2016 APNIC Survey Results Asia Pacific Network Information Centre Conducted and prepared by Survey Matters.
Agenda Slid Slide Survey Process and Methodology 3 Participation and Service Satisfaction 6 Respondents’ Challenges 11 IPv6 readiness 14 Training 18 Policy Development Process, External Relations and New Services 23 Member Engagement 28 Questions 32 2
Survey Process and Methodology
Methodology • Focus groups conducted in twelve economies, with fifteen sessions conducted by an independent facilitator, and one online focus group was trialled in New Zealand • Online survey questionnaire developed by Survey Matters and based on results from the focus groups • Online survey comprised: • Participation and Service Satisfaction • Industry Challenges • IPv6 Readiness • Training and Technical Assistance • Policy Development • Resource Allocation, External Relations & New Services • Member Engagement • Survey designed as an anonymous link, distribution and promotion was done by the APNIC Secretariat 4
Survey Sample • 1,365 completed responses received • 1,175 responses analysed after data cleansing • Analysis looked at results by economy type (Least Developed, Developing and Developed) and Sub-region (East Asia, Oceania, South East Asia and South Asia) Res esponses by Economy type and and Su Sub-region Resp esponses s by stakeholder type 59% 59% 12% 12% 20% 20% 27% 27% 27% 27% 24% 24% 23% 23% 22% 22% 68% 68% 14% 14% 4% 4% Least Devel elopi ping Devel elope ped East A Asi sia Ocea eani nia Sou outh E East Sou outh As Asia Non n Asia Devel elope ped Econ onomies Econ onomies Asi sia Pacific APNIC M Member r or A Account H Holder Q4; n=1,175 Econ onomies Mem ember er o of f a N NIR in in t the e APNIC r region Other er s sta takeh eholder er n=1,175 5
Participation & Service Satisfaction
Participation Over the pas past two years, , ha have you: Q Q 4 - How man any tim imes ha have you use used an an AP APNIC service or Q 5 5 - Par artic ticip ipatio ion Tot otal Member Stakehold lder interacted with in ith APN APNIC in in the pas past two years? s? Sample Size 1,030 735 295 Visited the website 75% 77% 71% 52% 52% 49% 49% Used MyAPNIC 59% 59% 0% Applied for IP addresses 53% 53% 0% 42% 42% Used the Whois Database 49% 53% 39% Received IP addresses 45% 45% 0% 32% 32% Read the blog 43% 41% 46% 28% 28% Contacted the helpdesk 33% 33% 0% 21% 21% 20% 20% Used reverse DNS 27% 27% 0% 18% 18% Contacted APNIC 22% 0% 22% 12% 12% 11% 11% Attend conference/event 22% 21% 24% 9% 9% 8% 8% Attended training 22% 22% 20% Personally met with APNIC 17% 16% 22% None 1-5 ti times More t than 5 ti times Don’t Know Attended presentation 15% 13% 22% n=1,175 Total Members Stakeholders Technical assistance 13% 13% 0% Transferred IPv4 addresses 12% 12% 0% 84% of Members have used APNIC Participate SIGs/Meetings 7% 5% 11% Used RPKI services 5% 5% 0% services or participated in APNIC Policy Development 5% 4% 7% activities over the past two years None of these 2% 1% 5% 7 Other 2% 1% 4%
Satisfaction with APNIC services Q 6 - Res Q espondents ratings of of the heir exp xperience usi using AP APNIC ser ervices and and act activities com ompared wit ith 2014 Sur Survey res esults. 6.19 6.19 APNIC help lpdesk 6.10 6.10 6.11 6.11 IP address applic icatio ion & al allo locatio ion 6.19 6.19 6.05 6.05 Conference/E /Events ts 5.87 5.87 6.05 6.05 Reverse DNS S servic ice 5.98 5.98 6.03 6.03 Whoi ois Data tabase 6.09 6.09 5.90 5.90 MyAPNIC 5.89 5.89 5.85 5.85 RPKI servic ice 5.55 5.55 5.73 5.73 IPv4 transfe fers 5.78 5.78 2016 2016 2014 2014 Me Mean n Score re (base n = = 1030, n - various us) 8
Overall Member Satisfaction 8 - Resp espondents ratings of of the qua quality and and val alue of of AP APNIC ser ervices and and Membership Q 8 (n =733) 41% 41% Valu alue of of Mem embership 35% 35% 35% 35% Qua Quality of of Ser Service Del Delivery 36% 36% 16% 16% 15% 15% 12% 12% 7% 7% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Poor Neutral Excellent Poor Neutral Excellent 40% 40% Valu alue of of Ser Services 37% 37% APNIC Members rate the service quality and value highly, with over 90% of respondents rating these positively 14% 14% 8% 8% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9 Poor Neutral Excellent
