ipv6 deployment survey - 123seminarsonly.com · 2012. 3. 3. · ipv6 deployment monitoring 4...
TRANSCRIPT
IPv6 Deployment Survey
Based on responses from the RIPE community during June 2009
Maarten Botterman
RIPE 59, Lisbon, 6 October 2009
IPv6 deployment monitoring2
• The Internet has become a fundamental infrastructure, worldwide, for economic and social activity, and its usage continues to grow exponentially:
• More users
• New applications (eg mobile, RFID etc)
• The transition from IPv4 to IPv6 is the only sustainable option, in the long run.
• A smooth transition requires understanding the challenges, and a timely start.
Why IPv6 Deployment Monitoring?
IPv6 deployment monitoring3
European IPv6 Action Plan
May 2008
ADVANCING THE INTERNET: Action Plan for the deployment of Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) in Europe
• Preparing for the growth in Internet usage and for future innovation
• Maintaining Europe's competitiveness
• So … what can be done?
http://www.ipv6.eu/admin/bildbank/uploads/Documents/Commision/COM_.pdf
IPv6 deployment monitoring4
Basically, it’s simple
• The European Commission and Europe’s Member States are committed to support a smooth transition towards IPv6, for clear public interest reasons
• … and think a significant step should be done by 2010• Public sector procurement
• Monitoring security and privacy implications
• Yet the IPv6 transition will be driven by the Internet community
• Providers
• Users
IPv6 deployment monitoring5
Therefore this proposition was made to the RIPE community
• How about making sure the European Commission knows what could be done, usefully, to help ensure that smooth transition?
• Really understand the scope of the problem
• Identify the bottlenecks
• Propose useful steps to support the transition
IPv6 deployment monitoring6
• Measuring: – deployment in EU countries (% end users)
These are source address based on passive measurements
– availability (% IPv6 web-based services)
– differences between IPv4 and IPv6 performanceThese are measurements on quality of service
• Information gathering:– Global sources
– Key informant interviews
– IPv6 Survey
IPv6 Deployment Monitoring project:putting the facts on the table
IPv6 deployment monitoring7
• Aim is to establish the best possible comprehensive view of present IPv6 penetration and future plans of IPv6 deployment
• Best way to establish this is to ask the Internet providers and users, basically: the RIPE participants
• ARIN carried out such a survey with its members in March 2008, a starting point for the currently proposed survey
– Survey was prepared and carried out by TNO/GNKS in close collaboration with RIPE NCC
– Survey was kept short, and focused on essentials
– Privacy is guaranteed
• APNIC carried out the same survey during September 2009– courtesy of APNIC we are able to compare some of the results, already in this
presentation!
What about the survey ?
Response to questionnaire
31%
12%57%
completed
partial
No attempt
n=2000
source: TNO/GNKS 2009
610 repondents from 54 countries
8
Geographic spread responses
source: TNO/GNKS 2009
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
9
n = 610
Respondent categories
source: TNO/GNKS 2009
62%
Education
Government
ICT/Internet toolsInternet contentISP
Non ICT industryOther
R&D
n = 610
ISP
10
IPv6 presence respondents
source: TNO/GNKS 2009
49%
31%
37%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Yes, on the Internet
Yes, within internal networks
No
11
n = 464
IPv6 presence respondents
source: TNO/GNKS 2009
49%
31%
37%
50%
43%
33%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Yes, on the Internet
Yes, within internal networks
No
APNIC (295)
RIPE (464)
11
More profiling
• ~ 90% of respondents have a registration services agreement with RIPE NCC
• ~80% if respondents works for profit
• ~75% is EU based
• ~85% of 356 ISPs has less than 100,000 customers
• ~50% of respondents have less than 50 employees
12
IPv6 vs IPv4 traffic
source: TNO/GNKS 2009
13
82%
16%
IPv6 traffic is insignificant
IPv6 traffic is less than IPv4 traffic
IPv6 traffic is same as IPv4 traffic
IPv6 traffic is greater than IPv4 traffic
n = 610
IPv6 vs IPv4 traffic
source: TNO/GNKS 200913
82%
16%
IPv6 traffic is insignificant
IPv6 traffic is less than IPv4 traffic
IPv6 traffic is same as IPv4 traffic
IPv6 traffic is greater than IPv4 traffic
77%
17%
RIPE APNIC
EU sector consider having IPv6 allocation
source: TNO/GNKS 2009
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
No
Yes
n = 456
14
EU ISPs consider having IPv6 allocation
125
49
25 20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
'Small (up to 50 employees)
Medium (51 up to 250 employees)
'Large (251 up to 2,500 employees)
'Very Large (more than 2,500 employees)
No
Yes
source: TNO/GNKS 200915
ISP, do you considering promoting IPv6 uptake to your customers
source: TNO/GNKS 2009
43%
14%
43%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
No
Maybe
Yes
n = 380
16
ISP, do you considering promoting IPv6 uptake to your customers
source: TNO/GNKS 2009
43%54%
14%
34%
43%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
RIPE APNIC
No
Maybe
Yes
16
Why not considering IPv6?
source: TNO/GNKS 2009
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
17
n = 467
Why not considering IPv6?
