v6ops Working Group                                            E. Vyncke
Internet-Draft                                           G. Van de Velde
Intended status: Informational                             Cisco Systems
Expires: September 9, 2009                                 March 8, 2009


             IPv6 Deployment and Statistics at a Conference
               <draft-vyncke-vdv-v6ops-conf-stats-01.txt>

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.  This document may contain material
   from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
   available before November 10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the
   copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
   Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
   IETF Standards Process.  Without obtaining an adequate license from
   the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
   document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
   derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
   Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
   translate it into languages other than English.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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



Vyncke & Van de Velde   Expires September 9, 2009               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft  IPv6 Conference Deployment and Statistics     March 2009


   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

Abstract

   During the Cisco [Cisco] European networkers Conference 2009 that ran
   from 26th to 29th January in Barcelona native IPv6 was added to the
   traditional IPv4 infrastructure.  During this conference the 3500
   attendees had dual stack access to both IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously.
   The goal of this IPv6 deployment project was to gather usage
   statistics in a situation where the end-user just wants to access
   his/her enterprise VPN or simply get onto the Internet.  The
   collected statistics are not only useful per se but this document
   presents easy ways to measure the quality of the IPv6 connectivity
   offered on such events.  In essence the users were not conducting
   IPv6 technology tests, but were just using Internet services.  The
   statistics collected give some pieces of information on the size and
   impact of IPv6 onto the normal userbase and will also derive the
   importance of IPv6 onto the infrastructiure and end-user operating
   systems and firewall technologies.  The experiment ran in
   collaboration with Google [Google] and Tata-Communications [Tata].




























Vyncke & Van de Velde   Expires September 9, 2009               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft  IPv6 Conference Deployment and Statistics     March 2009


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   2.  Conference Topology Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3.  Testing Steps and Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.  Statistics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     4.1.  Round-Trip Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     4.2.  Stats for IPv6 Traffic to the Internet  . . . . . . . . . . 6
     4.3.  IPv6 DHCP Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     4.4.  IPv6 Neighbours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     4.5.  DNS Requests  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     4.6.  Web Server Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     4.7.  Netflow Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     4.8.  Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   5.  Areas for Improvements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9





























Vyncke & Van de Velde   Expires September 9, 2009               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft  IPv6 Conference Deployment and Statistics     March 2009


1.  Introduction

   Traditionally there is at this conference in Europe about 3500
   attendees.  The nature of the attendees is technical with a heavy
   focus on networkes and 90% will have a laptop but will not use them
   all the time (lack of time and lack of electrical power).  The main
   elements the attendees expect from the network infrastructure is that
   its stable and easy accessible.  The attendees use the network
   Infrastructure to access their enterprise network via a VPN and
   Internet content (hotels, restaurants, email, etc..).

   During the conference, about 10% of the users were made aware at the
   IPv6 session slots that IPv6 connectivity was available in native
   dual stack, however, the vast majority did not make special efforts
   to run IPv6 or even enable IPv6 on their end-user PC's.

   The experiment was run in three steps: (1) Networkers infrastructure
   was enabled for dual stack, (2) The local DNS server was white-listed
   by Google as content provider to give AAAA records for Google content
   and (3) the Router Advertisements were set to ask the users to use
   DHCPv6 for address configuration (M-flag) instead of IPv6 Stateless
   Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC).  Each of the steps was run with a
   lenght of 24 hours.

   This paper gives a summary insight in the statistics and the topology
   used for the IPv6 connectivity during each step.  It also reports
   that everything kept working as expected and that the end-users were
   not aware they were using IPv6 as a foundation communication protocol
   in addition to IPv4: it was completely transparent for them.


2.  Conference Topology Summary

   The Network infrastructure at Cisco European Networkers conference is
   deployed in a four-storey building.  For each floor has a dedicated
   routed IPv4 subnet available with a dedicated number of RFC 1918 IPv4
   addresses.  These addresses are translated at the edge of the network
   from private into a public address by a Network Address Translator.
   The wireless Access Points do also have smart services installed
   including end-system security (captive portal) and inter-AP roaming
   capability.

   For the IPv6 infrastructure, it was selected to create a single
   Layer-2 domain for the full Networkers conference spanning all 4
   floors.  In contrast, the number of stations per floor is not an
   issue with an IPv6 /64 subnet.  This made the IPv6 deployment more
   simpler, eventhough it was needed to add some Ethernet protocol type
   filtering in place at the layer 2 of the OSI layer to separate IPv4



Vyncke & Van de Velde   Expires September 9, 2009               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft  IPv6 Conference Deployment and Statistics     March 2009


   from IPv6: on the same topology (4 wireless LAN), there was both a 4
   IPv4 subnets and a single IPv6 subnet.

   At the edge of network, an IPv6 router provided IPv6 connectivity
   through an IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel to Tata Communication POP in Paris.
   Note: initially we were planning for a real native dual-stack
   connectivity over the local loop, but it appeared a too costly option
   when only a very small incremental budget is available (like almost 0
   USD incremental cost).  It was because of the kind sponsorship of
   Tata Communications that IPv6 was made available at zero incremental
   cost involved towards the conference leadership.

