CAIDA's 2012 IPv6 survey -- need network operators to fill out

Amogh Dhamdhere amogh at cc.gatech.edu
Wed Apr 4 17:41:19 CDT 2012


Hello folks, 

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 :) 

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. 

Thanks,
Amogh, kc, Emile

On Mar 13, 2012, at 2:56 PM, k claffy wrote:

> 
> 
> [direct link to IPv6 operational deployment [plans] survey 
> if you don't need background:
> http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/749797/ipv6survey
> ]
> 
> hello folks,
> 
> we're trying to do some quantitative modeling of                               
> the IPv4->IPv6 transition, including the impact of                             
> IPv4 markets on likely future trajectories, but                                
> really need some empirical data to parametrize our model.                      
> with much help from many patient reviewers of the questions,
> we finally have a survey ready for operators to fill out.
> 
> 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 
> peer review at NSF, which i can send to anyone interested in 
> giving us feedback on it.  but it's not necessary for 
> responding to the survey. also note the checkbox to 
> 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.)
> 
> survey link, again:
> http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/749797/ipv6survey
> 
> thanks much,
> k, amogh, emile
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> 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 
> of the number of additional devices in that network that need to 
> be configured in one of these device classes.
> 
> ... (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.)
> 
> 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.
> ....
> 




More information about the NANOG mailing list