Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt

[Brian Wallingford]

No, and no.  Shouldn't be a surprise.  ("all" is the dealbreaker, certain
agencies are on the ball, but most are barely experimenting).

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Glen Kent wrote:

:
:Hi,
:
:I was just reading
:http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/b-1-information.html#IPV6, released
:some time back in 2005, and it seems that the US Govt. had set the
:target date of 30th June 2008 for all federal govt agencies to move
:their network backbones to IPv6. This deadline is almost here. Are we
:any close for this transition?
:
:I have another related question:
:
:Do all ISPs atleast support tunneling the IPv6 pkts to some end point?
:For example, is there a way for an IPv6 enthusiast to send his IPv6
:packet from his laptop to a remote IPv6 server in the current
:circumstances if his ISP does not actively support native IPv6?
:
:Cheers,
:Glen
:

Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt

[Glen Kent]

Hi,

I was just reading
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/b-1-information.html#IPV6, released
some time back in 2005, and it seems that the US Govt. had set the
target date of 30th June 2008 for all federal govt agencies to move
their network backbones to IPv6. This deadline is almost here. Are we
any close for this transition?

I have another related question:

Do all ISPs atleast support tunneling the IPv6 pkts to some end point?
For example, is there a way for an IPv6 enthusiast to send his IPv6
packet from his laptop to a remote IPv6 server in the current
circumstances if his ISP does not actively support native IPv6?

Cheers,
Glen

Re: load balancing and fault tolerance without load balancer

[Mark Smith]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:42:26 +0800 (CST)
Joe Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> hi,
> 
>we plan to set up a web site with two web servers.
> 
>The two servers should be under the same domain
> name.  Normally,  web surfing load should be
> distributed between the servers. when one server
> fails, the other server should take all of load
> automatically. When fault sever recovers, load
> balancing should be achived automatically.There is no
> buget for load balancer.
> 
> 
>we plan to use DNS to balance load between the two
> servers. But, it seems DNS based solution could not
> direct all load to one server automatically when the
> other is down.
>  
> 
>Is there any way to solve problem above? 
> 

One option might be to run two instances of VRRP/CARP across the hosts.
You have Host A being the primary/master for one IP address that's in
your DNS, and Host B being the primary/master for the other IP addess
that's in your DNS. Host A is the secondary/backup for the IP address
normally owned by Host B and Host B is the secondary/backup for the IP
address normally owned by Host A. When, for example, Host A fails, Host
B takes over being the primary/master for both IP addresses in your
DNS, giving you your continued availability. If you want make that fail
over transparent to load, you'd need to keep the load on the hosts <50%
under normal, non-fail circumstances.

Regards,
Mark.

-- 

"Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly
 alert."
   - Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Fear"

RE: Routing Loop

[Darden, Patrick S.]

If it continues for any length of time then contact above.net.  To find their 
contact information, check their registrar.

e.g. whois above.net gets you

   Technical Contact:
  AboveNet Communications, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  AboveNet Communications, Inc.
  50 W SAN FERNANDO ST STE 1010
  SAN JOSE, CA 95113-2414
  US
  408-367-6673 fax: 408-367-6688

If that does not help, then you can solicit for better contact information 
(from NANOG.)  I am betting above.net knows about this and is already working 
on it.

Good luck!
--Patrick Darden




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Felix Bako
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 3:34 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Routing Loop



Hello,
There is a routing loop while accesing my network 194.9.82.0/24 from 
some networks on the Internet.

| This is a test done from  lg.above.net looking glass.

 1 ten-gige-2-2.mpr2.ams2.nl.above.net (64.125.26.70) 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec
  2 ten-gige-2-2.mpr1.ams2.nl.above.net (64.125.26.69) [MPLS: Label 78 Exp 0] 0 
msec 0 msec 0 msec
  3 ge-1-2-0.mpr1.ams1.nl.above.net (64.125.26.74) 8 msec 8 msec 0 msec
  4 ten-gige-1-1.mpr1.ams2.nl.above.net (64.125.26.73) [MPLS: Label 80 Exp 0] 0 
msec 4 msec 0 msec
  5 ten-gige-2-2.mpr2.ams2.nl.above.net (64.125.26.70) 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec
  6 ten-gige-2-2.mpr1.ams2.nl.above.net (64.125.26.69) [MPLS: Label 78 Exp 0] 0 
msec 0 msec 4 msec
  7 ge-1-2-0.mpr1.ams1.nl.above.net (64.125.26.74) 64 msec 0 msec 4 msec
  8 ten-gige-1-1.mpr1.ams2.nl.above.net (64.125.26.73) [MPLS: Label 80 Exp 0] 0 
msec 4 msec 0 msec
  9 ten-gige-2-2.mpr2.ams2.nl.above.net (64.125.26.70) 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec
 10 ten-gige-2-2.mpr1.ams2.nl.above.net (64.125.26.69) [MPLS: Label 78 Exp 0] 0 
msec 4 msec 0 msec
 11 ge-1-2-0.mpr1.ams1.nl.above.net (64.125.26.74) 4 msec 0 msec 4 msec|

