IPv6 adoption. Computer Networks, 102, 50-69. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2016.02.027Dell, P. (2018). On the dual-stacking transition to IPv6: A forlorn hope? Telecommunications Policy, 42(7), 575-581. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2018.04.005GilliganRE NordmarkE GilliganRE et alBasic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers.2000.Cui, Y., Dong, J., Wu, P., Wu, J., Metz, C., Lee, Y. L., & Durand, A. (2013). Tunnel-Based IPv6 Transition. IEEE Internet Computing, 17(2), 62-68. doi:10.1109/mic.2012.63BlanchetM ParentF.IPv6 Tunnel Broker with the Tunnel Setup Protocol (TSP).2010.HuitemaC.Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address Translations (NATs) RFC 4380.2006.CarpenterB MooreK.Connection of IPv6 domains via IPv4 clouds.2001.JungC CarpenterBE.Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 Domains without Explicit Tunnels.1999.CuiY WuJ LeeY WuP VautrinO.Public IPv4‐over‐IPv6 access Network2013.CuiY SunQ LeeYL TsouT FarrerI BoucadairM.Lightweight 4over6: an extension to the dual‐stack lite Architecture2015.TemplinF GleesonT TalwarM ThalerD.Intra‐Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP) RFC 5214.2008.DurandA DromsR WoodyattJ LeeY.RFC 6333: Dual‐Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion. IETF Aug.2011.BaoC DecW LiX TroanO MatsushimaS MurakamiT.Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP‐E). IETF Internet Draft.2015.TownsleyW TroanO.IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd)‐‐Protocol Specification.2010.ChenM ChenG JiangS LeeY DespresR PennoR.IPv4 Residual Deployment via IPv6‐A Stateless Solution (4rd).2015.WuP CuiY XuM et alPET: Prefixing encapsulation and translation for IPv4‐IPv6 coexistence. In: 2010IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference GLOBECOM2010. 2010:1–5.LiX BaoC ChenM ZhangH WuJ.IVI translation design and deployment for the IPv4/IPv6 coexistence and transition.IETF RFC6219 Internet Eng Task Force Fremont CA.2011.Bagnulo, M., Garcia-Martinez, A., & Van Beijnum, I. (2012). The NAT64/DNS64 tool suite for IPv6 transition. IEEE Communications Magazine, 50(7), 177-183. doi:10.1109/mcom.2012.6231295BagnuloM SullivanA MatthewsP VanBeijnumI.DNS64: DNS extensions for network address translation from IPv6 clients to IPv4 servers RFC 6147.2011.LiuD DengH.NAT46 Considerations.2010.MawatariM KawashimaM ByrneC.464XLAT: Combination of stateful and stateless translation. IETF Internet‐Draft.2013.PerreaultS YamagataI MiyakawaS NakagawaA.Common Requirements for Carrier‐Grade NATs (CGNs) RFC6888.2013.YamaguchiJ ShirasakiY NakagawaA AshidaH.Nat444 addressing models. Req Comments Draft Internet Eng Task Force.2012.ChenG CaoZ XieC BinetD.NAT64 Deployment Options and Experience RFC 7269.2014.LiX BaoC DecW TroanO MatsushimaS MurakamiT.Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP‐T) RFC 7599. IETF Internet Draft.2013.Wu, P., Cui, Y., Wu, J., Liu, J., & Metz, C. (2013). Transition from IPv4 to IPv6: A State-of-the-Art Survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 15(3), 1407-1424. doi:10.1109/surv.2012.110112.00200Hernandez-Valencia, E., Izzo, S., & Polonsky, B. (2015). How will NFV/SDN transform service provider opex? IEEE Network, 29(3), 60-67. doi:10.1109/mnet.2015.7113227BogineniK et alThe Open Networking Lab (ON.Lab). Introducing ONOS—a SDN network operating system for Service Providers.White Pap.2014;1:14.http://onosproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Whitepaper-ONOS-final.pdfTR‐506 O ONF TR‐506.SDN Migration Considerations and Use Cases.2014.https://www.opennetworking.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/sb-sdn-migration-use-cases.pdfRisdiantoAC LingTC TsaiP YangC KimJ.Leveraging open‐source software for federated multisite SDN‐cloud playground. In: 2016 IEEE NetSoft Conference and Workshops (NetSoft). ;2016:423‐427.https://doi.org/10.1109/NETSOFT.2016.7502479GalizaH SchwarzM BezerraJ IbarraJ.Moving an ip network to sdn: a global use case deployment experience at amlight. In:Anais Do WPEIF2016Workshop de Pesquisa Experimental Da Internet Do Futuro: 15.LevinD CaniniM SchmidS SchaffertF Feldmann A.Panopticon: Reaping the Benefits of Incremental {SDN} Deployment in Enterprise Networks. In: 2014 {USENIX} Annual Technical Conference ({USENIX}{ATC} 14). ;2014:333–345.Vissicchio, S., Tilmans, O., Vanbever, L., & Rexford, J. (2015). Central Control Over Distributed Routing. