Arjen Holtzer - IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey

IPv6 deployment monitoringGhent, 14 December 2010

IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey

IPv6 deployment monitoring2

The IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey

• Aim is to establish the best possible comprehensive view - present IPv6 penetration - perceived bottlenecks- current future plans

• Best way to establish this is to ask the Internet providers and users, basically: the RIR communities around the world

• ARIN carried out such a survey with its members in March 2008, a starting point for the currently proposed survey


The IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey

• RIPE NCC and APNIC carried out this same survey in 2009. In 2010, all RIRs participated to the survey:

• Survey was prepared and carried out by TNO/GNKS in close collaboration with RIPE NCC, APNIC, ARIN, AFRINIC and LACNIC

• Survey was kept short, and focused on essentials• Privacy is guaranteed

• Results of 2010 will be compared with those of 2009 to get a good picture of progress



RIPE NCC respondents

• In 2010, the RIPE NCC community generated 769 respondents. This is 159 more than 2009 (610 respondents).

• Participation is largely comparable to last year for most counts (and is therefore not explicitly presented)


Does your organization have an IPv6 presence ?

33%

16%

15%

9%

16%

40%

37% 35%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 2010

No

Yes, both internal networks and Internet

Yes, only internal networks

Yes, only on Internet


More organizations have or consider having an IPv6 allocation and/or assignment

76%86%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 2010

No

Yes


More customers use IPv6 connectivity in 2010 (ISP’s only)

66%

26%

3% 3% 3%

58%

31%

5%2%

4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0% 0% - 0.5% 0.5% - 1.0% 1.0% - 2.0% More

2009 2010


More ISPs consider promoting IPv6 uptake to their customers in 2010

43%54%

14%

37%43%

9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 2010

No

Maybe

Yes


More organizations with IPv6 in production, yet still mostly insignificant

280

354

54

54

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2009 2010

IPv6 traffic is greater than IPv4 traffic

IPv6 traffic is same as IPv4 traffic

IPv6 traffic is non-negligible but less than IPv4 traffic

IPv6 traffic is insignificant

or82%

or86%


More have IPv6 implementation (plans)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ISP to consumersISP to business

internalpeeringtransit

DNS desktops

webserviceshostede-mail

cable/dsl

internalpeeringtransit

DNS desktops

webserviceshostede-mail

cable/dsl

Deployed Plans No plan

2009

2010


Attitude, perception and experience with IPv6


Why doesn’t your organization consider having an IPv6 allocation cq assignment?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Other

Cannot meet the requirements

Lack of available config mgt tools

Communications service provider doesn't support …

Cannot afford expense

Cannot afford risk of transition

ISP doesn't support IPv6

Our infrastructure doesn't support it

Haven't gotten around to it

Don't see business need

2010

2009


Main motivations to consider having IPv6 allocation cq assignment

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Other

Customer demand

Availability of IPv4 address space

Want to benefit from advantages asap

Make sure IPv6 is supported in our products

Want to be "ahead of the game"

2010

2009


The biggest hurdles, compared

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Other

Information security

Vendor support

Business case

Availability of (knowledgeable) staff

Costs

Other

Information security

Vendor support

Business case

Availability of (knowledgeable) staff

Costs (required financial investment/time of staff)

2010

2009

Those who implement or plan to implement

Those who are not ready to go for IPv6


The biggest problems with IPv6 in production?

9% 9%

17% 10%

19%

34%

37%

52%

40%

57% 48%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 2010

Lack of user demand

No experience, yet

Technical problems

Budget issues: convincing non-technical business responsible people for getting it

Budget issues: no access to investment money due to scarcity of resources

Budget issues

Other (please specify)


Overall Conclusions IPv6 Survey

• In the RIPE NCC region, experience and preparedness with IPv6 has grown a lot over the last year, yet real use has not grown that much, yet.

• Vendors, gear up! ISPs are ready to go and need good equipment.

• Next year: another global survey to monitor changes

IPv6 deployment monitoringGhent, 14 December 2010

IPv6 Technical bottleneck analysis


IPv6 Technical bottleneck analysis: Goals & work plan

• What are currently the most significant technical issues blocking or slowing down IPv6 adoption?

• E.g. availability of hardware and software• E.g. standardization, architectural issues, replacement strategies etc.

• Include the whole value chain

• Preliminary results based on 16 one-hour interviews with network architects, product specialists and managers related to:

• ISPs with their own network infrastructure (8)• vendors (4)• corporate users (3)• content providers (1)

• Thanks to interviewees for their cooperation – much appreciated!


Question: possible IPv6 impact on the Value Chain

Internal network

routers, proxies, DMZ, …

Residential Gateway

External network

core network

access network

network OAMnetwork provisioning

migration techniques

Fiber

Cable

3G

DSL

OperatingSystem

MS, Apple, Linux, …

Communi-cation

software

other IP dependent applications

Browsers

VoIP, chat, …

Service website www

Specific internet service

or platform

mail

VoIP

IPTV

p2p

…


Overview of bottlenecks from the interviews (1)

• Communication software• Mobile phones, software apps (fixed & mobile)

• Operating System• In general ok (except for legacy)

• Internal Network• availability of RG’s, large non-IPv6 installed base• Corporate applications• IPv6 in corporate networks is not top priority


Overview of bottlenecks from the interviews (2)

• External Network• Inhouse built applications for monitoring and provisioning• BNG, DSLAM and RG IPv6 feature support and maturity• Is your current platform upgradable?• replacement strategy for DSLAM’s, CMTS’s

Vendors and ISP’s need each other!

• Specific internet service or platform and service website• Varied landscape of services. Really depends on the

company that builds the service• Load balancers


Main findings

• Feature parity: IPv4 support is still much more widespread than IPv6

• Vendors need ISP’s to do operational testing to mature their products

• still, product-specific bugs are regularly encountered

• Application landscape is huge

• IPv6 deployment is possible, but it’s not ‘plug-and-play’ enough yet

• Focus mainly on internet services: no priority for triple play over IPv6

Tests, trials & pilots are a MUST for 2011

Pool of early-adopters large enough?

Next year: more specific interviews/survey

Holtzer

Focus op bepaald deel uit de chain, bijvo content providers, connectiemodellen, /48 of /64


Thank you!

Arjen Holtzer (contact person)

E-mail: [email protected]

Documents

Arjen Holtzer - IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey