Failures, Latency and Happy Eyeballs Q/A Acknowledgements Happy - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Apr 30, 2023 41 likes •212 views

Motivation IETF 99 July 2017 Samknows Limited, London, UK Sam Crawford Samknows Limited, London, UK Steffje Jacob Eravuchira Jacobs University Bremen, Germany Jrgen Schnwlder Joint work with Prague, CZ TU Munich Contribution

SLIDE 1

Motivation Contribution Complete Failures Partial Failures Latency Happy Eyeballs Acknowledgements Q/A

A Longitudinal View of Dual-stacked Websites − Failures, Latency and Happy Eyeballs

Vaibhav Bajpai TU Munich IETF 99 Prague, CZ Joint work with Jürgen Schönwälder Jacobs University Bremen, Germany Steffje Jacob Eravuchira Samknows Limited, London, UK Sam Crawford Samknows Limited, London, UK July 2017

1 / 16

SLIDE 2

Motivation Contribution Complete Failures Partial Failures Latency Happy Eyeballs Acknowledgements Q/A

Motivation

▶ Literature focus largely on IPv6 adoption. ▶ Very little work on measuring IPv6 performance. ▶ Tiis study closes the gap.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 0% 5% 10% 15% Google IPv6 Adoption shaded region represents the duration of the longitudinal study.

∼100 dual-stacked SamKnows probes (∼66 difgerent origin ASes)

NETWORK TYPE # RESIDENTIAL 78 NREN / RESEARCH 10 BUSINESS / DATACENTER 08 OPERATOR LAB 04 IXP 01 RIR # RIPE 60 ARIN 29 APNIC 10 AFRINIC 01 LACNIC 01 2 / 16

SLIDE 3

Motivation Contribution Complete Failures Partial Failures Latency Happy Eyeballs Acknowledgements Q/A

Motivation

1.0%

0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0%

Google IPv6 Adoption

Native IPv6 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

0.02%

0.0% 0.02% 0.04% 0.06% Weekends - Weekdays Teredo/6to4

▶ Tie drifu of IPv6 penetration is increasing.

Country Distribution

Japan: 29.63 % Japan: 29.63 % Peru: 20.37 % Peru: 20.37 % Malaysia: 3.70 % Malaysia: 3.70 % United States: 1.85 % United States: 1.85 % Brazil: 16.67 % Brazil: 16.67 % Pakistan: 1.85 % Pakistan: 1.85 % Argentina: 3.70 % Argentina: 3.70 % Kenya: 1.85 % Kenya: 1.85 % Australia: 3.70 % Australia: 3.70 % South Africa: 1.85 % South Africa: 1.85 % Sri Lanka: 3.70 % Sri Lanka: 3.70 % Bulgaria: 1.85 % Bulgaria: 1.85 % Zambia: 1.85 % Zambia: 1.85 % Taiwan: 1.85 % Taiwan: 1.85 % Botswana: 1.85 % Botswana: 1.85 % Canada: 3.70 % Canada: 3.70 % Highcharts.com

▶ Prefjxes blacklisted by Google over IPv6 (2017)

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% W6D W6LD ALEXA 1M with AAAA entries 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Websites top 0.1K top 1K top 10K top 100K top 1000K 40.0 25.7 20.4 17.4 12.1

▶ Cloudfmare Efgect (shaded region) ▶ Tie dent created by Cloudfmare > W6D (or W6LD). ▶ Cloudfmare added AAAA entries for all websites [1]. A CDN plays a leading role in technology adoption and shifuing signifjcant traffjc overnight over IPv6.

3 / 16

SLIDE 4

Motivation Contribution Complete Failures Partial Failures Latency Happy Eyeballs Acknowledgements Q/A

Research Contribution

▶ Complete Failures ▶ Partial Failures

▶ Failures silently exist; clients do not notice them due to IPv4 fallback. ▶ Can websites with partial failures be deemed IPv6-ready? ▶ Quantifjcation of failures helpful for upcoming IPv6-only networks.

▶ Latency ▶ Happy Eyeballs

Tiis is the fjrst study to provide a longitudinal view (4 years)

f failures and performance of dual-stacked websites.

4 / 16

SLIDE 5

Motivation Contribution Complete Failures Partial Failures Latency Happy Eyeballs Acknowledgements Q/A

Complete Failures

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% W6D W6LD ALEXA 1M with AAAA entries HTTP Failure

▶ Failures reduced from 40% (2009) to 3% today.