   To gather statistics from the deployment Netflow v9 and SNMP were
   used as well as regular shell access to network equipments.  For the
   management, an old laptop was used running a Linux distribution.  The
   statistics and traffic data from the event can be found
   http://www.cisconetworkers6.com/.  A graphical representation of the
   topology can be found at http://www.cisconetworkers6.com/network/.

   The same Linux laptop run a DNS server and was offering the
   statistics over HTTP access.  All HTTP accesses were logged including
   the User-Agent header in order to collect statistics about the
   browser and the operating system.  The HTTP 64 aware [HTTP-64AWARE]
   technique was also used to force stations to bypass the address
   selection policy and use IPv6.

   The Following applications were used as supporting infrastructure:
   (1) MRTG (SNMP poll) [MRTG], (2) NFsen (supporting Netflow v9 with
   IPv6 support) [NFSen], (3) NDPMON (to monitor ND activities)
   [NDPMON], (4) RAMOND (to monitor RA activities) [RAMOND], DHCPv6
   Server (Cisco IOS DHCPv6 Server).


3.  Testing Steps and Procedure
   o  Monday 26th of January 9:00: the MRTG & Netflow collector are
      connected to the Network;
   o  Tuesday 27th in the late afternoon, Google applies the DNS-trick
      and starts serving A & AAAA to all laptops using the local DNS
      server (only announced over DHCPv6)
   o  Wednesday 28th in the morning, the local DHCPv4 also serves a
      Google-trick-enabled DNS servers to all DHCPv4 clients, i.e., all
      laptops actually received the A and AAAA for Google
   o  Wednesday 28th 16:00, Router Advertisements include the M-flag for
      a few minutes;
   o  Thursday 29th 9:0, RA includes the M-flag all day;
   o  Thursday 29th 14:00, RA prefix is advertised with a calendar
      lifetime to 16:15;




Vyncke & Van de Velde   Expires September 9, 2009               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft  IPv6 Conference Deployment and Statistics     March 2009


   o  Thursday 29th 16:15, no more IPv6 traffic (thanks to RA prefix
      expiration), the router & collector are removed from the site;


4.  Statistics

4.1.  Round-Trip Time

   The RTT was measured with ICMP echo requests & replies to
   www.google.com and www.6net.org over IPv6.  In general the time to
   google remained constant from the conference (65 msec), while the RTT
   to 6net was lower 50% until the AAAA to Google was enabled
   (potentially due to higher IPv6 traffic load?).

   The RTT to Google was also measured over IPv4 (average 64 msec, peak
   218 msec) and IPv6 (average 65 msec, peak 72 msec).  The use of a
   6-in-4 tunnel was not really impacting the latency to access Google
   if we assume that ICMP is a good measurement methodology.

4.2.  Stats for IPv6 Traffic to the Internet

   What can be seen in the graphs at
   http://www.cisconetworkers6.com/mrtg/tunnel.html for the 6-in-4
   tunnel is that there was a continuous growth in IPv6 traffic.  There
   was many less people on Monday than on the rest of the week due to
   the conference organization and agenda.

   Monday the inbound traffic (Internet to the conference) was around
   100kbps, Tuesday 400kbps, Wednesday 1.5Mbps and Thursday also around
   1.5 Mbps.

   Outbound (conference to the Internet) can be seen for the 6-in-4
   tunnel; there was also ongoing growth in IPv6 traffic.  Monday the
   traffic was low and around 10kbps, Tuesday 50kbps, Wednesday 100kbps
   and Thursday also around 100kbps.

4.3.  IPv6 DHCP Clients

   Details to be found at
   http://www.cisconetworkers6.com/mrtg/dhcpv6.html.  From day 1, the
   Cisco IOS router was configured as a DHCPv6 IA server.  However, only
   from Wednesday onwards, the M-bit was set in the Router
   Advertisements.  This setting had a very interresting result because
   it made the number of DHCPv6 assigned addresses grow from 4 to a
   total 151 systems using DHCPv6 IPv6 address allocation.  This is a
   clear indication that there were only 4 laptops with a IPv6 stack
   always trying to use statefull DHCPv6 while the vast majority of the
   laptops were only using RA for SLAAC.  It can be assumed that the



Vyncke & Van de Velde   Expires September 9, 2009               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft  IPv6 Conference Deployment and Statistics     March 2009


   majority of the laptops were running Microsoft Windows XP or Vista.

4.4.  IPv6 Neighbours

   Details regarding the amount of IPv6 neighbors of the router can be
   found at http://www.cisconetworkers6.com/mrtg/neighbours.html.  The
   neighbors were split in two categories based on the IPv6 address:
   link-local or global addresses.

   A couple of interesting observations:
   o  the number of IPv6 neighbors grew on every single day during the
      conference, with a high peak on Wednesday 28th January.
   o  many systems had IPv6 enabled (555 stations) as seen by the Link-
      local neighborships, however at maximum 358 were actually using
      IPv6 to access the Internet.
   o  the number of link-local neighbors was similar on all days (except
      on Monday because there were less attendees).  But, the number of
      global address neighbors changed dramatically on Wednesday morning
      when the AAAA for Google was served: it doubled from 180 to 358.

