[151929] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CAIDA's 2012 IPv6 survey -- need network operators to fill out
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Amogh Dhamdhere)
Wed Apr 4 18:42:04 2012
From: Amogh Dhamdhere <amogh@cc.gatech.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20120313215614.GA39216@caida.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 15:41:19 -0700
To: k claffy <kc@caida.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hello folks,=20
Thanks much to those of you who already completed our IPv6 deployment =
survey. We forgot to mention in the first email (though it's on the =
survey URL) that we are offering a free iPad to a randomly chosen survey =
respondent. Hopefully this is an additional incentive for more of you to =
fill out the survey :)=20
The survey URL once again: =
http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/749797/ipv6survey
We will keep the survey open until April 20, 2012. Please let us know if =
you have questions/comments, or if you can chat with us for follow-up =
questions outside the survey.=20
Thanks,
Amogh, kc, Emile
On Mar 13, 2012, at 2:56 PM, k claffy wrote:
>=20
>=20
> [direct link to IPv6 operational deployment [plans] survey=20
> if you don't need background:
> http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/749797/ipv6survey
> ]
>=20
> hello folks,
>=20
> we're trying to do some quantitative modeling of =
=20
> the IPv4->IPv6 transition, including the impact of =
=20
> IPv4 markets on likely future trajectories, but =
=20
> really need some empirical data to parametrize our model. =
=20
> with much help from many patient reviewers of the questions,
> we finally have a survey ready for operators to fill out.
>=20
> below i'll give an extremely terse description of the model
> just to give you an idea of why we need this granularity.
> there are another 10 dense pages describing the model pending=20
> peer review at NSF, which i can send to anyone interested in=20
> giving us feedback on it. but it's not necessary for=20
> responding to the survey. also note the checkbox to=20
> indicate you're amenable to further followup questions.
> survey will be available till 12 april 2012.
> (or tell us if you want to fill it out but need more time.)
>=20
> survey link, again:
> http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/749797/ipv6survey
>=20
> thanks much,
> k, amogh, emile
>=20
> ------------------------------
>=20
> Most prior work on modeling the adoption of new technologies assumed a
> binary decision at the organization level -- in the context of
> IPv6, this decision means switching completely to IPv6 or not at
> all. We propose to account for the fact that an organization may
> deploy IPv6 incrementally in its network, meaning that it will
> continue to have both IPv4 and IPv6 space. A key aspect of our model
> is that instead of a binary state per organization, we work at the
> granularity of devices, which are entities that need to be
> assigned IP addresses. We consider a device to correspond to a single
> instance of an IP addressing need, which typically corresponds to an
> interface. Though there can be multiple interfaces (``devices'') on
> the same computer/router, and multiple addresses (``virtual
> interfaces'') on a single interface, we will model each need for an
> independent IP address as an independent device. We define device
> classes based on the nature of addresses used to number those devices,
> e.g., public IPv4, IPv6, dual-stack-NATv4, dual-stack-public-IPv4, =
etc.
> We model the network growth requirements of each network in terms=20
> of the number of additional devices in that network that need to=20
> be configured in one of these device classes.
>=20
> ... (then we catalog a list of costs and incentives associated with =
the
> decision to adopt IPv6 or satisfy one's addressing needs with =
IPv4-based
> technologies. costs parameters include the costs of IPv4 addresses, =
NAT
> deployment, renumbering, and translation between IPv4 and IPv6. we =
will
> also try to model incentives such as policies and regulations.)
>=20
> We will then model two separate decision processes for a network, =
based
> on whether it seeks to add new devices (to expand its network, =
provision
> for new customers, deploy new services, etc.), or whether it seeks to
> optimize the numbering of its existing devices from among the five
> device classes defined previously. The latter operation may be =
necessary
> if external factors and costs have changed such that the network could
> substantially lower its costs by numbering its devices differently. We
> want to structure the model (based on feedback from opsfolk like you)
> to capture both initial costs as well as ongoing operational costs of
> supporting a given configuration of devices for a specified window
> following the decision. Iteration of the decision process continues
> for each network until we reach a state where no network has the =
incentive
> to change the numbering of its devices, which represents the =
equilibrium.
> ....
>=20
