I Pv 6 Deployment Survey

lumpishtrickleSoftware and s/w Development

Jun 30, 2012 (5 years and 18 days ago)

273 views

IPv6 Deployment Survey
Based on responses from the RIPE
community during June 2009
Maarten Botterman
RIPE 59, Lisbon, 6 October 2009
IPv6 deployment monitoring
2

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 monitoring
3
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 monitoring
4
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 monitoring
5
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 monitoring
6

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 performance
These 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 monitoring
7

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
tools
Internet
content
ISP
Non ICT
industry
Other
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 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
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 2009
15
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't
plan IPv6, yet
those
who
implement
IPv6
(467)
those
who don't
plan 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't
plan 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
maarten@gnksconsult.com
•••
45
The
European
IPv6 Web Site
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ipv6
Questions
regarding
the Action Plan to the
European
Commission:
Jacques.babot@ec.europa.eu