| Internet-Draft | IPv6 Network Monitoring Deployment | December 2024 |
| Cao, et al. | Expires 5 June 2025 | [Page] |
This document outlines the current approaches to monitoring IPv6 deployment and proposes potential new requirements to advance IPv6 deployment further. It identifies common problems with current IPv6 monitoring methods and suggests considerations for future improvements.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 5 June 2025.¶
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
The emergence of IPv6 can be traced back to the 1990s, when the development of IPv6 was initiated by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to solve the problem of IPv4 address exhaustion. In 1998, the IPv6 protocol specification [RFC2460] was published. With IPv6 adoption accelerating over the past years, the IPv6 protocol was elevated to be a Internet Standard [RFC8200] in 2017. To effectively address the obstacles encountered in IPv6 deployment, it is essential to conduct comprehensive collection and analysis of the IPv6 support status to identify and resolve key issues. This document outlines the current approaches to monitoring IPv6 deployment and proposes potential new requirements to advance IPv6 deployment further. It identifies common problems with current IPv6 monitoring methods and suggests considerations for future improvements.¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
As of 2023, significant strides have been made in the global deployment of IPv6. According to the statistics from the "Global IPv6 Development Report 2024" in 2023, the deployment of IPv6 networks significantly accelerated, breaking through the 30% mark in global coverage for the first time. Among leading countries, the IPv6 coverage rate has reached or approached 70%, and the percentage of IPv6 mobile traffic has surpassed that of IPv4.¶
The driving factors of IPv6 deployment include: technology, cost, demand, and policy. IPv6 enhances addressing capabilities by expanding IP addresses from 32 to 128 bits and simplifies headers, while incorporating support for authentication and data integrity. Its efficient address allocation and hierarchical structure reduce operational costs, making it economically favorable. Network security is bolstered through source address verification and the vast address pool, aligning with industry demands for robust IP services, especially in advanced scenarios like 5G and IoT. Governmental policies and international standards further accelerate IPv6 adoption, establishing a solid technical foundation for global deployment.¶
The deployment of IPv6 has been a topic of significant interest and analysis within the networking community, for example, [RFC9386] provides an overview of the status of IPv6 deployment in 2022, this seems to have reached a threshold that justifies speaking of end-to-end IPv6 connectivity, at least at the IPv6 service layer. However, there are remaining obstacles in the transition to IPv6 networks. The necessity of IPv6 deployment is analyzed as follows.¶
Existing IPv6 deployment monitoring approaches include:¶
Internet Society Pulse: Curating information about levels of IPv6 adoption in countries and networks around the world.¶
Akamai IPv6 Adoption Visualization: Reviewing IPv6 adoption trends at a country or network level.¶
APNIC IPv6 Measurement: Providing an interactive map that users can click on to see the IPv6 deployment rate in a particular country.¶
Cloudflare IPv6 Adoption Trends: Offering insights into IPv6 adoption across the Internet.¶
Cisco 6lab IPv6: Displaying IPv6 prefix data.¶
Regional or National Monitoring Platforms: Examples include the NZ IPv6, the RIPE NCC IPv6 Statistics, and the USG IPv6 & DNSSEC External Service Deployment Status, among others.¶
These approaches are essential for understanding the current state of IPv6 deployment and for identifying areas that require further development or support. But all monitoring approaches might highlight the focus of data collection and statistics.¶
In the process of enhancing IPv6 deployment, the key lies in pinpointing the deficiencies in IPv6 deployment. The realization of this objective poses two potential requirements for existing monitoring approaches: refined data collection and comprehensive data analysis.¶
Data collection might targets specific devices, manufacturers, and technical levels. Monitoring should be comprehensive, covering every user, terminal, and application, rather than relying on sampling. This ensures accurate identification of issues in IPv6 deployment, providing a foundation for subsequent improvements.¶
A thorough analytical framework is crucial, built upon the collected data, to explore the root causes of inadequate IPv6 deployment. Such analysis not only clarifies the current state but also offers a scientific basis for developing effective strategies.¶
It is clear that common issues plague existing IPv6 deployment monitoring approaches, as detailed in the subsequent section.¶
The current IPv6 monitoring deployment scope is often limited to regional or specialized networks. Additionally, the IPv6 monitoring deployment is primarily concentrated on core regional or specialized network nodes, while edge nodes receive significantly less attention. This disparity hinders a thorough understanding of the IPv6 support status across the entire network.¶
For instance, home terminals and router, as the "last kilometer" for users to access the internet, their IPv6 support status is crucial for user experience. However, monitoring systems deployment often do not adequately cover these terminals, leading to an inability to accurately assess the quality of IPv6 access and service availability for users.¶
Despite the partial success of existing IPv6 monitoring platforms in executing both active and passive monitoring, there is a shortfall in the depth of IPv6 deployment monitoring.¶
For instance, the IPv6 transformation in some private network applications is not thorough enough, with internal application systems yet to be upgraded. This results in secondary and tertiary links, as well as multimedia content traffic, still predominantly relying on IPv4. However, there is a lack of effective deep monitoring methods to oversee these connections.¶
The current IPv6 monitoring methodologies are predominantly geared towards security aspects, encompassing the surveillance of threat traffic, anomalous traffic detection, and the identification of device vulnerabilities. The paramount goal of these technologies is to remediate underlying network issues. Nevertheless, these approaches infrequently consider the broader spectrum of network operation perspectives needed to monitor the status of network IPv6 support.¶
IPv6 monitoring data generated across different professional domains is often stored within their respective systems, lacking effective data integration mechanisms between professionals. This leads to monitoring data that cannot form a global perspective, making it difficult to conduct comprehensive analyses across specialties. Stakeholders may struggle to understand the underlying factors influencing IPv6 deployment.¶
For instance, the integrated analysis of IPv6 between terminals, networks, and applications faces obstacles due to insufficient interoperability, affecting a comprehensive analysis of the factors that constrain the IPv6 support status, continuity, and stability of business services.¶
The existing analytical models lack sufficient methods for analyzing key indicators of IPv6, making it difficult to clearly explain to decision-makers the reasons behind changes in the IPv6 support status. This deficiency adversely affects the scientific basis of IPv6 deployment decisions. Monitoring and analysis techniques often overlook the impact of diverse user behaviors, market dynamics, and governmental policy changes on the IPv6 support status, which limits the practicality and predictive accuracy of the models. This disregard for environmental factors, such as consumer actions, market trends, and regulatory shifts, can result in models that are less representative of real-world conditions and less capable of anticipating future developments in IPv6 adoption and utilization.¶
Current Requests for RFC standards are primarily focused on three areas. First, they aim to refine and optimize the current IPv6 network and network operations. Second, they address support for IPv6 in non-traditional communication scenarios. Third, there is an exploration and optimization of the application of Segment Routing IPv6 (SRv6) in IPv6 networks.¶
From the perspective of network operators, there is currently no unified standard method for monitoring and analyzing the IPv6 support status. [RFC9386] also mentions that monitoring of two critical parameters: packet loss and latency, which have been constantly monitored over time, but only a few comprehensive measurement campaigns are providing up-to-date information.¶
This necessitates in-depth technical research and standardization efforts on monitoring methods, integrated analytical methods, interface models, and so on. Correspondingly, the technical industry ecosystem in this field also needs to be nurtured and optimized.¶
Optionally, IPv6 monitoring approaches can be developed into a comprehensive platform that provides users with visual data displays. This approach effectively addresses the challenges of traffic concentration analysis during IPv6 deployment, enabling precise problem identification and ultimately enhancing the overall quality and efficiency of IPv6 deployment.¶
TBD.¶