IPv6 survey 2012


Published on

Discover the BT IPv6 survey 2012. Many organizations have taken action to deploy IPv6 in some form since last year’s survey.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

IPv6 survey 2012

  1. 1.   BT Connect IPv6 Industry Survey Results June 6, 2012 
  2. 2.  IPv6 deployment has begun in earnest! Key FindingsMany organizations have taken action to  Fifty-seven per cent of respondents have deployed,deploy IPv6 in some form since last are deploying, or plan to deploy IPv6 within two years. Thirteen per cent of respondents have alreadyyear’s survey. Thirteen per cent of survey deployed IPv6 on all or a portion of their networks.respondents have taken such action, This is up sharply from five per cent who had deployed in 2011. Another 44 per cent are in the process ofwhile only five per cent had done so in deploying or plan to begin deployment within twolast year’s survey. years.  While respondents believe value and benefits may beThe number of respondents also grew by nearly 50 per cent realized from IPv6 deployment, stronger businessthis year to 876, so the 13 per cent represents a significant case justification is still needed to demonstrateincrease in deployed IPv6 networks. Another 20 per cent sufficient ROI.are engaged in the process of IPv6 implementation as ofnow, and 24 per cent plan to begin deploying IPv6 within  Along these lines, leading among the hurdles to IPv6two years. So if all goes according to today’s plans, within deployment, the business case trumps complexity.two years time, 57 per cent of respondents will have The biggest hurdle identified was the inability todeployed or will be in the process of deploying IPv6. An demonstrate a clear business case with a 22 per centadditional 16 per cent of respondents are currently response, followed by the complexity of theassessing the costs and benefits of deploying IPv6. The infrastructure upgrade with 17 per cent, which is downremaining 27 per cent have either decided not to begin from prior survey results in the 22-28 per cent range.deployment within the next two years, feel IPv6 isunnecessary or will follow a bottom-up end-user demand-  The initial shock and ensuing reaction to IANA’s IPv4driven (“BYOD”) approach to IPv6 deployment. address depletion announcement has apparently waned with the proportion of respondents expressing a “huge concern” about IPv4 depletion dropped backDespite the progress in IPv6 deployments since last year, to 25 per cent from 35 per cent last year. The 2011many organizations still face obstacles. Leading among result of 35 per cent was more than double the resultthese was the inability to demonstrate a strong business from 2008 at 16 per cent and was likely driven by thecase with 22 per cent of responses. Other leading obstacles proximity of the announcement only two months priorincluded the complexity of infrastructure upgrades, to the survey window last year.perception that the only benefit of IPv6 is larger addressspace and the cost of equipment upgrades.  Most organizations will not be satisfied simply deploying IPv6 on a portion of their networks but willWhile many enterprises plan to deploy IPv6 only on Internet- look to deploy more broadly as 55 per cent offacing servers initially, most plan full deployment throughout respondents agreed with the statement: IPv6 istheir networks as a follow-on goal. The most common or required for deployment across my entire network.planned approach to IPv6 deployment was dual-stack forboth enterprises and service providers.  The dual-stack deployment approach led other IPv4- IPv6 co-existence strategies that enterprises and service providers are utilizing or planning to utilize. “ The transition to IPv6 is one of the most important steps we will take together to protect the internet as we know it.” Vint Cerf Google’s Chief Internet Evangelist 
  3. 3.  “IPv6 deployment has begun in earnest with 57per cent of our IPv6 survey respondentsindicating deployment within two years. Internetubiquity is at stake and organisations need toplan for IPv6.”Tim Rooney, BT Diamond IP product management 
  4. 4.   IPv6 Level of Concern Last year’s survey was conducted about two months after IANA’s announcement of the allocation of its final /8 blocks of IPv4 space to Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). As such, concern was extremely high given this “sudden” announcement of IPv4’s demise. This year’s survey indicates a leveling off of this “reaction” but also points to real movement towards IPv6 deployment.IntroductionIn early spring, 2011, BT Diamond IP conducted the thirdof a then-triennial survey regarding opinions about IPv6deployment and relative merits. This survey nearly Figure 1: Concern about IPv4 address exhaustion (n=876) coincided with IANA’s announcement of the allocation ofits final /8 blocks of IPv4 space to Regional InternetRegistries (RIRs). During the survey interval, the APNIC In 2011, 35 per cent of respondents expressed a hugeRIR serving the Asia/Pacific region, which received the concern and another 46 per cent indicated moderatelargest of these final allocations, had already exhausted its concern. This year’s results yielded 25 per cent and 50IPv4 address space for all intents and purposes. Results per cent response rates respectively. A view of thisof this survey understandably indicated a large jump in across industry verticals as identified by respondents isconcern about IPv6. shown in Figure 2, ranked in increasing order of low concern. As one might expect, nearly all serviceTo help determine the after-effects of these major events a providers showed at least moderate concern with onlyyear later, BT Diamond IP moved to an annual format and 11 per cent expressing low concern; but perhaps theseconducted a web-based survey on its website from April have already deployed IPv6! The other verticals23, 2012 through May 15, 2012. The survey was besides education/non-profit expressed low concern incompleted by 876 IT or Operations professionals from the upper 20’s percentage-wise.around the globe and spanning multiple industries. Thesurvey was posted on www.btdiamondip.com and From a regional perspective, respondents from Europeinvitations to participate were sent to individuals identified and Asia answered nearly identically, with about 30 peras IT and Operations professionals throughout the world. cent expressing huge concern and about 50 per cent moderate concern, which topped averages in otherAll survey responses were automatically tabulated into a regions of 18 per cent and 48 per cent respectively.survey tool. Any individual skipped questions were not Organization size also influenced responses, withincluded in tabulations. Each chart highlighting unique those from larger organizations expressing largerresponses in this report includes the number of valid concern.responses for that particular question (e.g. n=500indicates 500 responses). Percentages shown in chartsmay not equal 100 per cent due to rounding. 
  5. 5.   Figure 2: IPv4 address exhaustion across verticalsIPv6 DeploymentsEvidently concern expressed in last year’s survey manifested itself with a jump in IPv6 deployments reported this year. Thirteenper cent of survey respondents have deployed IPv6 on all or part of their networks, while only five per cent had done so in lastyear’s survey. The number of respondents also grew by nearly 50 per cent this year to 876, so that 13 per cent represents asignificant increase in deployed IPv6 networks. Another 20 per cent are engaged in the process of IPv6 implementation as ofnow and 24 per cent plan to begin deploying IPv6 within two years. So within two years time, 57 per cent of respondentsreportedly will have deployed or will be in the process of deploying IPv6. An additional 16 per cent of respondents are currentlyassessing the costs and benefits of deploying IPv6. The remaining 27 per cent have either decided not to begin deploymentwithin the next two years, feel IPv6 is unnecessary or will follow a bottom-up BYOD approach to IPv6 deployment. Figure 3: IPv6 deployment status (n=876) 
  6. 6.   Figure 4: IPv6 deployment status by yearWhile Figure 3 illustrates the percentage breakdown of responses from this year’s survey, Figure 4 provides a historicalperspective. Interestingly, not only have more deployments begun, but a decreasing percentage of respondents has notconsidered or assessed IPv6 over the years as well.It’s instructive to illustrate deployment status by vertical, region and organization size as well. Figure 5 depicts results by vertical,ordered by the sum of the top three criteria = {already deployed + in the process of deploying + will begin within two years}.Evidently, government organizations lead the way, followed by service providers, education/non-profits and finally enterprises.This is not surprising given the spate of government mandates over the last decade, and the requisite relationship between IPaddresses and subscriber revenue for service providers. Multinational enterprises lead their generally smaller, more localizedcousins, national/regional enterprises. Figure 5: IPv6 Deployment Status by Vertical 
  7. 7.     Figure 6: IPv6 Deployment Status by Region (n=738)Figure 6 shows results for IPv6 deployment status by region, ordered alphabetically. Respondents from Europe seem to be a bitahead of those in other regions, while those from Asia, North America and Middle East/Africa trail slightly. Unfortunately, thedata set for Central/South America is statistically insignificant but is shown for completeness.Figure 7 shows that the larger the organization in terms of IP addresses, employees or subscribers, the further along in IPv6deployment they are in terms of actual deployments completed, in-progress, or planned. This of course makes sense in thatthese large consumers of IP addresses would be among the earlier adopters to support their larger capacity requirements.   Figure 7: IPv6 Deployment Status by Organization Size (n=738) 
