1 / 9

IP Address Management Survey of Esnet sites – December 2011

IP Address Management Survey of Esnet sites – December 2011 . Prepared by: Les Cottrell SLAC , ESCC meeting Clemson University February 3 rd 2011. Survey.

zaza
Download Presentation

IP Address Management Survey of Esnet sites – December 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IP Address Management Survey of Esnet sites – December 2011 Prepared by: LesCottrellSLAC, ESCC meeting Clemson University February 3rd 2011

  2. Survey • 18 Labs responded in 3 days: including SLAC, ORNL, ANL, ORISE (ORAU), LBL (NERSC), LLNL, SNLL, JLAB, SRS, BNL, GA, PPPL, FNAL, ESnet, INL, PNNL and LANL. • Responses mainly from network folk (>80%). • Networks with from 100-1,000 (7%) IP addresses to between 10,000-100,000 (~47%) IP addresses. • Half of the sites have 100-500 subnets. • IPv4 networks with 1,000-10,000 end hosts (90%), 10,000-100,000 end hosts (10%)

  3. Results • 47% having 1-100 Wireless Access Ports, and 47% with 100 - 1,000 WAPs • with most sites supporting DNSSEC, dynamic DNS, Active Directory and BIND as the DNS services • 8 sites have VoIP services

  4. Why an IPAM • The most important reason for the move to an IPAM system was ease of use better management of the IP space. • Delegation of modifying hostnames and IP addresses varied across sites from 1-5 to >100 people with a mode of 10-20 people. • For about 2/3rd of the responders their PAM systems could delegate authority/control of the IP address space • IPv6 support was mentioned 6 out of 11 times as on the wish list.

  5. Usage • 40% had partial support for asset management and 13% had extensive asset management support • IPAMs were integrated with enterprise databases such as personnel (33%), assets (47%), network monitoring (40%), security incident tracking (40%) and the help desk (13%) • about 2/3rd of the responders’ IPAM systems could delegate authority/control of the IP address space

  6. IPv6 • Most sites use DHCP for most end user work- stations and laptops • 3 sites have no IPv6 addresses, 6 have 1-100, and 10 have 1,000-10,000 IPv6 addresses • 3 sites manage IPv6 with their IPAM

  7. Products • ~50% of the sites use an in-house developed IPAM; 27% use a commercial product; 13% open source product. • the only IPAM application quoted more than once was Infoblox (2 times)

  8. Support • Over 50% of the IPAM systems had been first installed in the last 5 years. • Initial installation took over 0.5 year in > 50% of the cases. • One site has > 2 FTEs required for support 33% have 1-2 FTES and 55% have <=0.5 FTEs

  9. More Information • Survey results: • http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=WjD08aUwHCfqOClse7jOnRMPQ5E8NBLtp0fUHgEilN0_3d

More Related