How do i aproach to fix this issue

Regards
Felix

-- 

Best Regards,

Felix Bako
Network Engineer
Africa Online, Kenya
Tel: +254 (20) 27 92 000
Fax: +254 (20) 27 100 10
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aim:felixbako

 


* Africa Online Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note *


This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless 
the context clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Africa Online 
Holdings (Kenya) Limited and / or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is 
confidential and intended for the addressee only. Should you not be the 
addressee and have received this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the 
sender, delete this e-mail immediately and do not disclose or use the 
same in any manner whatsoever. Views and opinions expressed in this 
e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of the 
Group. The Group accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or 
damages, however incurred, resulting from the use of this e-mail or its 
attachments. The Group does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail, 
nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception or interference. 
For more information about Africa Online, please visit our website at 
http://www.africaonline.com

Routing Loop

[Felix Bako]

Hello,
There is a routing loop while accesing my network 194.9.82.0/24 from 
some networks on the Internet.


| This is a test done from  lg.above.net looking glass.

1 ten-gige-2-2.mpr2.ams2.nl.above.net (64.125.26.70) 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec
 2 ten-gige-2-2.mpr1.ams2.nl.above.net (64.125.26.69) [MPLS: Label 78 Exp 0] 0 
msec 0 msec 0 msec
 3 ge-1-2-0.mpr1.ams1.nl.above.net (64.125.26.74) 8 msec 8 msec 0 msec
 4 ten-gige-1-1.mpr1.ams2.nl.above.net (64.125.26.73) [MPLS: Label 80 Exp 0] 0 
msec 4 msec 0 msec
 5 ten-gige-2-2.mpr2.ams2.nl.above.net (64.125.26.70) 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec
 6 ten-gige-2-2.mpr1.ams2.nl.above.net (64.125.26.69) [MPLS: Label 78 Exp 0] 0 
msec 0 msec 4 msec
 7 ge-1-2-0.mpr1.ams1.nl.above.net (64.125.26.74) 64 msec 0 msec 4 msec
 8 ten-gige-1-1.mpr1.ams2.nl.above.net (64.125.26.73) [MPLS: Label 80 Exp 0] 0 
msec 4 msec 0 msec
 9 ten-gige-2-2.mpr2.ams2.nl.above.net (64.125.26.70) 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec
10 ten-gige-2-2.mpr1.ams2.nl.above.net (64.125.26.69) [MPLS: Label 78 Exp 0] 0 
msec 4 msec 0 msec
11 ge-1-2-0.mpr1.ams1.nl.above.net (64.125.26.74) 4 msec 0 msec 4 msec|

How do i aproach to fix this issue

Regards
Felix

--

Best Regards,

Felix Bako
Network Engineer
Africa Online, Kenya
Tel: +254 (20) 27 92 000
Fax: +254 (20) 27 100 10
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aim:felixbako




* Africa Online Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note *


This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless 
the context clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Africa Online 
Holdings (Kenya) Limited and / or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is 
confidential and intended for the addressee only. Should you not be the 
addressee and have received this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the 
sender, delete this e-mail immediately and do not disclose or use the 
same in any manner whatsoever. Views and opinions expressed in this 
e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of the 
Group. The Group accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or 
damages, however incurred, resulting from the use of this e-mail or its 
attachments. The Group does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail, 
nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception or interference. 
For more information about Africa Online, please visit our website at 
http://www.africaonline.com

Re: load balancing and fault tolerance without load balancer

[John Moser]

>
>
> On 14-Mar-2008, at 12:42, Joe Shen wrote:
>
>>   Is there any way to solve problem above?
>
> The approach described in
>   > would probably work, so long as the routers choosing between the
> ECMP routes are able to make route selections per flow, and not just
> per packet (e.g. "ip cef" on a cisco).
>
> Tony Kapela did a lightning talk a few meetings ago about another
> cisco-specific approach which used some kind of SLA-measuring cisco
> feature to do the same thing without needing to run a routing protocol
> on a server. I can't seem to find a link to the details, but if
> someone else knows where it is it'd be good to know.

http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0710/presentations/Kapela-lightning.pdf

-John

Re: load balancing and fault tolerance without load balancer

[Joe Abley]

On 14-Mar-2008, at 12:42, Joe Shen wrote:


  Is there any way to solve problem above?