  8. 8.   Perceptions about the need for IPv6 We asked about respondents’ opinions about the value of IPv6 within their organizations and for the Internet at large. Unfortunately, some of these questions were posed in the negative sense in keeping consistent with the first 2005 survey. So some of the commentary in this section cancels out the double negative by inferring “most agreed with the affirmative” instead of the technically correct “most disagreed with the negative” format. For example more respondentsIPv6 Non-Deployments disagreed than agreed with the statements that IPv6 has value but doesWe asked those respondents who had no plans to deploy IPv6 not link to business drivers and thatwhat steps they were taking, if any, to support IPv6 IPv6 does not provide any benefits tocommunications. Responses were rather evenly split among my infrastructure or organization. Wetaking no steps, relying on Internet Service Provider (ISP) infer from this that more respondentstranslation services, implementing in-house translation services,tunneling and to a lesser degree, explicitly disallowing IPv6 agreed than disagreed that IPv6communications. provides benefits and offers business value. On the other hand, more respondents agreed with the statement that IPv6 deployment does not offer a strong enough ROI. We conclude that while respondents recognize benefits and value, these are not yet sufficient to produce a strong return on the investment required for deployment. Figure 9 illustrates the overall results regarding the need and value of IPv6. Over 60 per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that IPv6 deployment is required to communicate with IPv4 and IPv6 Internet users. Only about 18 per cent disagree or strongly disagree with this statement. As a consistency validation, the converse statement that it is not necessary to implement IPv6 yielded nearly proportional contrary Figure 8: Mitigation steps for non‐deployments  results. 
  9. 9.   Figure 9: IPv6 perceived value (n= 876) Historical perspectives on IPv6’s value from past surveys are summarized in Figure 10. The rating scale in this figure wasdevised by assigning values of one to five for strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and strongly agree respectively. Hencea value of “three” indicates a neutral average response, while above three indicates agreement and below 3 disagreement.Responses from 2011 and this year are nearly identical, but fewer respondents agreed that the ROI for IPv6 is not strongenough and that IPv6 does not link to business drivers than in 2008 or 2005.    Figure 10: Historical IPv6 perceived value 
  10. 10.  In terms of IPv6 features, Figure 11 summarizes respondents’ value ratings over this and past surveys, with a rating of fivebeing most valuable. As you can see, responses have consistently rated these attributes above neutral. In reality, security,quality-of-service and flow labels offer equivalent value in both IPv4 and IPv6, while the other attributes do offer contrasts inprotocol operation. Expanded address space is certainly a unique advantage of IPv6, while improved mobility with moreefficient routing, address autoconfiguration, efficient packet routing with fragmentation performed on the perimeter and thesimplified header structure likewise offering feature improvements. Figure 11: Historical IPv6 features ratings  
  11. 11.  IPv6 Deployment ApproachesWe asked survey participants what techniques they have used or plan to implement in support of IPv6 deployment, for serviceproviders vs. enterprise respondents. Figure 12 illustrates responses for this survey contrasted with those from last year forservice providers. Most answers appear roughly the same as last year, with the exception that segmented dual stackapproaches on the backbone only or customer-facing only, have seemingly been joined to a larger proportion of serviceproviders supporting dual stack throughout their networks. Note that multiple responses were permitted to these particularquestions about deployment techniques, which tends to level out results to some degree.   Figure 12: Service provider deployment approaches Enterprise respondents likewise favored dual stack as the deployment technique of choice as illustrated in Figure13. A largerproportion of respondents indicated constrained deployment to Internet facing servers this year than last, while fewer have noplans to deploy or to fully deploy IPv6.   Figure 13: Enterprise deployment strategies 
