This study presents the current state of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) adoption in the different regions focusing on Western Asia and Arab countries to identify opportunities that are presented by the new protocol. The new IPv6 is of great importance, mainly with the depletion of the standard Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4) in most countries; thus, the main objective of this study is to encourage the different stakeholders in the region to seize the early benefits of adopting the new protocol. The research has identified challenges and opportunities of migrating to the new Internet Protocol (IP) protocol in terms of accessibility, innovation, and economic growth. Despite its wealth and above world average Internet penetration, the research findings indicate that the region is slow in adopting and deploying the new protocol such as many regions in the world. The findings could help emerging technologies, especially the Internet of things, smart grids, innovative infrastructure, and intelligent buildings, which require a large number of IP addresses to accommodate the growing need to connect more things for all kinds of purposes.

1. J. A. Stankovic, “Research directions for the internet of things,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3–9, 2014. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/jiot.2014.2312291
2. R. Pozza, M. Nati, S. Georgoulas, K. Moessner, and A. Gluhak, “Neighbor discovery for opportunistic networking in internet of things scenarios: A survey,” IEEE Access, vol. 3, pp. 1101–1131, 2015. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2015.2457031
3. M. De Sanctis, E. Cianca, G. Araniti, I. Bisio, andR. Prasad, “Satellite communications supporting internet of remote things,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 113–123, 2015. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/jiot.2015.2487046
4. Internet Governance Forum. (2017) Policy options for connecting and enabling the next billion(s) – phase iii. [Online]. Available: https://bit.ly/2U4yXaG
5. RIPE Network Coordination Center. (2019) RIPE NCC annual report 2018. [Online]. Available:
   https://bit.ly/2GwQPCN
6. G. Cicileo, R. Gagliano, C. O’Flaherty, M. Rocha, C. O. Morales, J. P. Martinez, and A. V. Martinez. (2009) IPv6 for all. a guide for IPv6 usage and application in different environments. [Online]. Available: http://www.ipv6tf.org/pdf/ipv6forall.pdf
7. M. F. Suleiman and J. Cordry, “Analysis of organizations IPv6 deployment strategies in nigeria and evaluating suitable transition mechanisms,” in IEEE 2nd Advanced Information Technology, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (IAEAC), Chongqing, China, 2017.
8. M. K. Putri and Y. G. Sucahyo, “Factors analysisthat affecting the user acceptance towards IPv6 transition,” in International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems (ICACSIS), Malang, Indonesia, 2016. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/icacsis.2016.7872782
9. S. Wibowo, “Measuring IPv6 readiness on the most accessed web-based content provider in Indonesia,”in International Conference on ICT For Smart Society (ICISS), 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ictss.2017.8288875
10. S. Zander and X. Wang, “Are we there yet? IPV6 in Australia and China,” ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT), vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 1–20, 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3158374
11. M. Nikkhah and R. Guérin, “Migrating the internet to IPv6: An exploration of the when and why,”IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2291–2304, 2015. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/tnet.2015.2453338
12. H.-S. Kim, J. Ko, D. E. Culler, and J. Paek, “Challenging the ipv6 routing protocol for low-power and lossy networks (RPL): A survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 2502–2525, 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/comst.2017.2751617
13. P. Sclafani. (2019) Top 5 concerns of network admins about migrating to IPv6 in 2019. [Online]. Available: https://bit.ly/3116iER
14. F. Javed, M. K. Afzal, M. Sharif, and B.-S. Kim,“Internet of Things (IoT) operating systems support, networking technologies, applications, and challenges: A comparative review,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 2062–2100, 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/comst.2018.2817685
15. J. L. Shah and J. Parvez, “An examination of next generation IP migration techniques: Constraints and evaluation,” in International Conference on Control, Instrumentation, Communication and Computational Technologies (ICCICCT), Kanyakumari, India, 2014.
16. M. Nikkhah, A. Mangal, C. Dovrolis, and R. Guérin, “A statistical exploration of protocol adoption,”IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 25,no. 5, pp. 2858–2871, 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/tnet.2017.2711642
17. Internet Governance Forum. (2016) Understanding the commercial and economic incentives behind a successful IPv6 deployment. [Online]. Available: https://bit.ly/2tYNqtY
18. D. Thaler. (2017) RFC 8170 – planning for protocol adoption and subsequent transitions. [Online]. Available: https://bit.ly/3aPRf57
19. Internet Society. (2016) IPv4/IPv6 coexistence and transition. [Online]. Available: https://bit.ly/3116kwi
20. A. M. Hassan and A. I. Awad, “Urban transition in the era of the internet of things: Social implications and privacy challenges,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 36 428–36 440, 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2018.2838339
21. 6Net. (2005) 6NET initiatives. [Online]. Available: https://www.6net.org/
22. 6 Deploy. (2013) 6 deploy initiatives. [Online]. Available: http://www.6deploy.eu/

B. Khasawneh and B. AlArmouty, “Towards IPV6 adoption in developing Arab countries in Western Asia region,” International Journal of Technology and Engineering Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 55-61, 2019. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.20469/ijtes.5.40004-2