0.1K 1K 10K 100K 1000K ALEXA Rank 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 CDF Failing AAAA Websites

4.3K

[Mar '17]

▶ 88% failing websites rank > 100K. ▶ 1% rank < 10K, six websites rank < 300.

100 101 102 103 www.bing.com 102 103 www.detik.com 100 101 102 103 www.engadget.com 102 103 www.nifty.com 100 101 102 103 104 www.qq.com Jan 2013 Jan 2014 Jan 2015 Jan 2016 Jul Jul Jul 102 103 www.sakura.ne.jp IPv6 IPv4 TCP Connect Times (ms)

Metrics should account for changes in IPv6-readiness.

5 / 16

SLIDE 6

Motivation Contribution Complete Failures Partial Failures Latency Happy Eyeballs Acknowledgements Q/A

Complete Failures | WL6D websites

▶ ∼3K websites participated on the W6LD (2012). ▶ Promise to permanently enable production-ready IPv6 on the Internet.

W6LD websites −

▶ 8% (259) do not have A or AAAA entries in DNS.

W6LD websites (with A and AAAA entries) −

▶ 1% (36) TCP timeout over both AF. ▶ 8% (253) TCP timeout over IPv6.

1K 10K 100K 1M 10M 100M ALEXA Rank 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 CDF Failing W6LD Websites

253

▶ 3% failing websites rank < 10K. ▶ 75% rank > 100K, 61% rank > 1M.

6 / 16

SLIDE 7

Motivation Contribution Complete Failures Partial Failures Latency Happy Eyeballs Acknowledgements Q/A

Partial Failures

ALEXA top 100 websites with AAAA entries. ▶ 27% show some rate of failure over IPv6. ▶ 9% exhibit more than 50% failures over IPv6.

20 40 60 80 100 Success Rate (%) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 CDF IPv6 (100) IPv4 (100)

▶ Limiting to root webpage can lead to

verestimation of IPv6 adoption numbers

▶ Unclear whether websites with partial failures can be deemed IPv6-ready ▶ ISOC now supporting [2] development of tools that identify such partial failures

# Webpage Success Rate (%) W6LD IPv6(↓) IPv4 01 www.bing.com 100 ✓ 02 www.detik.com 100 ✓ 03 www.engadget.com 100 ✓ 04 www.nifty.com 100 05 www.qq.com 100 06 www.sakura.ne.jp 100 07 www.flipkart.com 09 99 ✓ 08 www.folha.uol.com.br 13 100 09 www.aol.com 48 100 ✓ 10 www.comcast.net 52 100 ✓ 11 www.yahoo.com 72 100 ✓ 12 www.mozilla.org 84 100 ✓ 13 www.orange.fr 86 100 ✓ 14 www.seznam.cz 89 100 ✓ 15 www.mobile.de 90 100 ✓ 16 www.wikimedia.org 90 100 17 www.t-online.de 93 100 ✓ 18 www.free.fr 95 100 19 www.usps.com 95 100 20 www.vk.com 95 100 ✓ 21 www.wikipedia.org 95 100 ✓ 22 www.wiktionary.org 95 100 23 www.elmundo.es 96 100 ✓ 24 www.uol.com.br 96 100 ✓ 25 www.marca.com 97 100 ✓ 26 www.terra.com.br 98 100 ✓ 27 www.youm7.com 99 100 7 / 16

SLIDE 8

Motivation Contribution Complete Failures Partial Failures Latency Happy Eyeballs Acknowledgements Q/A

Partial Failures | Root Cause Analysis

30 60 90 www.youm7.com (1%) www.terra.com.br (2%) www.marca.com (3%) www.uol.com.br (4%) www.elmundo.es (4%) www.wiktionary.org (5%) www.wikipedia.org (5%) www.vk.com (5%) www.usps.com (5%) www.free.fr (5%) www.t-online.de (7%) www.wikimedia.org (10%) www.mobile.de (10%) www.seznam.cz (11%) www.orange.fr (14%) www.mozilla.org (16%) www.yahoo.com (28%) www.comcast.net (48%) www.aol.com (52%) www.folha.uol.com.br (87%) www.flipkart.com (91%) www.sakura.ne.jp (100%) www.qq.com (100%) www.nifty.com (100%) www.engadget.com (100%) www.detik.com (100%) www.bing.com (100%) Network Level

CURLE_OK CURLE_COULDNT_RESOLVE_HOST CURLE_COULDNT_CONNECT CURLE_OPERATION_TIMEDOUT CURLE_GOT_NOTHING CURLE_RECV_ERROR

30 60 90 Contribution (%) Content Level

*/css */html */javascript, */json */octet-stream */plain */rdf */xml image/*

30 60 90 Service Level

SAME ORIGIN CROSS ORIGIN

Website failing over IPv6

▶ Failures due to DNS resolution error on

image/*, */javascript, */json and */css content.

▶ Failures silently exist; clients do not notice them due to IPv4 fallback. ▶ Identifjcation of operational issues relevant for upcoming IPv6-only networks

8 / 16

SLIDE 9

Motivation Contribution Complete Failures Partial Failures Latency Happy Eyeballs Acknowledgements Q/A

Partial Failures | Root Cause Analysis

30 60 90 Contribution (%) www.youm7.com (1%) www.terra.com.br (2%) www.marca.com (3%) www.uol.com.br (4%) www.elmundo.es (4%) www.wiktionary.org (5%) www.wikipedia.org (5%) www.vk.com (5%) www.usps.com (5%) www.free.fr (5%) www.t-online.de (7%) www.wikimedia.org (10%) www.mobile.de (10%) www.seznam.cz (11%) www.orange.fr (14%) www.mozilla.org (16%) www.yahoo.com (28%) www.comcast.net (48%) www.aol.com (52%) www.folha.uol.com.br (87%) www.flipkart.com (91%) www.sakura.ne.jp (100%) www.qq.com (100%) www.nifty.com (100%) www.engadget.com (100%) www.detik.com (100%) www.bing.com (100%) *.youm7.com *.terra.com.br *.marca.com *.uol.com.br *.elmundo.es *.wiktionary.org *.wikipedia.org *.vk.com *.usps.com *.free.fr *.t-online.de *.wikimedia.org *.mobile.de *.seznam.cz *.orange.fr *.mozilla.org *.yahoo.com *.comcast.net *.aol.com *.uol.com.br *.flipkart.com *.sakura.ne.jp *.qq.com *.nifty.com *.engadget.com *.detik.com *.bing.com SAME ORIGIN

▶ 12% of websites have more than 50% webpage elements that belong to the same origin source and fail over IPv6. ▶ CDN infrastructure does not have IPv6 turned on by default for all same-origin webpage elements.

# Webpage Same Origin (↓) 01 www.bing.com 100% 02 www.detik.com 100% 03 www.engadget.com 100% 04 www.nifty.com 100% 05 www.usps.com 100% 06 www.qq.com 100% 07 www.sakura.ne.jp 100% 08 www.comcast.net 85% 09 www.yahoo.com 83% 10 www.terra.com.br 74% 11 www.marca.com 70% 12 www.wikimedia.org 65% 13 www.elmundo.es 37% 14 www.vk.com 31% 15 www.t-online.de 30% 16 www.youm7.com 24% 17 www.wiktionary.org 22% 18 www.wikipedia.org 22% 19 www.free.fr 13% 20 www.folha.uol.com.br 12% 21 www.mozilla.org 7% 22 www.uol.com.br 7% 23 www.mobile.de 7% 24 www.aol.com 5% 25 www.orange.fr 5% 26 www.seznam.cz 4% 27 www.flipkart.com 1% 9 / 16

SLIDE 10

Motivation Contribution Complete Failures Partial Failures Latency Happy Eyeballs Acknowledgements Q/A

Partial Failures | Root Cause Analysis

*.adition.com *.ajax.googleapis.com *.aolcdn.com *.cimcontent.net *.creativecommons.org *.d5nxst8fruw4z.cloudfront.net *.demdex.net *.dmtry.com *.doubleclick.net *.el-mundo.net *.elmundo.es *.expansion.com *.f.i.uol.com.br *.flixcart.com *.globaliza.com *.images1.folha.com.br *.imedia.cz *.imguol.com *.imguol.com.br *.interactivemedia.net *.ioam.de *.jsuol.com.br *.leguide.com *.ligatus.com *.mail.ru *.mozilla.net *.navdmp.com *.netbiscuits.net *.omtrdc.net *.optimizely.com *.outbrain.com *.proxad.net *.quantserve.com *.sblog.cz *.scorecardresearch.com *.szn.cz *.tag.navdmp.com *.telva.com *.theadex.com *.toi.de *.trrsf.com *.unidadeditorial.es *.voila.fr *.woopic.com *.www1.folha.com.br *.xiti.com

▶ Tiird-party advertisements (.doubleclick.net) ▶ Analytics (.scorecardresearch.com, .quantserve.com) ▶ User-centric content (.facebook.com, .ajax.googleapis.com) ▶ Static content (.wikimedia.org, *.creativecommons.org) ▶ Enabling IPv6 on few cross cross-origin sources (creativecommons.org, doubleclick.net) will help reduce partial failure of multiple websites.