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 45(4), 43-56. doi:10.1145/2829988.2787497Huang, X., Cheng, S., Cao, K., Cong, P., Wei, T., & Hu, S. (2019). A Survey of Deployment Solutions and Optimization Strategies for Hybrid SDN Networks. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 21(2), 1483-1507. doi:10.1109/comst.2018.2871061Csikor, L., Szalay, M., Retvari, G., Pongracz, G., Pezaros, D. P., & Toka, L. (2020). Transition to SDN is HARMLESS: Hybrid Architecture for Migrating Legacy Ethernet Switches to SDN. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 28(1), 275-288. doi:10.1109/tnet.2019.2958762Dawadi, B. R., Rawat, D. B., Joshi, S. R., & Manzoni, P. (2020). Legacy Network Integration with SDN-IP Implementation towards a Multi-Domain SoDIP6 Network Environment. Electronics, 9(9), 1454. doi:10.3390/electronics9091454HongDK MaY BanerjeeS MaoZM.Incremental deployment of SDN in hybrid enterprise and ISP networks. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on SDN Research. 2016:1‐7.Karakus, M., & Durresi, A. (2018). Economic Viability of Software Defined Networking (SDN). Computer Networks, 135, 81-95. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2018.02.015Rizvi, S. N., Raumer, D., Wohlfart, F., & Carle, G. (2015). Towards carrier grade SDNs. Computer Networks, 92, 218-226. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2015.09.029Sezer, S., Scott-Hayward, S., Chouhan, P., Fraser, B., Lake, D., Finnegan, J., … Rao, N. (2013). Are we ready for SDN? Implementation challenges for software-defined networks. IEEE Communications Magazine, 51(7), 36-43. doi:10.1109/mcom.2013.6553676Raza, M. H., Sivakumar, S. C., Nafarieh, A., & Robertson, B. (2014). A Comparison of Software Defined Network (SDN) Implementation Strategies. Procedia Computer Science, 32, 1050-1055. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2014.05.532Goransson, P., & Black, C. (2014). SDN in the Data Center. Software Defined Networks, 145-167. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-416675-2.00007-3AT & T.Introducing the “User Defined Network Cloud”.https://about.att.com/newsroom/introducing_the_user_defined_network_cloud.html. Published 2014. Accessed August 12 2018.CsikorL TokaL SzalayM PongráczG PezarosDP RétváriG.HARMLESS: Cost‐effective transitioning to SDN for small enterprises. In: 2018 IFIP Networking Conference (IFIP Networking) and Workshops. ; 2018:1–9.ON.LAB.Driving SDN Adoption in Service Provider Networks.2014.http://onosproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Whitepaper-Service-Provider-SDN-final.pdfBabikerH NikolovaI ChittimaneniKKK.Deploying IPv6 in the Google Enterprise Network. Lessons learned. In:LISA'11 Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Large Installation System Administration 2011:10.ParkHW HwangISLS LeeJR.Study on the sustainable migration to software defined network for nation‐wide R&E network.Proc—201610th Int Conf Innov Mob Internet Serv Ubiquitous Comput IMIS2016.2016:392‐396.https://doi.org/10.1109/IMIS.2016.117CariaM JukanA HoffmannM.A performance study of network migration to SDN‐enabled traffic engineering. In:2013 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM); 2013:1391‐1396.Sandhya, Sinha, Y., & Haribabu, K. (2017). A survey: Hybrid SDN. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 100, 35-55. doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2017.10.003LENCSE, G., & KADOBAYASHI, Y. (2019). Comprehensive Survey of IPv6 Transition Technologies: A Subjective Classification for Security Analysis. IEICE Transactions on Communications, E102.B(10), 2021-2035. doi:10.1587/transcom.2018ebr0002NIST.Technical and Economic Assessment of Internet Protocol Verson 6 9IPv6.2006.https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=912231NIST.IPv6 Economic Impact Assessment. NY;2005.https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/director/planning/report05-2.pdfDasT CariaM JukanA HoffmannM.A Techno‐economic Analysis of Network Migration to Software‐Defined Networking.2013.http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.0216Das, T., Drogon, M., Jukan, A., & Hoffmann, M. (2014). Study of Network Migration to New Technologies Using Agent-Based Modeling Techniques. Journal of Network and Systems Management, 23(4), 920-949. doi:10.1007/s10922-014-9327-3Yuan, T., Huang, X., Ma, M., & Zhang, P. (2017). Migration to software-defined networks: The customers’ view. China Communications, 14(10), 1-11. doi:10.1109/cc.2017.8107628TürkS LiuY RadekeR LehnertR.Network migration optimization using genetic algorithms. In: Meeting of the European Network of Universities and Companies in Information and Communication Engineering. 2012:112–123.Türk, S. (2014). Network migration optimization using meta-heuristics. AEU - International Journal of Electronics and Communications, 68(7), 584-586. doi:10.1016/j.aeue.2014.04.005TürkS RadekeR LehnertR.Network migration using ant colony optimization. In:2010 9th Conference of Telecommunication Media and Internet; 2010:1–6.TurkS LiuH RadekeR LehnertR.Improving network migration optimization utilizing memetic algorithms. In: Global Information Infrastructure Symposium—GIIS 2013. 2013:1‐8.https://doi.org/10.1109/GIIS.2013.6684345ShayaniD Mas MachucaC JagerM GladischA.Cost analysis of the service migration problem between communication platforms. In: NOMS 2008–2008 IEEE Network Operations and Management Symposium. 2008:734‐737.https://doi.org/10.1109/NOMS.2008.4575201Shayani, D., Mas Machuca, C., & Jager, M. (2010). A techno-economic approach to telecommunications: the case of service migration. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, 7(2), 96-106. doi:10.1109/tnsm.2010.06.i8p0297Naudts, B., Kind, M., Verbrugge, S., Colle, D., & Pickavet, M. (2015). How can a mobile service provider reduce costs with software-defined networking? International Journal of Network Management, 26(1), 56-72. doi:10.1002/nem.1919Dawadi, B. R., Rawat, D. B., & Joshi, S. R. (2019). Evolutionary Dynamics of Service Provider Legacy Network Migration to Software Defined IPv6 Network. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 245-257. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-19861-9_24BezrukVM ChebotarovaD V KaliuzhniyNM QiangG YuZ.Optimization and mathematical modeling of communication networks.Monogr—Open Electron Arch Kharkov Natl Univ Radio Electron.2019.http://openarchive.nure.ua/handle/document/10121Omantek. Open‐AudIT: Device Information Management System.https://www.open-audit.org/about.phpNet. Inventory Advisor.Network Inventory Software.https://www.network-inventory-advisor.com/. Accessed December 3 2019.OCS‐Inventory. OCSING: Open Inventory Next Generation.https://ocsinventory-ng.org/?lang=en. Accessed December 3 2019.Group MW. Migration Use Cases and Methods Migration Working Group Open Networking Foundation Use Cases and Migration Methods 2.www.opennetworking.orgSohn, S. Y., & Kim, Y. (2011). Economic Evaluation Model for International Standardization of Correlated Technologies. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58(2), 189-198. doi:10.1109/tem.2010.2058853ONF TS‐006.OpenFlow 1.3 Switch Specification.2012.https://www.opennetworking.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/openflow-spec-v1.3.0.pdfMahlooM MontiP ChenJ WosinskaL.Cost modeling of backhaul for mobile networks. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC). 