IPv6 SURVEY REPORT CONTENTS

Transcription

1 2015 IPv6 SURVEY REPORT An Incognito Report Published November 2015 CONTENTS Executive Summary...2 Key Findings...3 Providers are Slowly Moving Towards IPv6...3 IPv6 Traffic is Still Minimal...5 The Lack of IPv4 Resources is Driving Adoption...7 NAT: A Necessary Evil?...8 Providers are Positive about Implementation Timelines...9 Wider Support for IPv6 Would Drive Adoption...10 IPv6 Costs: A Barrier to Adoption...12 Best Practices for Adoption...13 Recommendations and Conclusions...14 Methodology and Respondent Profile...15 Methodology...15 Respondent Profile...16

2 Executive Summary The worldwide need for IP addresses continues to grow, with the number of Internet-connected devices expected to increase exponentially as the Internet of Things (IoT) and machine-to-machine (M2M) technology accelerates. At the same time, IPv4 resources are at an all-time low. For the first time, communication service providers in almost all regions have been unable to request IPv4 blocks from regional Internet registries (RIRs), with the American Registry of Internet Numbers (ARIN) joining RIRs in Europe, Asia Pacific, and Latin America in IPv4 address exhaustion. This shortage of IPv4 resources, combined with an increasing number of IP devices and Internet users worldwide, highlights the global urgency for communication service providers to adopt IPv6. But are providers ready for IPv6? This report is based on the 2015 global IPv6 Readiness in the Communication Service Provider Industry Survey. The survey examined how providers are preparing for IPv6, coping with IPv4 shortages, and managing existing IP resources and the results were mixed. While a slightly greater percentage of respondents identify as IPv6-ready compared to last year, there is also a higher percentage of providers who have not yet started the transition process. Providers who have adopted IPv6 state that traffic is still overwhelmingly IPv4-based, indicating a lack of IPv6-only available content and therefore minimal incentive for service providers. Is it all doom and gloom for the future of IPv6? Not quite. The 2015 survey indicates that even with a slow start to IPv6 adoption, many providers feel positive about their projected timelines, with the majority expecting to be IPv6 ready within two years. Whether or not this is a realistic goal remains to be seen. Clearly, there is still work to be done, but the decreasing availability of IPv4 addresses, a global understanding of the inherent problems associated with network address translation (NAT) mechanisms to stretch resources, and the increasing cost of the IPv4 re-sale market may prove enough to encourage providers to pick up the pace of their IPv6 preparations. At the same time, it will take the rest of the industry vendors and content providers, in particular to adopt IPv6 before we are likely to see a truly IPv6 world. Page 2

3 Providers are Slowly moving Towards IPv6 Globally, communication service providers (CSPs) are in the midst of adopting IPv6. But are they moving fast enough? The majority of all respondents are still planning or implementing IPv6 (61%), with only 17% considering themselves IPv6-ready. Completed IPv6 Adoption 17% Not Started 22% Planning or mid-adoption 61% Figure 1: Breakdown of IPv6 Readiness The percentage of providers planning or mid-adoption is 15% lower than last year. Unfortunately, this has not translated into a large jump in the percentage of providers who have completed IPv6 adoption, with only a 3% increase from last year (17% compared to 14% in 2014). Instead, a higher percentage of providers report to have not started IPv6 adoption (22% compared to 10% to last year s report). This indicates either a different cross-section of respondents or a different understanding of what constitutes beginning IPv6 adoption. Page 3

4 Figure 2: IPv6 Readiness By Number of Subscribers Figure 3: IPv6 Readiness by Industry Page 4

5 IPv6 Traffic is Still Minimal There is still a long way to go before IPv6-only networks become commonplace. Dual-stack deployments are still the most popular method of IPv6 adoption at 83%, although native IPv6 and tunnelling are also widely used. 50% 67% 83% 67% *Please note: respondents could select more than one answer. Figure 4: What is the Nature of Your IPv6 Production Services? One encouraging sign is that all providers currently in the process of adopting IPv6 intend to offer IPv6 to end users. A small percentage will offer IPv6 to either only residential or only commercial customers (12% each). Page 5