  12. 12.  IPv6 Deployment ObstaclesWe asked survey participants two questions regarding obstacles to deployment. The first asked about the biggest hurdle toovercome when proposing IPv6 deployment within the organization. As Figure 14 indicates, the inability to demonstrate astrong business case was the top response with 22 per cent of respondents.This top answer was actually a new choice in this year’s survey, as was the “we have overcome all hurdles” i.e., none of theabove. Figure 15 shows how responses to this question have varied over past surveys. Interestingly, there has been a steadydecrease in the obstacles of equipment upgrade cost, application conversion, network services support, training, and securityproduct availability. Evidently IPv6 awareness is growing and vendors are rolling in IPv6 support over time. Figure 14: Single biggest obstacle to IPv6 deployment (n=761)  
  13. 13.   Figure 15: Historical IPv6 deployment obstacles The second question relating to IPv6 deployment obstacles asked what would most help in convincing the organization todeploy IPv6. Results are summarized in Figure 16. The top answer was a guidebook covering deployment approaches andprocesses with coverage of address planning, IPv4-IPv6 co-existence, security and network management1. Case studiesshowing a positive ROI was next most popular, followed by a government or industry mandate, IPv4 address exhaustion itself,and case studies illustrating how IPv6 helped an organization achieve a competitive advantage. Figure 16: Most helpful in overcoming IPv6 deployment obstacles (n=761)                                                            1 Members of the BT Diamond IP team are currently working on such a book, and availability will be announced closer to publication. 
  14. 14.  IPv6 Deployment Threshold Survey DemographicsThis year we asked whether organizations considered athreshold in terms of the proportion of the Internet that was“IPv6-enabled” that would impel them to deploy IPv6 with Figure 18 summarizes survey respondent demographics.some urgency. Figure 17 reflects results, which vary widely, Geographically, 54 per cent of respondents indicated theythough most organizations either have already deployed, were from North America, 28 per cent from Europe, 14 perare deploying, or have no set threshold but will await cent from Asia, 3 per cent from Middle East/Africa and 1 perindustry and business conditions to warrant deployment. cent from Central/South America. This geographic distribution represents a shift with more respondents from Europe and Asia and fewer from other regions compared to prior years’ IPv6 surveys. . Figure 17: IPv6 density threshold for triggering deployment  (n=741)  Figure 18: Survey respondent locations (n=738) Conclusions .IPv6 has generated substantial momentum within the From a network sizing perspective, Figure 19 illustrates thatindustry with a majority of survey respondents indicating full 39 per cent of respondents each managed networks of lessor partial deployment or plans for deployment within two than 10,000 IP addresses and 30 per cent between 10,000years. There is no deadline for IPv6 deployment but the time and 100,000 addresses. Twenty-one per cent offor planning your IPv6 is now. respondents managed networks of 100,000 to one million addresses and 10 per cent managed networks larger thanFor more information about how BT can help please visit 1million addresses. This represents nearly proportionalipv6.bt.com. To learn about BT Diamond IP and IPv4-IPv6 respondents from the mid-ranges with more smalleraddress management solutions please visit organizations and fewer larger “one million plus” IP addresswww.btdiamondip.com. organizations as compared to last year’s results. Figure 19: Survey respondents’ organisation sizes (n=738) 
  15. 15.   “Internal to our network since we use private address space,Selected Verbatim Comments IPV6 is not mandatory.”To add color regarding respondents’ perspectives, thissection lists selected anonymous comments entered in “Too many companies are not taking IPV6 seriouslyvarious free form text areas of the survey: enough.”“IPv6 will be required in the future, because the use of NAT “My life (and our network) would be easier if we werewith IPv4 will not scale to enterprise levels, it will cause completely "IPV6 ready". I am tired of shuffling RFC1918performance bottlenecks. Also NAT is NOT a substitute for blocks between amalgamated business units andsecurity.” configuring NAT/PAT on our Firewalls. Most of our equipment is ready. Most of our staff isnt.”