v6ops                                                        C. Cao, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                              J. Zhao, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track                            China Unicom
Expires: 5 June 2025                                         M. Jin, Ed.
                                                                  Huawei
                                                            R. Pang, Ed.
                                                            China Unicom
                                                         2 December 2024


              IPv6 Network Monitoring Deployment Analysis
             draft-cao-v6ops-ipv6-monitoring-deployment-01

Abstract

   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.

Status of This Memo

   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 Notice

   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



Cao, et al.                Expires 5 June 2025                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     IPv6 Network Monitoring Deployment      December 2024


   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  IPv6 Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  IPv6 Deployment Analysis  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  IPv6 Network Monitoring Deployment Analysis . . . . . . . . .   3
     4.1.  Current Approaches to Monitoring IPv6 Deployment  . . . .   3
     4.2.  Potential Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.3.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       4.3.1.  Limitations of Monitoring Coverage  . . . . . . . . .   4
       4.3.2.  Insufficient Monitoring Depth . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.3.3.  Limitations in the Perspective of Monitoring  . . . .   5
       4.3.4.  Lack of Integrated Analytical Methods . . . . . . . .   5
       4.3.5.  Lack of In-Depth Analytical Models  . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Improvement Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   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.

2.  Conventions and Definitions

   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.



Cao, et al.                Expires 5 June 2025                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     IPv6 Network Monitoring Deployment      December 2024


3.  IPv6 Deployment

   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.

3.1.  IPv6 Deployment Analysis

   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.

4.  IPv6 Network Monitoring Deployment Analysis

4.1.  Current Approaches to Monitoring IPv6 Deployment

   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.



Cao, et al.                Expires 5 June 2025                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     IPv6 Network Monitoring Deployment      December 2024


   *  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.

4.2.  Potential Requirements

   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.

4.3.  Problem Statement

4.3.1.  Limitations of Monitoring Coverage

   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.




Cao, et al.                Expires 5 June 2025                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     IPv6 Network Monitoring Deployment      December 2024


   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.

4.3.2.  Insufficient Monitoring Depth

   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.

4.3.3.  Limitations in the Perspective of Monitoring

   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.

4.3.4.  Lack of Integrated Analytical Methods

   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.





Cao, et al.                Expires 5 June 2025                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     IPv6 Network Monitoring Deployment      December 2024


4.3.5.  Lack of In-Depth Analytical Models

   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.

5.  Improvement Considerations

   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.

6.  Security Considerations

   TBD.





Cao, et al.                Expires 5 June 2025                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     IPv6 Network Monitoring Deployment      December 2024


7.  IANA Considerations

   TBD.

8.  Normative References

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
              December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

   [RFC9386]  Fioccola, G., Volpato, P., Palet Martinez, J., Mishra, G.,
              and C. Xie, "IPv6 Deployment Status", RFC 9386,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9386, April 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9386>.

Authors' Addresses

   Chang Cao (editor)
   China Unicom
   Beijing
   China
   Email: caoc15@chinaunicom.cn


   Jing Zhao (editor)
   China Unicom
   Beijing
   China
   Email: zhaoj501@chinaunicom.cn


   Mingshuang Jin (editor)
   Huawei
   Beijing
   China
   Email: jinmingshuang@huawei.com


   Ran Pang (editor)
   China Unicom
   Beijing
   China
   Email: pangran@chinaunicom.cn



Cao, et al.                Expires 5 June 2025                  [Page 7]