2014:397–402.https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCW.2014.6881230DawadiBR RawatDB JoshiSR KeitschMM.Joint cost estimation approach for service provider legacy network migration to unified software defined IPv6 network. In: Proceedings—4th IEEE International Conference on Collaboration and Internet Computing CIC 2018.2018.https://doi.org/10.1109/CIC.2018.00056FengT BiJ.OpenRouteFlow: Enable legacy router as a software‐defined routing service for hybrid SDN. In: 2015 24th International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks (ICCCN).2015:1–8.MachucaCM EberspaecherJ JägerM GladischA.Service migration cost modeling. In: 2007 ITG Symposium on Photonic Networks. ; 2007:1–5.Poularakis, K., Iosifidis, G., Smaragdakis, G., & Tassiulas, L. (2019). Optimizing Gradual SDN Upgrades in ISP Networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 27(1), 288-301. doi:10.1109/tnet.2018.2890248Galán-Jiménez, J. (2017). Legacy IP-upgraded SDN nodes tradeoff in energy-efficient hybrid IP/SDN networks. Computer Communications, 114, 106-123. doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2017.10.010Vizarreta, P., Trivedi, K., Helvik, B., Heegaard, P., Blenk, A., Kellerer, W., & Mas Machuca, C. (2018). Assessing the Maturity of SDN Controllers With Software Reliability Growth Models. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, 15(3), 1090-1104. doi:10.1109/tnsm.2018.2848105Salsano, S., Ventre, P. L., Lombardo, F., Siracusano, G., Gerola, M., Salvadori, E., … Prete, L. (2016). Hybrid IP/SDN Networking: Open Implementation and Experiment Management Tools. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, 13(1), 138-153. doi:10.1109/tnsm.2015.2507622DasT GurusamyM.Resilient Controller Placement in Hybrid SDN/Legacy Networks. In: 2018 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM). 2018:1–7.DasT GurusamyM.INCEPT: INcremental ControllEr PlacemenT in software defined networks. In: 2018 27th International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks (ICCCN). 2018:1–6

Development of a Graduate Course on the Transition to Internet Protocol Version 6

Internet and mobile connectivity has grown tremendously in the last few decades, creating an ever increasing demand for Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. The pool of Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) addresses, once assumed to be more than sufficient for every person on this planet, has reached its final stages of depletion. With The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority’s (IANA) global pools depleted, and four of the five Regional Internet Registries (RIR) pools down to the their last /8 block, the remaining addresses will not last very long. In order to ensure continuous growth of the internet in the foreseeable future, we would need a newer internet protocol, with a much larger address space. Specifically, with that goal in mind the Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) was designed about two decades ago. Over the years it has matured, and has proven that it could eventually replace the existing IPv4. This thesis presents the development a graduate level course on the transition to IPv6. The course makes an attempt at understanding how the new IPv6 protocol is different than the currently used IPv4 protocol. And also tries to emphasize on the options existing to facilitate a smooth transition of production networks from IPv4 to IPv6

IPv6-specific misconfigurations in the DNS

With the Internet transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6, the number of IPv6-specific DNS records (AAAA) increases. Misconfigurations in these records often go unnoticed, as most systems are provided with connectivity over both IPv4 and IPv6, and automatically fall back to IPv4 in case of connection problems. With IPv6-only networks on the rise, such misconfigurations result in servers or services rendered unreachable. Using long-term active DNS measurements over multiple zones, we qualify and quantify these IPv6-specific misconfigurations. Applying pattern matching on AAAA records revealed which configuration mistakes occur most, the distribution of faulty records per DNS operator, and how these numbers evolved over time. We show that more than 97% of invalid records can be categorized into one of our ten defined main configuration mistakes. Furthermore, we show that while the number and ratio of invalid records decreased over the last two years, the number of DNS operators with at least one faulty AAAA record increased. This emphasizes the need for easily applicable checks in DNS management systems, for which we provide recommendations in the conclusions of this work