The approach described in  would probably work, so long as the routers choosing between the  
ECMP routes are able to make route selections per flow, and not just  
per packet (e.g. "ip cef" on a cisco).


Tony Kapela did a lightning talk a few meetings ago about another  
cisco-specific approach which used some kind of SLA-measuring cisco  
feature to do the same thing without needing to run a routing protocol  
on a server. I can't seem to find a link to the details, but if  
someone else knows where it is it'd be good to know.



Joe

Re: load balancing and fault tolerance without load balancer

[Larry J. Blunk]

   You might want to consider client side load balancing --

http://www.digital-web.com/articles/client_side_load_balancing/




Joe Shen wrote:

hi,

   we plan to set up a web site with two web servers.

   The two servers should be under the same domain
name.  Normally,  web surfing load should be
distributed between the servers. when one server
fails, the other server should take all of load
automatically. When fault sever recovers, load
balancing should be achived automatically.There is no
buget for load balancer.


   we plan to use DNS to balance load between the two
servers. But, it seems DNS based solution could not
direct all load to one server automatically when the
other is down.
 

   Is there any way to solve problem above? 

   we use HP-UX with MC-Service Guard installed. 



  thanks in advance.

Joe


 

Re: load balancing and fault tolerance without load balancer

[Bill Nash]

NANOG really isn't the forum for this kind of conversation.

That said, look into devices like Alteons, or open source solutions like 
Balance-NG. Even Apache can be used for this with something like 
mod_proxy. Good luck.


- billn

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Joe Shen wrote:



hi,

  we plan to set up a web site with two web servers.

  The two servers should be under the same domain
name.  Normally,  web surfing load should be
distributed between the servers. when one server
fails, the other server should take all of load
automatically. When fault sever recovers, load
balancing should be achived automatically.There is no
buget for load balancer.


  we plan to use DNS to balance load between the two
servers. But, it seems DNS based solution could not
direct all load to one server automatically when the
other is down.


  Is there any way to solve problem above?

  we use HP-UX with MC-Service Guard installed.


 thanks in advance.

Joe


 __
Tired of visiting multiple sites for showtimes?
Yahoo! Movies is all you need
http://sg.movies.yahoo.com

load balancing and fault tolerance without load balancer

[Joe Shen]

hi,

   we plan to set up a web site with two web servers.

   The two servers should be under the same domain
name.  Normally,  web surfing load should be
distributed between the servers. when one server
fails, the other server should take all of load
automatically. When fault sever recovers, load
balancing should be achived automatically.There is no
buget for load balancer.


   we plan to use DNS to balance load between the two
servers. But, it seems DNS based solution could not
direct all load to one server automatically when the
other is down.
 

   Is there any way to solve problem above? 

   we use HP-UX with MC-Service Guard installed. 


  thanks in advance.

Joe


  __ 
Tired of visiting multiple sites for showtimes? 
Yahoo! Movies is all you need
http://sg.movies.yahoo.com

RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?

[michael.dillon]

> > Linksys RVS4000 for $119.99
> > Linksys WRVS4400 for $209.99

> Looked at the manual, the only thing I could find regarding 
> IPv6 connectivity was an option

You need the January 11 2008 firmware (or newer) to do IPv6.
6to4 works fine but there is a bug with NAT-PT at present.
If you Google for the device name and "IPv6" then you will
find some forum postings discussing IPv6 using these Linksys
boxes.

Note, that this is another example of a device which was
able to add IPv6 through software only, no hardware changes
required. I think that the majority of SOHO devices will
add IPv6 in this way. As soon as the manufacturers realise
that there is a demand for such products, they can very quickly
add IPv6 and ship it, faster than they can update and print 
new manuals.

The list on  has been
updated.

--Michael Dillon

The Cidr Report

[cidr-report]

This report has been generated at Fri Mar 14 21:14:42 2008 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.

Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.

