<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">

<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc toc="yes" ?>

 
<rfc category="info" ipr="pre5378Trust200902" docName="<draft-vyncke-vdv-v6ops-conf-stats-01.txt>">

<front>

<title abbrev="IPv6 Conference Deployment and Statistics">
IPv6 Deployment and Statistics at a Conference
</title>

     <author initials="E" surname="Vyncke" fullname="Eric Vyncke">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>De Kleetlaan 6a</street>
          <city>Diegem</city>
          <country>Belgium</country>
          <code>1831</code>
        </postal>
        <phone>+32 2 778 4677</phone>
        <email>evyncke@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

     <author initials="G." surname="Van de Velde" fullname="Gunter Van de Velde">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>De Kleetlaan 6a</street>
          <city>Diegem</city>
          <country>Belgium</country>
          <code>1831</code>
        </postal>
        <phone>+32 2704 5473</phone>
        <email>gunter@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>


<date day="8" month="March" year="2009"></date>
<workgroup>v6ops Working Group</workgroup>
<keyword>I-D</keyword>
<keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
<keyword>IPv6</keyword>
<keyword>Traffic statistics</keyword>


<abstract>

  <t>
  During the Cisco <xref target="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 <xref target="Google" /> and Tata-Communications <xref target="Tata" />.
  </t>

</abstract>

</front>

<middle>

<section title="Introduction">
  
  <t>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..). 
  </t>

  <t>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.
  </t>

  <t>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.
  </t>

  <t>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.
  </t>  

</section>

<section title="Conference Topology Summary">
  
  <t>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.
  </t>

  <t>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 from IPv6: on the same topology (4 wireless LAN), there was both a
  4 IPv4 subnets and a single IPv6 subnet. 
  </t>
 
  <t>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.
  </t>

  <t>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/.
  </t>

  <t>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 
  <xref target="HTTP-64AWARE" /> technique
  was also used to force stations to bypass the address selection policy and use IPv6.
  </t>
  
  <t>The Following applications were used as supporting infrastructure: (1) MRTG (SNMP poll) <xref target="MRTG" />, 
  (2) NFsen (supporting Netflow v9 with IPv6 support) <xref target="NFSen" />, (3) NDPMON (to monitor ND activities) <xref target="NDPMON" />, 
  (4) RAMOND (to monitor RA activities) <xref target="RAMOND" />, DHCPv6 Server (Cisco IOS DHCPv6 Server).
  </t>


</section>


<section title="Testing Steps and Procedure">

  <list style="symbols">
   <t>Monday 26th of January 9:00: the MRTG & Netflow collector are connected to the Network;</t>
   <t>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)</t>
   <t>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</t>
   <t>Wednesday 28th 16:00, Router Advertisements include the M-flag for a few minutes;</t>
   <t>Thursday 29th 9:0, RA includes the M-flag all day;</t>
   <t>Thursday 29th 14:00, RA prefix is advertised with a calendar lifetime to 16:15;</t>
   <t>Thursday 29th 16:15, no more IPv6 traffic (thanks to RA prefix expiration), the router & collector are removed from the site;</t>
  </list>


</section>

<section title="Statistics">
  
 <section title="Round-Trip Time">

  <t>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?).
  </t>
  
  <t>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.
  </t>
 </section>

 <section title="Stats for IPv6 Traffic to the Internet">

  <t>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.
  </t>

  <t>Monday the inbound 
  traffic (Internet to the conference) was around 100kbps, Tuesday 400kbps, Wednesday 1.5Mbps and Thursday also around 1.5 Mbps.
  </t>

  <t>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.
  </t>

 </section>


 <section title="IPv6 DHCP Clients">

  <t>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 majority of the
  laptops were running Microsoft Windows XP or Vista.
  </t>

 </section>

 <section title="IPv6 Neighbours">

  <t>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.
  </t>

  <t>A couple of interesting observations:
  <list style="symbols">
  <t>the number of IPv6 neighbors grew on 
  every single day during the conference, with a high peak on Wednesday 28th January. 
  </t>
  <t>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. 
  </t>
  <t>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. 
  </t>
  </list>
  </t>


 </section>

  <section title="DNS Requests">
  <t>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.
  </t>
  </section>

  <section title="Web Server Access">
  <t>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).
  <list style="symbols">
	<t>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)
	</t>
	<t>IPv4-only visitors: 70 Microsoft Windows XP, 13 Apple Mac OS/X, 9 Windows Vista and
	25 *nic
	</t>
  </list>
  </t>
  </section>
  
  <section title="Netflow Information">
  <t>Based on Netflow information, some data-points were collected over the 4 days:
  <list style="symbols">
  <t>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 8.7 millions.
  </t>
  <t>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.
  </t>
  <t>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).
  </t>
  </list>
  </t>
  </section>

  <section title="Security">
  <t>RAMOND and NDPMON detected not a single attack against the Neighbor Discovery Protocol.
  </t>
  </section>  
</section>


<section title="Areas for Improvements">
  <t>A couple of areas for improvement have been identified after the experiment:
  <list style="symbols">
    <t>Compare the Netflow information for IPv4 and IPv6.</t>
	<t>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...</t>
  </list>
  </t>
</section>


<section title="IANA Considerations">


   <t>There are no extra IANA consideration for this document.
   </t>

</section>

<section title="Security Considerations">

   
   <t>There are no extra Security consideration for this document.   
   </t> 

</section>

<section title="Acknowledgements">

  <t>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.
  </t>

</section>

</middle>

<!-- =============================================================== -->

<back>

<references title='Normative References'>

</references>

<references title='Informative References'>

      <reference anchor="Tata">
        <front>
          <title>Tata Communications (http://www.tatacommunications.com/)</title>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="Google">
        <front>
          <title>Google (http://www.google.com/)</title>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="Cisco">
        <front>
          <title>Cisco Systems (http://www.cisco.com)</title>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="MRTG">
        <front>
          <title>The Multi Router Traffic Grapher (http://oss.oetiker.ch/mrtg/)</title>
          <author initials="Tobi" surname="Oetiker"></author>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="NFSen">
        <front>
          <title>NfSen - Netflow Sensor (http://nfsen.sourceforge.net/)</title>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="NDPMON">
        <front>
          <title>NDPMon - IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Protocol Monitor (http://ndpmon.sourceforge.net/)</title>
        </front>
      </reference>

      <reference anchor="RAMOND">
        <front>
          <title>RAMOND (http://ramond.sourceforge.net/), University of Southampton</title>
          <author initials="James" surname="Morse">
          </author>
        </front>
      </reference>
	  
	  <reference anchor="HTTP-64AWARE"
                 target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vyncke-http-server-64aware-00.txt">
        <front>
          <title>IPv6 Connectivity Check and Redirection by HTTP Servers</title>
          <author initials="E" surname="Vyncke"></author>
          <date year="2008" />
        </front>
      </reference>

</references>

</back>

</rfc>