A Secure and Decentralized Registration Scheme for IPv6 Network-Based Mobility Senthil Kumar Mathi 1, M.L.Valarmathi 2

Abstract — For frequent movement of a mobile device, there is a need for a secure registration procedure of the mobile device by announcing its current location to the home network, especially, if it is not in the home domain. While devising the registration procedure for mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) based network, it is essential to consider the security issues for cryptographic approaches and an infrastructure requirement on the network. If a public key based cryptography is used for improving the security, then the key exchange mechanisms of the communicants must be handled appropriately. The infrastructure based approach increases the complexity of the mobile device and the mobility agents and also requires an additional message exchanges. Hence, this paper deals with an infrastructure-less registration scheme with symmetric key approach that acts upon MIPv6 environment consisting of the mobile node, home agent, and correspondent node. The proposed scheme is simulated and evaluated for security using Murphi checker. The correctness of the signaling/message sequences of the proposed scheme are verified by the finite state machine. Finally, the simulation results reveals that better security and mutual authentication between MIPv6 nodes have been achieved, and further, mitigation for the various attack scenarios have also been addressed

Evolutionary gaming approach for decision making of Tier-3 Internet service provider networks migration to SoDIP6 networks

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Dawadi, BR, Rawat, DB, Joshi, SR, Manzoni, P. Evolutionary gaming approach for decision making of Tier-3 Internet service provider networks migration to SoDIP6 networks. Int J Commun Syst. 2020; 33:e4399, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1002/dac.4399. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.[EN] With the increasing number of Internet of Things (IoT) devices, current networking world is suffering in terms of management and operations with lack of IPv4 addresses leading to issues like network address translation (NAT) proliferation, security and quality of services. Software-defined networking (SDN) and Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) are the new networking paradigms evolved to address related issues of legacy IPv4 networking. To adapt with global competitive environment and avoid all existing issues in legacy networking system, network service providers have to migrate their networks into IPv6 and SDN-enabled networks. But immediate transformations of existing network are not viable due to several factors like higher cost of migration, lack of technical human resources, lack of standards and protocols during transitions, and many more. In this paper, we present the migration analysis for proper decision making of network transition in terms of customer demand, traffic engineering, and organizational strength with operation expenditure for network migration using evolutionary gaming approach. Joint migration to SDN-enabled IPv6 network from game theoretic perspective is modeled and is validated using numerical results obtained from simulations. Our empirical analysis shows the evolutionary process of network migration while different internal and external factors in the organization affect the overall migration. Evolutionary game in migration planning is supportive in decision making for service providers to develop suitable strategy for their network migration. The proposed approach for migration decision making is mostly applicable to fairly sustained service providers who lack economics, regulation/policy, and resources strengths.ERASMUS+, Grant/Award Number: KA107; UGC-NP, Grant/Award Number: FRG-074/75-Engg-01; NTNU-EnPE-MSESSD; US National Science Foundation, Grant/Award Numbers: CNS 1650831, HRD 1828811; NASTDawadi, BR.; Rawat, DB.; Joshi, SR.; Manzoni, P. (2020). Evolutionary gaming approach for decision making of Tier-3 Internet service provider networks migration to SoDIP6 networks. International Journal of Communication Systems. 