Stakeholder Satisfaction Q Q 9 9 - Res espondents rating of of APN APNIC Ser Service de delivery over the las last two years . “APNIC is a very (N= 292) professional organization. 39% 39% I have interacted with APNIC and its representatives in the past in various roles in my 24% 24% career. APNIC is dedicated 20% 20% to the improvement of the internet community in 13% 13% APAC. People in APNIC are 2% 2% knowledgeable and very 1% 1% helpful.” 0% 0% Poor Neutral Excellent South Asia 10 10
Respondents’ Challenges
Challenges Faced by Respondents Security is the biggest challenge facing respondents % of of res espondents who ho ran anked the he statement with ithin the he top op thr hree ch challenges 41% 41% 33% 33% Ag Aggr gregated % by Iss ssue ue Ran Rank1 Ran Rank2 Ran Rank3 25% 25% 25% 25% Security Issues 41% 41% 36% 22% 22% IPv6 Related Issues 30% 34% 33% IPv4 Related Issues 13% 12% 10% Other Issues 15% 13% 19% Tot otal 99% 99% 100% 100% 98% 98% Netw twork secu curity ty – DDoS atta tacks Phishing, g, Spam, Manage gement t of Gett tting more IPv4 intr ntrusion and Malware, bandwith o or addresses other br ot breaches Ransomware netw twork c capacity ty 12 12
Does APNIC have a role to play? Q Q 17 17 - Do Do you be believe APN APNIC has has a a rol ole to o pla play in in he helping add address ss these ch chal allenges? s? n = 851 % % Agree APN PNIC can an assis ist “Provide guidance & Getting more IPv4 addresses 80% best industry practice Routing security 67% to tackle those Brokers selling/leasing IPv4 addresses 65% challenges. Example, Risks of deploying IPv6 65% technical training for Lack of awareness of IPv6 in my organization 63% IPV6, DNS Security. Customer unwillingness to use IPv6 61% Increase IPV4 Network security – intrusion and other breaches 54% allocation per Deploying IPv6 in customer networks 54% member would be DDoS attacks 53% good as well.” Cost of deploying IPv6 52% Lack of IPv6 applications 50% South East Asia Phishing, Spam, Malware, Ransomware 50% Management of bandwidth and network capacity 34% Deploying NAT 33% Hiring and/or keeping skilled employees 33% 13 13
Are organizations ready for IPv6?
IPv6 Deployment Q 11 - IPv6 deployment amongst respondents (n = 805) 15% 15 35 35% 21% 21 Yes, IPv6 is full lly deplo loyed Yes, IPv6 is deplo loyed in our core network 29% 29 Have a deploy oyment pla lan No No Developed Developin ing South Eas ast LDEs LD Eas ast Asia sia Oceania ia South Asi sia Econ onomie ies Econ onomie ies Asi sia Sam ample le 136 136 279 279 390 390 134 134 251 251 160 160 221 221 Yes, IPv6 is fully deployed 8% 14% 19% 24% 7% 24% 10% Yes, IPv6 is deployed in our core network 18% 17% 25% 28% 17% 20% 21% Have a deployment plan 47% 21% 28% 18% 24% 33% 41% No 27% 48% 29% 31% 53% 24% 29% 15 15
Challenges affecting deployment of IPv6 Q Q 13 - Main ain cha challenges affec ecting de deployment of of IPv6 % Respondents Selected (Base n = 680, n = 1634) No demand fo for IPv6 from customers 46% 46% Customers are not ready fo for IPv6 36% 36% Lack of ski kills lls and expertis ise wit ithin in our organis isatio ion 28% 28% No clear business / technical advantages or reasons to… 27% 27% Legacy syste tems 20% 20% “It is just our customer is not ready Lack of applic licat atio ions that t can run on IPv6 19% 19% for IPV6. Moreover, Lack of tr trai ainin ing 17% 17% our management has Upstr tream provid iders do not support IPv6 v6 11% 11% not yet started to feel Ris isks wit ith IPv4 are low ower than deploy oyment of f IPv6 11% 11% the need of IPV6” Cost of f deplo loyin ing is is too oo hig igh 8% 8% Too oo expensiv ive to run both th IPv4 and IPv6 7% 7% South Asia Oth ther 6% 6% The percie ieve ved ris isks of f deplo loyin ing IPv6 are high 5% 5% 16 16
Recommend
More recommend