6 IPv6 traffic is still overwhelmingly lower than IPv4 traffic. This highlights that many providers have still not moved to IPv6 and it is easier for users to find content over IPv4. A lack of available IPv6-only content, combined with a greater probability of finding content over IPv4, means there may be little incentive to push IPv6 from a content or service provider perspective. Of the IPv6 available content, web browsing and social media generates the most IPv6 traffic. Not a single provider identified IPv6 traffic as being equal, slightly more, or substantially more than IPv4 traffic. I don t know 17% IPv6 traffic insignifcant 17% IPv6 traffic is slightly less than IPv4 traffic 17% IPv6 traffic is substantially less than IPv4 49% Figure 5: IPv6 and IPv4 Traffic Comparison Page 6

7 Figure 6: What Applications are Generating the Most IPv6 Traffic? The Lack of IPv4 Resources is Driving Adoption Perhaps unsurprisingly, for the second year service providers ranked a lack of IPv4 resources as the major reason for IPv6 adoption (82%). This was consistent across operators of all sizes, regions, and types, highlighting the universality of IPv4 address depletion. With ARIN now joining almost all of the major RIRs in exhausting IPv4 blocks, this driver is likely to continue gathering momentum, particularly as the IP transfer market becomes increasingly expensive. Other reasons for adopting IPv6 include an apprehension of using network address translation (NAT) to stretch resources, customer demand, and globally accessible IPs for devices. Interestingly, mistrust of NAT and customer demand for IPv6 has increased from 2014, while the lower long-term cost of IPv6 is seen as a less pressing reason to adopt IPv6. Page 7

8 *Respondents could select more than one response **Respondents who have not started IPv6 adoption have not been included Figure 7: Reasons for Adopting IPv6 NAT: A Necessary Evil? The survey indicates that providers are conflicted about the long-term viability of network address translation (NAT). NAT is the most popular coping mechanism for providers who have not started IPv6 adoption, with 75% using some form of NAT (e.g. carrier-grade NAT, LSN, or NAT 444). However, only 50% consider NAT sufficient for their needs. Likewise, providers currently adopting or finished implementing IPv6 identify distrust of NAT for the long term as the second biggest driver for IPv6 (68%), trailing only behind a lack of IPv4 resources (82%) as a reason for making the transition. This wariness of NAT has increased 18% since last year s report, when only 40% of respondents did not view NAT as a viable long-term solution to IPv4 shortages. The increase indicates that current coping mechanisms may not be working, or that more providers now understand how NAT can complicate networks. Page 8

9 Providers are Positive about Implementation Timelines Providers currently implementing IPv6 are confident about their timelines for completion. More than half expect to adopt IPv6 within a year (53%), an increase of nearly 20% from last year s report. A further 35% expect to be IPv6 ready in one to three years, while only 12% expect the process to take more than three years. More than 3 years 11% 2-3 years 11% Within 6 months 16% 1-2 years 31% 6-12 months 31% Figure 8: Estimated Timelines for IPv6 Deployment A Case of Overconfidence? It is worth noting that these predictions may be overly confident. Last year s report found that 34% of providers expected to complete IPv6 adoption within one year, while a further 56% expected to be ready in one to three years. Only 10% thought it would take longer than three years. However, one year on, the percentage of providers that have adopted IPv6 successfully has not greatly increased, indicating that these projections may have been overly optimistic and current predictions may also be too confident. Other sources, such as Google s graph of IPv6 traffic, also highlight the upward but slow trend of IPv6 adoption. At the time of publication, Google measured less than 10% of its users accessing the website via native IPv6 traffic. Page 9