source: TNO/GNKS 2009
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
RIPE APNIC
17
Biggest hurdles
source: TNO/GNKS 2009
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Costs
Vendor support
Availability of knowledge
Information security
Business case
Other
Costs
Vendor support
Availability of knowledge
Information security
Business case
Other
those who implement IPv6
those who don'tplan IPv6, yet
those who implement IPv6
(467)
those who don'tplan IPv6, yet
(143)
18
Biggest hurdles
source: TNO/GNKS 2009
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Costs
Vendor support
Availability of knowledge
Information security
Business case
Other
Costs
Vendor support
Availability of knowledge
Information security
Business case
Other
ARIN
RIPE
those who implement IPv6
those who don'tplan IPv6,yet
18
APNIC
Main drivers to IPv6 deployment
source: TNO/GNKS 2009
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Customer demand
Availability of IPv4 address
space
Want to benefit from advantages
asap
Want to be "ahead of the
game"
Make sure IPv6 is
supported in our products
Other
19
n = 435
Main drivers to IPv6 deployment
source: TNO/GNKS 2009
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Customer demand
Availability of IPv4 address
space
Want to benefit from advantages
asap
Want to be "ahead of the
game"
Make sure IPv6 is
supported in our products
Other
RIPE APNIC
19
Planning IPv6 deployment
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% No plan
> 4 years
> 2 years
> 1 year
'0,5 to 1 year
1 to 6 months
Currently deployed
n=610
source: TNO/GNKS 2009
20
Planning IPv6 deployment
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Internal network
IPv6 transit IPv6 Peering DNS services Desktops Webservices Hosted IPv6 E-mail Cable/DSL
source: TNO/GNKS 2009
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
RIPE
APNIC
20
Experience: biggest problems with IPv6 in production?
source: TNO/GNKS 2009
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Other
Budget issues
Technical problems
No experience, yet
Lack of user demand
21
Experience: biggest problems with IPv6 in production?
source: TNO/GNKS 2009
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Other
Budget issues
Technical problems
No experience, yet
Lack of user demand
APNIC
RIPE
21
Experience: Set-up
• Overwhelmingly dual-stack (~90%)
• Mostly native IPv6
Native IPv6
Tunnel (not automatic)
Automatic tunneling
Address translation
Other 78%
12%
4%3% 2%
22
Experience: Set-up
• Overwhelmingly dual-stack (~90%)
• Mostly native IPv6
50%
30%
3%
9%
8%
78%
12%
4%3% 2%
RIPE APNIC
Native IPv6
Tunnel (not automatic)
Automatic tunneling
Address translation
Other
22
Indication of real IPv6 usage?
Ratio of IPv6/total IP visitors from selected countries source: TNO/GNKS 2009
23
Indication of real IPv6 usage?
Ratio of IPv6/total IP visitors from EU countries to a measured web site
source: TNO/GNKS 2009
24
Growth foresight ?
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK
Number of advertised IPv4 addresses per 100 inhabitants
source: NII/TNO/GNKS 2009 25
IPv4 address shortage indication?
Ratio of announced/allocated of IPv4 addresses in the EU and US
(nb: announced is not necessarily assigned)source: NII/TNO/GNKS 2009
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK US
26
Main conclusions, overall
• Much more IP addresses will be needed during the coming years
• If only for other countries to get up to the IP maturity levels of Scandinavian countries
• But also mobile internet, and Internet of Things
• Whatever happens: no new IPv4 addresses available anymore, anywhere, at some point!
• IANA source IPv4 will be depleted by 2011
• RIPE source of IPv4 will be depleted by 2012/2013
• In some countries the need for new IP addresses will be greater than in others
http://www.ipv6monitoring.eu/
27
Main conclusions survey 2009 (1/2)• Need to be careful with drawing conclusions
• In particular when breaking down the sample to small size categories
• This group is biased by IPv6 interest, at least
• How well do respondents know what is really going on within their organisation
• Overall reason for IPv6 not being a priority yet is “lack of business case/lack of customer demand”
• IPv6 vendor support is still lacking
• How to turn this around?
• 63% of RIPE respondents have, or consider having an IPv6 allocation, today
• Only 53% of Government respondents consider having IPv6
• Still 21% of all respondents not convinced of the need to have IPv6 towards the future: why?
http://www.ipv6monitoring.eu/
28
Main conclusions survey 2009 (2/2)• ISPs:
• 82% has, or considers having IPv6
• 56% has IPv6 in production
• 37% of ISPs in Europe do not consider IPv6 promotion
• What is needed to get more ISPs on board
• Web site content• Just one out of 27 x Top 30 websites measured supports IPv6
• Set-up today is overwhelmingly dual stack and native IPv6
• Are these the “lucky few”? Much less extreme “dual stack” in APNIC region
• What future for tunneling, address translation?
http://www.ipv6monitoring.eu/
29
We thank all respondents for their contributions !
• More than 70% indicated their willingness to collaborate to further follow up questions
• More than 90% indicated their willingness to respond again, next year
http://www.ipv6monitoring.eu/
30
This survey could not have been done without the help of RIPE NCC, and APNIC
Thanks to the European Commission who has made this possible by granting GNKS Consult and TNO a study contract on IPv6 Deployment, in line with the EU IPv6 Action Plan
Thanks to all RIPE members that helped improve the survey instrument, before it was launched.
Thanks to RIPE and APNIC staff for support and help, and for sending out the survey to their mailing lists.
Special thanks to KC Claffy (CAIDA), Karine Perset (OECD), Leslie Daigle (ISOC), Paul Rendek and Nick Hyrka (RIPE NCC), Miwa Fujii and Paul Wilson (APNIC) for their feedback, advice and support.
http://www.ipv6monitoring.eu/
http://www.ipv6monitoring.eu/
Questions regarding the survey and this presentation:
Maarten Botterman
••• 45
The European IPv6 Web Site
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ipv6
Questions regarding the Action Plan to the
European Commission: