Global IPv6 Summit Presentation by Paul Wilson - Global Deployment or Digital Divide

1. IPv6: Global Deployment
or Digital Divide?
2014 Global IPv6 Summit and 23rd TWNIC IP OPM
Taipei
5 Nov 2014

2. The Digital Divide today...
http://newsroom.cisco.com/release/1197391/, http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats3.htm#asia, http://www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.html
2
2.9 billion
Internet users
World population
6.2 billion
3.3 billion not
connected 1.33 billion in Asia
+30 % from 2013

3. 3
TW

4. Two Mobile Revolutions…
• 1990s: mobile voice explosion
– Few wires available (copper)
– New wireless technology (analogue mobile)
– New consumer technology (cellphones)
– Pent up demand (global telephony)
• 2010s: mobile broadband explosion
– Few wires available (copper/fibre)
– New wireless technology (3G/4G)
– New consumer technology (smart phones)
– Pent up demand (global Internet)
4

5. 5
TW

6. Real wireless broadband…
• 2000s: GPRS/3G
– Limited devices: WAP, basic services
– 100-1000kbps or so
– IP over voice network (IPv4)
– Single user
• 2010s: 4G/LTE
– General purpose devices: full Internet access
– 1-100Mbps
– IP-based infrastructure (IPv4 and IPv6)
– Multiple user (hotspots, Mifi, etc)
– The new last mile
• Watch out for: Carrier wifi, “Wifi First”
6

7. 7
TW

8. Wireless generations…
http://www.gsmamobileeconomy.com/GSMA%20Mobile%20Economy%202013.pdf
8

9. Data for Taiwan: mobile stats
http://www.slideshare.net/wearesocialsg/social-digital-mobile-in-apac
9

10. Not “If” but “How” we will connect…
• The last mile…
– Not wired
– but wireless
• Wireless…
– Not 3G
– but 4G and carrier wifi (same device!)
– And everything over IP (LTE)
• Which IP?
– IPv4 or IPv6?

11. 100 million IPv4 addresses left…
http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/

12. Private addresses and NAT
Internet
202.12.29.32
NAT
10.0.0.202
?
Extn 202
Phone
Network
02 6262 9898
PABX

13. Carrier Grade NAT (CGN)
10.0.0.202
ISP
NAT

14. Carrier Grade NAT (CGN)
10.0.0.202
ISP
CGN
10.0.0.1 10.255.255.255
?

15. NAT Session Requirements
Shin Miyakawa, NTT, 2011

16. NAT Overload
Shin Miyakawa, NTT, 2011

17. CGN Challenges
17
1TB per 1K subs per month!
Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. 2012

18. NAT
10.2.0.1 ?
192.168.0.1 192.168.0.10
It gets worse…
Internet
202.12.29.32
CGN
10.0.0.1 10.1.255.255
??

19. Double NAT everywhere?
Internet
CGN
!!!
NAT
“Things”

20. Please, No!
It has to be IPv6!
…and finally the signs are good

21. But how is deployment going?
• This varies around the world in terms of…
– Address deployment
• Have the networks got addresses?
– Routing deployment
• Do they show in the routing table?
– Traffic
• Are the routes being used?
– User capability and usefulness
• Can end-users use IPv6 and access content?
• And these are business decisions.

22. IPv6 delegations in AP region
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
CN
JP
AU
KR
TW
IN
HK
NZ
ID
SG
MY
BD
TH
PH
PK
KH
NP
VN
LK
MN
AF
FJ
NC
LA
PG
GU
MM
BN
MO
BT
PF
MV
SB
TL
TO
VU
WS
AP
AS
CK
DE
FM
KI
MH
NL
NR
PW
TK
TV
US
NF
NU
22
Source: APNIC
TW

23. IPv6 routing – vs IPv4
IPv4
BGP
IPv6
BGP
IPv4
ASNs
IPv6
ASNs
Source: APNIC Labs

24. IPv6 readiness in core transit providers
http://6lab.cisco.com/stats/cible.php?country=world&option=network, as of 27/10/220414)

26. IPv6 traffic at Google
Source:https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

27. IPv6 “usefulness”
https://eggert.org/meter/ipv6
27

28. IPv6 user capability (APNIC Labs)
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
USA
Singapore
France
Switzerland
Malaysia
Germany
Japan
Belgium
World
Taiwan
Jan/12 Jul/12 Jan/13 Jul/13 Jan/14 Jul/14

29. Top ASN – Global
CC ASN Description capable % pref %
US 6621 Hughes Network Systems 71.96 71.70
BE 12392 Brutele SC 60.73 57.84
DE 15943 wilhelm.tel GmbH Norderstedt 58.80 54.58
NL 3265 XS4ALL Internet BV 56.62 53.76
BE 6848 Telenet N.V. 55.49 52.18
US 22394 Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless 45.70 43.12
JP 18126 Chubu Telecommunications Company, Inc. 41.42 37.27
CN 7497 Computer Network Information Center 38.73 36.22
DE 31334 Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb und Service GmbH 38.13 35.89
JP 2516 KDDI CORPORATION 37.67 35.15
TH 133042 Office of the basic education commission 34.03 28.09