4.5.  DNS Requests

   The traffic of DNS requests was also measured: 6 DNS requests/sec
   over IPv4 and 2 DNS requets/sec over IPv6.  This is probably linked
   to the OS used on the laptops where the majority was probably Windows
   XP which only use IPv4 for DNS access.

4.6.  Web Server Access

   In order to collect operating system information of the attendees, a
   challenge was announced in order to attract users on a dual-stack web
   server.  Based on the number of attendees and the number of IPv6
   neighbors, it is clear that the number of visitors (about 100) was
   only a small parts of the local IPv6 hosts (about 555) or even
   attendees (about 3,500).
   o  IPv6-enabled visitors: 20 *nix, 20 Microsoft Windows XP, 16
      Microsoft Windows CE (smart-phones), 16 Apple Mac OS/X, 13
      Microsoft Windows Vista, 6 Symbian (smart-phones)
   o  IPv4-only visitors: 70 Microsoft Windows XP, 13 Apple Mac OS/X, 9
      Windows Vista and 25 *nic

4.7.  Netflow Information

   Based on Netflow information, some data-points were collected over
   the 4 days:
   o  The IPv6 protocols: 84% for TCP, 10% for ICMPv6, the rest (7%) for
      UDP.  There were also a very small amount of IPv6 datagrams with
      59 (No Next Header for IPv6): 73 packets on a total of more than



Vyncke & Van de Velde   Expires September 9, 2009               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft  IPv6 Conference Deployment and Statistics     March 2009


      8.7 millions.
   o  The layer-4 ports: 31% for NNTP, 30% for HTTP, 11% for SSH, 5% for
      HTTPS, 3% for DNS.  The rest was not clearly identified.  This may
      not be statiscally significant, but, the HTTP traffic went from
      22% to 42% as soon as the AAAA for Google was served.
   o  The Internet hosts: 31% for 2001:888::119 (newszilla6.xs4all.nl),
      7% for 2001:4860:0:1001::68 (Google), 5% for 2001:4860:0:1001::53
      (Google), 5% for a site in the .NO domain, 5% for a site in the
      .SE domain, 2% for a site in a .CZ domain (as the addresses seem
      to relate to a non-public site, the authors preferred to keep
      those addresses non-public as well).

4.8.  Security

   RAMOND and NDPMON detected not a single attack against the Neighbor
   Discovery Protocol.


5.  Areas for Improvements

   A couple of areas for improvement have been identified after the
   experiment:
   o  Compare the Netflow information for IPv4 and IPv6.
   o  Collect information about all the operating systems (both IPv4 and
      IPv6), this could be done by sniffing the HTTP traffic and
      collecting the User-Agent.  This measurement will probably require
      some legal advice in some countries...


6.  IANA Considerations

   There are no extra IANA consideration for this document.


7.  Security Considerations

   There are no extra Security consideration for this document.


8.  Acknowledgements

   Many thanks go to Tata Communications and Yves Poppe for the
   sponsorship of the IPv6 Connectivity.  We would also like to thank
   Erik Kline and Lorenzo Colitti from Google to have supported the
   deployment to enable AAAA DNS records for the Networkers Conference.
   All of this experimenting would not of been possible without the help
   from Cisco Networkers NOC team under leadership of Andy Phillips.




Vyncke & Van de Velde   Expires September 9, 2009               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft  IPv6 Conference Deployment and Statistics     March 2009


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

9.2.  Informative References

   [Tata]     "Tata Communications
              (http://www.tatacommunications.com/)".

   [Google]   "Google (http://www.google.com/)".

   [Cisco]    "Cisco Systems (http://www.cisco.com)".

   [MRTG]     Oetiker, Tobi., "The Multi Router Traffic Grapher
              (http://oss.oetiker.ch/mrtg/)".

   [NFSen]    "NfSen - Netflow Sensor (http://nfsen.sourceforge.net/)".

   [NDPMON]   "NDPMon - IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Protocol Monitor
              (http://ndpmon.sourceforge.net/)".

   [RAMOND]   Morse, James., "RAMOND (http://ramond.sourceforge.net/),
              University of Southampton".

   [HTTP-64AWARE]
              Vyncke, E., "IPv6 Connectivity Check and Redirection by
              HTTP Servers", 2008, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
              draft-vyncke-http-server-64aware-00.txt>.


Authors' Addresses

   Eric Vyncke
   Cisco Systems
   De Kleetlaan 6a
   Diegem  1831
   Belgium

   Phone: +32 2 778 4677
   Email: evyncke@cisco.com











Vyncke & Van de Velde   Expires September 9, 2009               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft  IPv6 Conference Deployment and Statistics     March 2009


   Gunter Van de Velde
   Cisco Systems
   De Kleetlaan 6a
   Diegem  1831
   Belgium

   Phone: +32 2704 5473
   Email: gunter@cisco.com











































Vyncke & Van de Velde   Expires September 9, 2009              [Page 10]