33(11):1-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/dac.4399S1173311Livadariu, I., Elmokashfi, A., & Dhamdhere, A. (2017). On IPv4 transfer markets: Analyzing reported transfers and inferring transfers in the wild. Computer Communications, 111, 105-119. doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2017.07.012Dawadi, B. R., Rawat, D. B., & Joshi, S. R. (2019). Software Defined IPv6 Network: A New Paradigm for Future Networking. Journal of the Institute of Engineering, 15(2), 1-13. doi:10.3126/jie.v15i2.27636Rizvi, S. N., Raumer, D., Wohlfart, F., & Carle, G. (2015). Towards carrier grade SDNs. Computer Networks, 92, 218-226. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2015.09.029Sezer, S., Scott-Hayward, S., Chouhan, P., Fraser, B., Lake, D., Finnegan, J., … Rao, N. (2013). Are we ready for SDN? Implementation challenges for software-defined networks. IEEE Communications Magazine, 51(7), 36-43. doi:10.1109/mcom.2013.6553676ONF TR‐506.SDN migration considerations and use cases.;2014.https://www.opennetworking.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/sb-sdn-migration-use-cases.pdf.Raza, M. H., Sivakumar, S. C., Nafarieh, A., & Robertson, B. (2014). A Comparison of Software Defined Network (SDN) Implementation Strategies. Procedia Computer Science, 32, 1050-1055. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2014.05.532Wu, P., Cui, Y., Wu, J., Liu, J., & Metz, C. (2013). Transition from IPv4 to IPv6: A State-of-the-Art Survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 15(3), 1407-1424. doi:10.1109/surv.2012.110112.00200Contreras, L. M., Doolan, P., Lønsethagen, H., & López, D. R. (2015). Operational, organizational and business challenges for network operators in the context of SDN and NFV. Computer Networks, 92, 211-217. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.016Sandhya, Sinha, Y., & Haribabu, K. (2017). A survey: Hybrid SDN. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 100, 35-55. doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2017.10.003ON.LAB.Driving SDN adoption in service provider networks.;2014.http://onosproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Whitepaper-Service-Provider-SDN-final.pdf.SANDVINE. Carrier grade NAT: Mitigate IPv4 address exhaustion while maintaining network visibility.https://www.sandvine.com/hubfs/Procera_Live_Site_Files/PDF_Live_Site/Solutions_brief/SB_CGNAT.pdf. Published2018. .F5. Carrier‐grade NAT (CGNAT) for service providers.https://www.f5.com/services/resources/use-cases/carrier-grade-nat-for-service-providers. Accessed September 20 2019.Trinh, T. A., Gyarmati, L., & Sallai, G. (2010). Migrating to IPv6: A game-theoretic perspective. IEEE Local Computer Network Conference. doi:10.1109/lcn.2010.5735739Nikkhah, M. (2016). Maintaining the progress of IPv6 adoption. Computer Networks, 102, 50-69. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2016.02.027Hu, T., Yi, P., Zhang, J., & Lan, J. (2018). A distributed decision mechanism for controller load balancing based on switch migration in SDN. China Communications, 15(10), 129-142. doi:10.1109/cc.2018.8485475TaoP YingC SunZ TanS WangP SunZ.The controller placement of software‐defined networks based on minimum delay and load balancing. In:2018 IEEE 16th Intl Conf on Dependable Autonomic and Secure Computing 16th Intl Conf on Pervasive Intelligence and Computing 4th Intl Conf on Big Data Intelligence and Computing and Cyber Science and Technology Congress (DASC/PiCom/DataCom/CyberSciTech).;2018:310‐313.Wang, K.-Y., Kao, S.-J., & Kao, M.-T. (2018). An efficient load adjustment for balancing multiple controllers in reliable SDN systems. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Applied System Invention (ICASI). doi:10.1109/icasi.2018.8394323Xu, H., Li, X.-Y., Huang, L., Deng, H., Huang, H., & Wang, H. (2017). Incremental Deployment and Throughput Maximization Routing for a Hybrid SDN. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 25(3), 1861-1875. doi:10.1109/tnet.2017.2657643Khorramizadeh, M., & Ahmadi, V. (2018). Capacity and load-aware software-defined network controller placement in heterogeneous environments. Computer Communications, 129, 226-247. doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2018.07.037LanW LiF LiuX QiuY.A dynamic load balancing mechanism for distributed controllers in software‐defined networking. In:2018 10th International Conference on Measuring Technology and Mechatronics Automation (ICMTMA).;2018:259‐262.TR‐506 O.SDN Migration considerations and use cases.;2014.Kobayashi, M., Seetharaman, S., Parulkar, G., Appenzeller, G., Little, J., van Reijendam, J., … McKeown, N. (2014). Maturing of OpenFlow and Software-defined Networking through deployments. Computer Networks, 61, 151-175. doi:10.1016/j.bjp.2013.10.011BabikerH NikolovaI ChittimaneniKK.Deploying IPv6 in the Google Enterprise Network. Lessons learned. In:Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Large Installation System Administration.;2011:10.APNIC. IPv6 capability measurement.https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6. Accessed February 15 2020.Google Incl. IPv6 user access status.https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html. Accessed February 16 2020.Abdullah, S. A. (2019). SEUI-64, bits an IPv6 addressing strategy to mitigate reconnaissance attacks. Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal, 22(2), 667-672. doi:10.1016/j.jestch.2018.11.012KreutzD RamosF VerissimoP RothenbergCE AzodolmolkyS UhligS.Software‐defined networking: A comprehensive survey.arXiv Prepr arXiv14060440.2014.DawadiBR RawatDB JoshiSR KeitschMM.Recommendations for energy efficient SoDIP6 network deployment at the early stage rural ICT expansion of Nepal. In: 2019International Conference on Computing Networking and Communications ICNC 2019.;2019.https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCNC.2019.8685567WintherM.Tier 1 isps: what they are and why they are important. IDC White Pap2006:1‐13.DawadiBR RawatDB JoshiSR.Evolutionary dynamics of service provider legacy network migration to software defined IPv6 network. In:International Conference on Computing and Information Technology;2019:245‐257.BriainDÓ DenieffeD KavanaghY OkelloD.A proposed architecture for distributed Internet eXchange Points in developing countries. In:2018 IST‐Africa Week Conference (IST‐Africa).;2018:Page‐‐1.ChatzisN SmaragdakisG FeldmannA.On the importance of Internet eXchange Points for today's Internet ecosystem.arXiv Prepr arXiv13075264.2013.RyanPS GersonJ.A primer on Internet exchange points for policymakers and non‐engineers.Available SSRN 2128103.2012.BogineniK.Introducing ONOS: A SDN network operating system for service providers.White Pap.2014.Karakus, M., & Durresi, A. (2018). Economic Viability of Software Defined Networking (SDN). Computer Networks, 135, 81-95. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2018.02.015Shakkottai, S., & Srikant, R. (2006). Economics of Network Pricing With Multiple ISPs. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 14(6), 1233-1245. doi:10.1109/tnet.2006.886393Weiss, M. B., & Shin, S. (2002). Internet Interconnection Economic Model and its Analysis: Peering and Settlement. Communication Systems, 215-231. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35600-6_10De Souza, E. P., Ferreira, E. M., & Neves, A. G. M. (2018). Fixation probabilities for the Moran process in evolutionary games with two strategies: graph shapes and large population asymptotics. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 78(4), 1033-1065. doi:10.1007/s00285-018-1300-4Klimek, P., Thurner, S., & Hanel, R. (2010). Evolutionary dynamics from a variational principle. Physical Review E, 82(1). doi:10.1103/physreve.82.01190