30. USA
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
% IPv6 Capable
Date
9 %

31. Comcast (USA)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
% IPv6 Capable
Date
23 %

32. T-Mobile (USA)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
% IPv6 Capable
Date
28 %

33. Verizon (USA)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
% IPv6 Capable
Date
44 %

34. Japan
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
% IPv6 Capable
Date
6 %

35. KDDI (JP)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
% IPv6 Capable
Date
35 %

36. Chubu (JP)
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
% IPv6 Capable
Date
38 %

37. Germany
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
% IPv6 Capable
Date
12 %

38. Belgium
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
% IPv6 Capable
Date
30 %

39. Taiwan…
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
% IPv6 Capable
Date
1.00 %

40. Taiwan IPv6 leaderboard
40

41. IPv6 and Mobile
41

42. IPv6 in mobile networks
• 3G+ and 4G (LTE, TD-LTE): Services on voice, messaging
and data are converging on IP-based services
• Rapidly increasing global 3G+ and 4G deployment
– Some mobile network operators already deployed IPv6
42
Verizon T-Mobile

43. Mobile Case Studies
• The business competency of mobile network operators:
– Shifting from being a traditional voice and messaging provider to
mobile broadband service provider to ISP
– Services on voice, messaging and data are converging on IP based
services
– Rapidly increasing LTE deployment in the region
• Decision makers’ (mobile network operators) view
– Ready to move to Voice over LTE?
– Mobile cloud computing on top of the LTE network?
– What are key building blocks for all-IP strategy?
http://lteconference.wordpress.com/
43

44. Case Study: T-Mobile USA
• Lack of IPv4 address space combined with rapid growth in
“always-on” devices prompted a re-think on IP addressing
strategy in late 2009
– IPv4 does not fit the business need
– IPv6 deployment in 3GPP is easy
• Feasibility study and impact assessment on IPv6 deployment
took about 9 months
• T-Mobile USA started an IPv6 friendly user trial in 2010 on their
2G/3G/HSPA network
– Currently settled with IPv6-only + 464XLAT transition technology to make
everything work with IPv6-only
• T-Mobile USA did not spend any CAPEX to deploy IPv6
• Introduction feature to handsets is a slow and careful process
http://conference.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/58870/tmo-ipv6-feb-2013_1361827441.pdf
44

45. Case Study: T-Mobile USA
• Android 4.3 introduced support for 464XLAT in Oct 2013
• T-Mobile US launched 5 Android phones with 464XLAT as
the default in Oct 2013
– All Android 4.3+ smartphones will be 464XLAT in the future at T-Mobile
USA
– This means end users will be assigned with IPv6 as a default – no
IPv4 addresses will be assigned
• Result of the above operation
– 3.6 million unique IPv6 subscribers are active on the network
after five months (as of Feb 2014)
– Over 50% of IPv6 user traffic is end-to-end IPv6
– No complicated IPv6 to IPv4 or IPv4 to IPv6 translation needed
– This saves CAPEX and OPEX and makes the network simpler
https://conference.apnic.net/data/37/464xlat-apricot-2014_1393236641.pdf
https://conference.apnic.net/data/37/v6lessonstmo_1393297978.pdf
45

46. Case Study: T-Mobile USA
• Did not spend any CAPEX to deploy IPv6
• Introduction feature to handsets
– A slow and careful process
• Android 4.3 introduced support for 464XLAT in Oct 2013
• Launched 5 Android phones with 464XLAT as the default in
Oct 2013
– All Android 4.3+ smartphones will be 464XLAT in the future at T-Mobile
USA
– End users will be assigned with IPv6 as a default
– No IPv4 addresses will be assigned
https://conference.apnic.net/data/37/464xlat-apricot-2014_1393236641.pdf
https://conference.apnic.net/data/37/v6lessonstmo_1393297978.pdf
46

47. Case Study: T-Mobile USA
• Result of the above operation
– 3.6 million unique IPv6 subscribers are active on the network after
five months (as of Feb 2014)
– Over 50% of IPv6 user traffic is end-to-end IPv6
– No complicated IPv6 to IPv4 or IPv4 to IPv6 translation needed
– This saves CAPEX and OPEX and makes the network simpler
https://conference.apnic.net/data/37/464xlat-apricot-2014_1393236641.pdf
https://conference.apnic.net/data/37/v6lessonstmo_1393297978.pdf
47

48. TW and TWNIC’s efforts
48

49. Taiwan government’s efforts
• “IPv6 Upgrade Promotion Program” lead by Ministry of
Transportation and Communications
– 2012 – 2013: Enable dual stack among 50% of public network
services (Web, DNS, email)
– 2014 – 2015: Enable dual stack the remaining public network
services
– Monitoring IPv6 deployment status in Taiwan
– TWNIC’s active engagement
• APNIC hopes to support and collaborate with TW
49

50. TWNIC’s efforts
• IPv6 Readiness Measurement BoF lead by TWNIC
– http://www.ap-v6readiness.org
– Mailing List: ap-v6readiness@ap-v6readiness.org
• Open to anyone to join
• http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/ap-v6readiness/
– To gather information on how to measure IPv6 readiness
– To encourage developing standardized IPv6 readiness measurement
among the AP Internet community
– To provide an important reference to governments and industry in the
AP region
• Co-hosted meetings with APIPv6TF at every APRICOT and
APNIC conferences since 2013
• APNIC supports TWNIC’s efforts
– Hosting the website and ML
50

51. IPv6 @ APNIC

52. www.apnic.net/ipv6
52

53. www.apnic.net/ipv6
53

54. You’re invited!
• http://conference.apnic.net
54

55. Conclusion

56. In conclusion…
• The wireless last mile is here
– Watch the developing countries
– Voice: 1990s ➡ Broadband: 2010s
• “Real” wireless broadband is here
– GPRS ➡ 3G ➡ 4G ➡ … and wifi
• IP everywhere – here and now
– IPv4 or IPv6? The choice is yours
• A new digital divide?
– A smart choice vs no choice and delay and cost
– Plan now and deploy, or pay later
56

57. THANK YOU
Paul Wilson
dg@apnic.net
@apnicdg
http://www.apnic.net