10 / 16

SLIDE 11

Motivation Contribution Complete Failures Partial Failures Latency Happy Eyeballs Acknowledgements Q/A

Latency | Websites

∆sa(u) = t4(u) − t6(u) where t(u) is the time taken to establish TCP connection to website u.

▶ ISPs in early stages of IPv6 deployment should ensure their CDN caches are dual-stacked.

−150 −100 −50 50 TCP Connect Times [∆sa (ms)] www.bing.com www.facebook.com www.wikipedia.org www.youtube.com 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 −60 −40 −20 20 www.blogspot.* www.google.* www.netflix.com www.yahoo.com

▶ TCP connect times to popular websites over IPv6 have considerably improved over time. ▶ Infmated latency over IPv6 was due to missing content caches over IPv6

11 / 16

SLIDE 12

Motivation Contribution Complete Failures Partial Failures Latency Happy Eyeballs Acknowledgements Q/A

Latency | Websites - Who connects faster?

ALEXA top 10K websites (as of Jan 2017):

▶ 40% are faster over IPv6. ▶ 94% of the rest are at most 1 ms slower. ▶ 3% are at least 10 ms slower. ▶ 1% are at least 100 ms slower.

−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 ∆sa (ms) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 CDF netflix yahoo google linkedin microsoft facebook wikipedia cloudflare heise

penstreetmap

ALEXA (10K) [01/2017] ∆sa(u) = t4(u) − t6(u)

▶ Relevant for content providers to get insights on how their service delivery compares over IPv6.

12 / 16

SLIDE 13

Motivation Contribution Complete Failures Partial Failures Latency Happy Eyeballs Acknowledgements Q/A

Happy Eyeballs

▶ Only ∼1% of samples above

HE timer value > 300 ms

Websites where HE prefers IPv6 −

▶ A 300 ms HE timer value leaves

2% chance for IPv4.

▶ 99% of top 10K ALEXA prefer

IPv6 98% of time.

10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103 104 TCP Connect Times (ms) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

CDF

300 ms IPv6 (462K) IPv4 (462K) ['13 - '17] 96% 97% 98% 99% 100% 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 CCDF PROBES (80) ALEXA (10K) ['13 - '17] Preference (300 ms) 13 / 16

SLIDE 14

Motivation Contribution Complete Failures Partial Failures Latency Happy Eyeballs Acknowledgements Q/A

Happy Eyeballs

Samples where HE prefers IPv6 −

▶ HE prefers slower IPv6

connections 90% of the time.

▶ HE timer of 150 ms maintains

same IPv6 preference levels.

▶ We get margin benefjt of 10%

because timer cuts early.

−40 −30 −20 −10 10 ∆sa (ms) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 CDF 1% 2% 7% 30% 93% 99% 462K ['13 - '17] 50 100 150 200 250 300 HE timer (ms) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Preference 150 ms

ALEXA (10K) ['13 - '17]

▶ RFC 6555 should have used 150 ms timer. Measurements should inform protocol engineering. ▶ Drive an RFC 6555 update with operational experience within the IETF.

14 / 16

SLIDE 15

Motivation Contribution Complete Failures Partial Failures Latency Happy Eyeballs Acknowledgements Q/A

