v6ops C. Cao, Ed.
Internet-Draft J. Zhao, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track China Unicom
Expires: 24 April 2025 M. Jin, Ed.
Huawei
R. Pang, Ed.
China Unicom
21 October 2024
IPv6 Network Monitoring Deployment Analysis
draft-cao-v6ops-ipv6-monitoring-deployment-00
Abstract
This document discusses the drivers of IPv6 deployment, underscores
the deficiencies in the current methodologies for monitoring and
analyzing IPv6 support status, and provides the requirements for
enhancing the monitoring and analysis of IPv6 support status.
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 24 April 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Cao, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Network Monitoring Deployment October 2024
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IPv6 Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Analysis For IPv6 Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.1. Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. IPv6 Support Status Monitoring Deployment Analysis . . . . . 4
4.1. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1.1. Limitations of Monitoring Coverage . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1.2. Insufficient Monitoring Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.3. Limitations in the Perspective of Monitoring . . . . 5
4.1.4. Lack of Integrated Analytical Methods . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.5. Lack of In-Depth Analytical Models . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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 discusses
the drivers of IPv6 deployment, underscores the deficiencies in the
current methodologies for monitoring and analyzing IPv6 support
status, and provides the requirements for enhancing the monitoring
and analysis of IPv6 support status.
Cao, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Network Monitoring Deployment October 2024
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.
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. Analysis For IPv6 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.
3.1.1. Drivers
* Technological Drivers：IPv6 expands addressing capabilities by
increasing the IP address size from 32 bits to 128 bits. It also
simplifies the header format. Additionally, IPv6 specifies
support for authentication, data integrity, and optional data
confidentiality[RFC8200]. IPv6 improves support for extensions
and options by introducing the IPv6 extension headers and options,
such as Hop-by-Hop Options (HBH), Destination Options (DOH), and
Routing Headers (SRH), which offer greater flexibility and provide
a approach for carrying a variety of information.
* Cost Drivers: The cost for enterprises to deploy Network Address
Translation (NAT) devices is excessively high. IPv6, through its
rational address allocation mechanism and hierarchical address
structure, improves routing efficiency, simplifies network
architecture, and reduces the cost of network operation and
maintenance.
* Demand Drivers:
Cao, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Network Monitoring Deployment October 2024
- Network Security Protection: The source address verification of
IPv6 [savnet] supports identity tracing, which can prevent
routing hijacking. The hierarchical address structure enables
blacklist address control, and the vast number of IPv6
addresses facilitate anti-hacking reconnaissance and anti-scan
attacks.
- Industry Demand: The rapid development of internet applications
has led to a surge in demand for IP addresses, with the finite
nature of IPv4 addresses becoming a constraining factor. By
innovating in IPv6+ applications, it is possible to leverage
the service quality assurance capabilities provided by SRv6
network slice technology. As well as the high-precision, real-
time, and visualized network operation and maintenance
capabilities offered by In-situ Flow Information Telemetry
(IFIT) [RFC9341] technology. This can better meet the higher
requirements for network bearing in scenarios such as 5G,
cloud-network integration, industrial internet, and the
Internet of Things (IoT), forming an internal driving force.
* Policy Drivers: Some governmental actions took place to encourage
or even enforce the adoption of IPv6 in certain
countries[RFC9386].International organizations and standards
bodies are actively involved formulation of IPv6-related
standards, establishing a solid technical foundation for global
IPv6 deployment.
4. IPv6 Support Status Monitoring Deployment Analysis
4.1. Problem Statement
4.1.1. 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.
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.
Cao, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Network Monitoring Deployment October 2024
4.1.2. 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.
4.1.3. 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.
4.1.4. 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.
4.1.5. 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
Cao, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Network Monitoring Deployment October 2024
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.
4.2. Requirements
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 and analysis methods 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.
5. Security Considerations
TBD.
6. IANA Considerations
TBD.
7. 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>.
Cao, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Network Monitoring Deployment October 2024
[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 24 April 2025 [Page 7]