10 Wider Support for IPv6 Would Drive Adoption Increased IPv6 adoption from content providers would help speed up the process in the communication service provider industry. Respondents who had not started IPv6 preparations indicated they would increase the pace of adoption if more Internet content was IPv6-enabled. The sweet spot seems to be 30% to 50% of the Internet, with the majority of respondents (63%) agreeing that would be enough of an incentive to deploy IPv6 with urgency. 13% 63% 13% 13% Figure 9: Increased IPv6 Content Production Could Drive Adoption Page 10

11 Is Vendor Support Lacking? Overwhelmingly, most respondents who are finished IPv6 adoption or in the process of adopting IPv6 (86%) found a lack of vendor support to be a hurdle to adoption. This includes 100% of providers who have finished adopting IPv6. Lack of Vendor Support Viewed as Hurdle to Adoption Figure 10: % of Respondents Who Find Lack of Vendor Support a Barrier to IPv6 Implementation Likewise, 63% of providers who have not started IPv6 preparations named a lack of support from device vendors as a reason. Other reasons are listed below. 63% 50% 38% 38% 25% 13% Figure 11: What are the Main Reasons for Not Adopting IPv6? Page 11

12 IPv6 Costs: A Barrier to Adoption The cost of transitioning to IPv6 is another clear hurdle to adoption. Three-quarters of those in the process of adopting or finished adopting IPv6 named CPE upgrades as a challenge, closely followed by infrastructure replacement at 61%. The difficulty involved in testing and training staff in new processes is also clearly a concern, listed by the majority of respondents as a challenge to IPv6 adoption. See the table below for a full list of challenges that those on the road to IPv6 are facing. CHALLENGE PERCENTAGE Lack of vendor support 86% CPE upgrades 75% Testing 79% Training 64% Infrastructure replacement 61% Educating customers 61% Planning 57% IPv6 not seen as necessary 61% Lack of confidence 43% Note: Respondents could choose more than one answer. Does not include those who have not started IPv6 adoption Table 1: Challenges Providers Face When Adopting IPv6 These results are similar to last year s report, where more than 80% of providers listed CPE upgrades as a hurdle to adoption. Page 12

13 Best Practices for Adoption Transitioning to IPv6 can be daunting, but those that have completed the adoption process or are currently in progress have some sage advice don t wait. Other advice from the survey includes: Build experience and confidence Plan ahead Do it in stages: e.g. an ISP has multiple services to offer, try to tackle them one by one and learn from the experience. Verify your vendor products. Give every customer/network/device plenty of addresses. Customers get a /48, a network /64, and devices can use as many addresses from the network s /64 as they want Reserve /64 blocks even for loopbacks and point-to-points but only configure /128 and /126 respectively. Use /126 on point-to-point networks to keep the attack surface down and make addressing easier to read since you can use ::1 and ::2 Have a structured approach, manage the different departments Concentrate the effort on the newest services and infrastructure rather than trying to add to old infrastructure. Piggyback adding IPv6 with other upgrades driven by short-term business needs. Don t under-provision your IPv6 allocations Expect to rebuild your address architecture. CPE has bugs, plan to roll out and roll back based on make/model/firmware version. Whatever organizational weaknesses you have will be exposed as you deploy IPv6. Dual-stack is not the end of the program. Forget the IPv4 way of thinking about address planning It is easy to underestimate the challenges of IPv6 transformation. This brings delays, higher costs and customer frustration Test thoroughly and broadly. Monitor trouble calls and troubleshooting methods Start with the border, then the core; start with your own network; move slowly but methodically Page 13