Tiis work would not have been possible without these amazing people −

■ Jürgen Schönwälder ■ Jörg Ott ■ Sam Crawford ■ Jamie Mason ■ Steffje Jacob Eravuchira ■ Philip Eardley ■ Trevor Burbridge ■ Andrea Soppera ■ Olivier Bonaventure ■ Dan Wing ■ Andrew Yourtchenko ■ Stephen Strowes ■ Eric Vyncke ■ Arthur Berger ■ Karen Davis ■ Fred Baker ■ Aiko Pras ■ Al Morton ■ Alex Buie ■ Alexandru Dumitru ■ Andrew Barnes ■ Antonio Prado ■ Antonio Querubin ■ Arash Naderpour ■ Bart Van Der Veer ■ Bayani Benjamin Lara ■ Bill Walker ■ Brandon Ross ■ Chiang Fong Lee ■ Chris Baker ■ Christian Kaufmann ■ Clinton Work ■ Daniel Karrenberg ■ Dario Ercole ■ Dustin Grant ■ Edi SUC ■ Edoardo Martelli ■ Egil-Andre Oelschlagel ■ Emile Aben ■ Erik Taraldsen ■ Espen Pederson ■ Faruk Sejdic ■ Filip De Turck ■ Frank Bulk ■ Fuminori Tany Tanizaki ■ Heinrich Stamerjohanns ■ Herman Hermansen ■ Hugo Slabbert ■ James Cutler ■ Jan Zorz ■ Jason Fesler ■ Jasper Rappard ■ Javier Henderson ■ Jens Hofgmann ■ Jesse Sowell ■ Joel Maslak ■ John Ioannidis ■ Jon Tiompson ■ Jordi Palet ■ Josh Hoge ■ Juan Cerezo ■ Juan Cordero ■ Kawashima Masanobu ■ Kinga Lipskoch ■ Kris Lambrechts ■ Kristijan Lecnik ■ Krunal Shah ■ Lucas do Amaral Saboya ■ Luka Manojlovic ■ Marco Hogewoning ■ Marco Sommani ■ Marian Neagul ■ Martin Neitzel ■ Masaki Tagawa ■ Mat Ford ■ Mathew Newton ■ Matthieu Bouthors ■ Michael Carey ■ Michael Richardson ■ Michael Van Norman ■ Mikael Abrahamsson ■ Mike Taylor ■ Mircea Suciu ■ Nick Chettle ■ Nishal Goburdhan ■ Ole Troan ■ Owen DeLong ■ Pedro Tumusok ■ Per Olsson ■ Peter Bulckens ■ Philip Homburg ■ Philip Smith ■ Phillip Remaker ■ Radek Krejci ■ Richard Patterson ■ Robert Kisteleki ■ Ryan Rawdon ■ Saba Ahsan ■ Sergey Sarayev ■ Steinar Haug ■ Steve Bauer ■ Tero Marttila ■ Tiibault Cholez ■ Tiomas Schafer ■ Tim Chown ■ Tim Coote ■ Tim Martin ■ Tobias Oetiker ■ Torbjorn Eklov ■ Trond Hastad ■ Uros Gaber ■ Vesna Manojlovic ■ Vlad Ungureanu ■ Wouter de Vries ■ Yasuyuki Kaneko

15 / 16

SLIDE 16

Motivation Contribution Complete Failures Partial Failures Latency Happy Eyeballs Acknowledgements Q/A

Impact

▶ A Longitudinal View of Dual-Stacked Websites −

▶ Failures [3] [CNSM ′16] ▶ Latency [4] and [NETWORKING ′15] ▶ Happy Eyeballs [5] [ANRW ′16]

▶ Relevance:

▶ Network operators in early stages of IPv6 deployment. ▶ Content providers to see how their service delivery over IPv6 compares to IPv4. ▶ Drive related standards work in the IETF.

www.vaibhavbajpai.com bajpaiv@in.tum.de | @bajpaivaibhav

16 / 16

SLIDE 17

Motivation Contribution Complete Failures Partial Failures Latency Happy Eyeballs Acknowledgements Q/A

References

[1] “98.01% of sites on Cloudfmare now use IPv6,” https://blog.cloudflare.com/98-percent-ipv6, [Online; accessed 15-Apr-2017]. [2] “NAT64 Check,” nat64check.ipv6-lab.net, [Accessed 15-Apr-2017]. [3]

S. J. Eravuchira, V. Bajpai, J. Schönwälder, and S. Crawford,

“Measuring Web Similarity from Dual-stacked Hosts,” ser. Conference on Network and Service Management, 2016, pp. 181–187. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CNSM.2016.7818415 [4]

V. Bajpai and J. Schönwälder, “IPv4 versus IPv6 - who connects

faster?” ser. IFIP Networking Conference, 2015, pp. 1–9. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IFIPNetworking.2015.7145323 [5] ——, “Measuring the Efgects of Happy Eyeballs,” ser. Applied Networking Research Workshop, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2959429 16 / 16