“IPv6 is not the future, anymore. It must be NOW.” “Because of our footprint in Asia, we are looking“Address management is going to be the most difficult part aggressively toward plans for IPv6.”of deployment. Unless a responsive DNS structure is inplace (one that has mechanisms to gather information about “Do it, now!”hosts on a LAN and apply some kind of naming intelligence “Dont do it, we dont need it yet.”to it), it will be a disaster.” “There is still a lot of training that is required and legacy“I believe there are unforeseen consequences with applications that need to be re-written. Also due to addressimplementing IPv6 across the board.” structure device table sizes will be impacted which could be“For years, regulators and Internet experts have warned costly.”about the exhaustion of IPv4’s limited pool of addresses. “One of the biggest overall concerns with rolling out IPV6 isBasically more new devices, platforms and services having to support parallel networks (IPv4 & v6) and theincorporate support for IPv6, but so far mass migration has added load & security risks/threats that potentially doublesbeen delayed. The lack of public understanding and general the effort/workload on infrastructure & human resources.”fears of the difficulty and complexity of the migration will addto the slow pace of IPv6’s adoption.” “My organization has a fully functional IPv6 network. We wish some of the IPv6 tools were mature...or even available.“IPv6 is a necessity on Internet facing services in the short But we have been running for nearly two years with no realterm. In the long term I see network equipment vendors trouble.”reducing feature support for IPv4 as they focus on IPv6 fornew products. This will make a full transition to IPv6 pretty “IPv6 is highly dependent on who a companys clients andmuch mandatory to stay current with vendor support.” partners are.”“IPv6 has been "two years away" for over 10 years. The “We have a need to implement IPV6 for Internet facinginfrastructure challenges IPv6 would have solved elegantly servers primarily. We must be able to support access forfor my company have been solved through necessity on students and faculty from International and Mobile sourcesIPv4. We will deploy IPv6 for our public facing services which have a business requirement to access us.”when there is customer demand.” “Inside the Enterprise, nothing is mature enough yet. It is “As a protocol IPv6 is fine. The problem is that all the other Y2K level of work with no justification.”tools and infrastructure requirements arent quite there yet.” “Researching IPv6 for internal data center use initially to get“Critical business need is to support access to our public- experience and then consider expanding.”facing websites from external, IPv6-only clients, prospects, “Deployment will be a multiyear project in largeetc.” organizations. We will focus on everything publicly facing,“IPv6 is inevitable - the question is when will it obtain the with plans for deployment this year. Deployment in thecritical mass necessary to overcome inertia and resistance organisation will take years, due to dependencies on IPv4to change.” for a lot of peripherals, and the desire to keep the period to maintain a dual stack infrastructure as short as possible.”“No business drivers is what keeps getting thrown back atus. We have done nothing other than some rudimentary “Migration-Plan: IPv4 -> establishing an internal translationtesting and this is by our mainframe networking guys!” service -> IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack beginning at internet edge - > establishing an internet-service translation service ->“Seems to me that a lot of people do not realize the need unconfiguring IPv4 internal”and impact when ipv4 runs out. For many organizations ipv6will never have a ROI.” “Windows7 and Server 2008 natively speak IPv6 and when you run it over an IPv4 everything gets tunneled and you“IPv6 is like taxes and death. You cannot avoid it.” loose visibility and control.”“IPv6 requires specific aspects not only to IPv6 addressing “Management supports external-facing Internetand IPv6 address allocation, as your survey might suggest. infrastructure. Expending funds for internal-onlyIt also requires IPv6 DNS, Domain registration, routing implementations would require additional businessprocesses, coexistence IPv4<->IPV6 on all layers, etc. To justification.”implement this kind of things is one side of the story; tooperate such an environment is a very big challenge at the “I do not see IPv6 replacing IPv4 with NAT in small toend of the day.” medium sized businesses in the foreseeable future.”“Think business RISK” “The faster it happens, the better for the world.” 
  16. 16.  Offices worldwideThe services described in this publication are subject to availabilityand may be modified from time to time. Services and equipmentare provided subject to British Telecommunications plc’srespective standard conditions of contract. Nothing in thispublication forms any part of any contract.British Telecommunications plc 2012.Registered office: 81 Newgate Street, London EC1A 7AJRegistered in England No: 1800000