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, . 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, . [RFC9386] Fioccola, G., Volpato, P., Palet Martinez, J., Mishra, G., and C. Xie, "IPv6 Deployment Status", RFC 9386, DOI 10.17487/RFC9386, April 2023, . 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]