14 Recommendations and Conclusions Communication service providers (CSPs) are making progress towards IPv6, but the pace is slow given the speed of IPv4 exhaustion worldwide. It is clear that challenges remain on the road to IPv6, with current roadblocks including a lack of industry support from device vendors and content services. To make headway, CSPs need to plan ahead, examine resources, and run dual-stack and IPv6-only tests on their networks to see what can be achieved within their planned timeframes. Upgrades to CPEs, routing changes, network planning, staff training, and IP address management are just some of the tasks (and costs) to consider. Understanding the benefits of IPv6, especially amid depleting IPv4 resources, may encourage providers to stop relying so heavily on coping mechanisms and IPv4 workarounds such as NAT. IPv6 removes the need for NAT and network complexity, with enough address space to allow providers to renumber their network from scratch. Workarounds simply are not realistic for the long-term especially for providers who plan to grow their subscriber base, as additional subscribers and IP-connected devices will further increase network complexity, as well as time spent on basic IP-related tasks. There are several other drawbacks to relying heavily on IPv4 workarounds like NAT. Multiple subscribers sharing a single public IPv4 address could potentially affect the quality of service of a system that an IPv4 address uniquely identifies an Internet subscriber. NAT can also cause complications when troubleshooting and may complicate law enforcement reporting in some regions. IPv6 gives you the chance to break free of network complexity and workarounds, allowing you to renumber your network with growth and flexibility in mind. IPv6 s long numbering sequence architecture enables a hierarchical division for multiple levels of network and subnetwork hierarchies at ISP levels. IPv6 has been designed to offer greater long-term security by enforcing stronger firewalls, VPNs, and nextgeneration applications. Avoid vulnerabilities during your transition by ensuring your engineering team is trained and constantly reducing threats. Is it realistic to expect an IPv6 world within two years or less? Perhaps not. But with support from the wider industry including device vendors and content providers there is a greater chance that CSPs will move towards this goal. IP management and automation solutions can help optimize the use of existing IPv4 addresses while IPv6 transition occurs. This will minimize the need to access the IPv4 transfer market or potentially sell into it, and ensure that you to make the most of your current resources while planning for the future. Find out more about IP management and IPv6-ready solutions by contacting Incognito at solutions@incognito.com CONTACT US Page 14

15 APPENDIX A Methodology and Respondent Profile Methodology In August 2015, communication service providers from across the globe participated in the IPv6 Readiness in the Service Provider Industry survey after receiving invitations via and social media channels, including LinkedIn and Twitter. To ensure validity of data, incomplete responses have not been included in the final report. Likewise, respondents who could not identify the core function of their business or their organization s current stage of IPv6 adoption were omitted. Overall, 36 responses from different communication service providers across the world have been included in this report, reflecting a variety of views and opinions.this report should therefore be considered a snapshot of the industry, rather than an in-depth study. Please note: data in this report has been rounded to the nearest percentage. As a result, totals may not always equal 100%. Page 15

16 Methodology and Respondent Profile Respondent Profile Respondents from all over the world participated in the 2015 survey, with the majority from Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (58%), followed by North America (25%). Most worked for cable providers (52%), followed by converged and wireline providers (each 17%). Respondents represented service providers of all sizes, although most came from small to mid-sized providers. Overall, 80% worked for companies with fewer than 1 million subscribers. The majority had fewer than 100,000 subscribers (58%), followed by 100,000 to 1 million subscribers (22%) and then more than 1 million subscribers (19%). See the graphs below for a further breakdown of respondent profiles. 6% 11% 25% 3% 56% Figure 12: Respondent Profile by Location Page 16

17 Methodology and Respondent Profile 11% 17% 3% 17% 53% Figure 13: Respondent profile by type Page 17

18 Methodology and Respondent Profile 17% 22% 44% 14% Figure 14: Respondent profile by subscriber base Respondents came mainly from a networking background, with 31% in network architecture, 28% in network engineering, followed by C-level executives and IP planning (11% each). The average participant can therefore be described as European or North American, working in a cable environment in a networking role for a service provider with up to 30,000 subscribers. This survey is intended to a reflection of views of operators from around the world. It is worth noting that further research on this topic would be beneficial for the entire industry. Page 18

19 Better Intelligence. Better Solutions. Better Experience. CONTACT US Incognito Software Systems Inc. 375 Water Street, Suite #500 Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B5C6 Canada Page 19