Recent Table History
Date  PrefixesCIDR Agg
07-03-08255204  164943
08-03-08255766  165201
09-03-08255895  165333
10-03-08255998  165367
11-03-08255699  165517
12-03-08256055  165858
13-03-08256538  166306
14-03-08256927  166127


AS Summary
 27878  Number of ASes in routing system
 11667  Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
  1609  Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS4755 : VSNL-AS Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Autonomous System
  88764160  Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s)
AS721  : DISA-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center


Aggregation Summary
The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only
when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as 
to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also
proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes').

 --- 14Mar08 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr  NetGain   % Gain   Description

Table 257248   1661429110635.4%   All ASes

AS4755  1609  502 110768.8%   VSNL-AS Videsh Sanchar Nigam
   Ltd. Autonomous System
AS9498  1200  123 107789.8%   BBIL-AP BHARTI BT INTERNET
   LTD.
AS4323  1388  513  87563.0%   TWTC - Time Warner Telecom,
   Inc.
AS18566 1043  245  79876.5%   COVAD - Covad Communications
   Co.
AS11492 1222  469  75361.6%   CABLEONE - CABLE ONE
AS8151  1191  498  69358.2%   Uninet S.A. de C.V.
AS17488 1021  330  69167.7%   HATHWAY-NET-AP Hathway IP Over
   Cable Internet
AS18101  710   72  63889.9%   RIL-IDC Reliance Infocom Ltd
   Internet Data Centre,
AS19262  893  267  62670.1%   VZGNI-TRANSIT - Verizon
   Internet Services Inc.
AS2386  1403  871  53237.9%   INS-AS - AT&T Data
   Communications Services
AS6478   936  420  51655.1%   ATT-INTERNET3 - AT&T WorldNet
   Services
AS22773  890  392  49856.0%   CCINET-2 - Cox Communications
   Inc.
AS4134   873  399  47454.3%   CHINANET-BACKBONE
   No.31,Jin-rong Street
AS4812   562  104  45881.5%   CHINANET-SH-AP China Telecom
   (Group)
AS17676  510   68  44286.7%   GIGAINFRA BB TECHNOLOGY Corp.
AS855565  127  43877.5%   CANET-ASN-4 - Bell Aliant
AS7018  1469 1039  43029.3%   ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T WorldNet
   Services
AS6197   999  571  42842.8%   BATI-ATL - BellSouth Network
   Solutions, Inc
AS4766   867  446  42148.6%   KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom
AS3356   861  452  40947.5%   LEVEL3 Level 3 Communications
AS6389   890  497  39344.2%   BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK -
   BellSouth.net Inc.
AS3602   462   82  38082.3%   AS3602-RTI - Rogers Telecom
   Inc.
AS6140   610  234  37661.6%   IMPSAT-USA - ImpSat USA, Inc.
AS1785   550  175  37568.2%   AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec
   Communications, Inc.
AS9443   452   77  37583.0%   INTERNETPRIMUS-AS-AP Primus
   Telecommunications
AS7545   502  133  36973.5%   TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Internet
   Pty Ltd
AS4808   516  151  36570.7%   CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP
   network China169 Beijing
   Province Network
AS5668   678  318  36053.1%   AS-5668 - CenturyTel Internet
   Holdings, Inc.
AS16814  426   73  35382.9%   NSS S.A.
AS19916  557  205  35263.2%   ASTRUM-0001 - OLM LLC

Total  25855 98531600261.9%   Top 30 total


Possible Bogus R

BGP Update Report

[cidr-report]

BGP Update Report
Interval: 11-Feb-08 -to- 13-Mar-08 (32 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS2.0

TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds %  Upds/PfxAS-Name
 1 - AS9498   108186  1.9%  87.3 -- BBIL-AP BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD.
 2 - AS24731   68091  1.2% 907.9 -- ASN-NESMA National Engineering 
Services and Marketing Company Ltd. (NESMA)
 3 - AS958352460  0.9%  43.6 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited
 4 - AS815145601  0.8%  37.9 -- Uninet S.A. de C.V.
 5 - AS462144749  0.8% 288.7 -- UNSPECIFIED UNINET-TH
 6 - AS26829   42774  0.8%   42774.0 -- YKK-USA - YKK USA,INC
 7 - AS17974   36482  0.7%  80.9 -- TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT 
Telekomunikasi Indonesia
 8 - AS982933653  0.6%  55.0 -- BSNL-NIB National Internet 
Backbone
 9 - AS123933451  0.6%   8.7 -- SPRINTLINK - Sprint
10 - AS33783   30051  0.5% 221.0 -- EEPAD
11 - AS21332   26558  0.5%1021.5 -- NTC-AS New Telephone Company
12 - AS983526406  0.5% 207.9 -- GITS-TH-AS-AP Government 
Information Technology Services
13 - AS11830   26048  0.5%  11.2 -- Instituto Costarricense de 
Electricidad y Telecom.
14 - AS480225518  0.5%  48.8 -- ASN-IINET iiNet Limited
15 - AS432325301  0.5%   6.2 -- TWTC - Time Warner Telecom, Inc.
16 - AS10620   23159  0.4%  59.7 -- TV Cable S.A.
17 - AS845223103  0.4%  55.5 -- TEDATA TEDATA
18 - AS19334   22287  0.4%   22287.0 -- SPORTLINE-DBC - SPORTLINE
19 - AS747021214  0.4% 151.5 -- ASIAINFO-AS-AP ASIA INFONET 
Co.,Ltd.
20 - AS13495   20281  0.4%   20281.0 -- NTT do Brasil Telecomunicaoes 
Ltda


TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS (Updates per announced prefix)
Rank ASNUpds %  Upds/PfxAS-Name
 1 - AS26829   42774  0.8%   42774.0 -- YKK-USA - YKK USA,INC
 2 - AS19334   22287  0.4%   22287.0 -- SPORTLINE-DBC - SPORTLINE
 3 - AS13495   20281  0.4%   20281.0 -- NTT do Brasil Telecomunicaoes 
Ltda
 4 - AS21291   14577  0.3%   14577.0 -- OMEGABANK 8 Dragatsaniou str
 5 - AS17487   10246  0.2%   10246.0 -- ICBCASIA-AP Industrial and 
Commercial Bank
 6 - AS32398   17656  0.3%8828.0 -- REALNET-ASN-1
 7 - AS292256878  0.1%6878.0 -- TAIF-TELCOM-AS JSC TAIF-TELCOM
 8 - AS14895   17430  0.3%5810.0 -- LAWSON-SOFTWARE - Lawson 
Software
 9 - AS309295542  0.1%5542.0 -- HUTCB Hidrotechnical Faculty - 
Technical University
10 - AS190175541  0.1%5541.0 -- QUALCOMM-QWBS-LV - Qualcomm 
Wireless Business Solutions
11 - AS427875193  0.1%5193.0 -- MMIP-AS MultiMedia IP Ltd.
12 - AS419073926  0.1%3926.0 -- POLFA PZPF Polfa
13 - AS797412233  0.2%3058.2 -- Instituto Mexicano del Petroleo
14 - AS409812829  0.1%2829.0 -- UNIVCG University of Montenegro
15 - AS286462617  0.1%2617.0 -- Confederacao Interestadual das 
Cooperativas Ligadas ao Sicredi
16 - AS324552428  0.0%2428.0 -- FNIS-HAWAII - FNIS
17 - AS433822244  0.0%2244.0 -- IFOLOR-FIKA-AS Ifolor Oy - 
Kerava
18 - AS974719189  0.3%2132.1 -- EZINTERNET-AS-AP EZInternet Pty 
Ltd
19 - AS38206   12681  0.2%2113.5 -- ESTATIONPRIM-AS-AP eStation Pty 
Ltd Australia Primary AS Hosting Service Provider
20 - AS400112091  0.0%2091.0 -- 65-79-192-0-SYNIVERSE-CRX - 
Panhandle Telecommunications Systems, INC.


TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes
Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name
 1 - 203.101.87.0/24   57905  1.0%   AS9498  -- BBIL-AP BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD.
 2 - 12.108.254.0/24   42774  0.7%   AS26829 -- YKK-USA - YKK USA,INC
 3 - 202.140.63.0/24   34387  0.6%   AS17443 -- ESTELCOM-AP International 
Internet gateway , India
 AS9498  -- BBIL-AP BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD.
 4 - 80.243.64.0/2025564  0.4%   AS21332 -- NTC-AS New Telephone Company
 5 - 63.169.11.0/2422287  0.4%   AS19334 -- SPORTLINE-DBC - SPORTLINE
 6 - 124.7.244.0/2420789  0.3%   AS9583  -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited
 7 - 200.194.64.0/19   20281  0.3%   AS13495 -- NTT do Brasil Telecomunicaoes 
Ltda
 8 - 203.63.26.0/2418963  0.3%   AS9747  -- EZINTERNET-AS-AP EZInternet Pty 
Ltd
 9 - 41.204.0.0/24 17605  0.3%   AS32398 -- REALNET-ASN-1
10 - 125.23.208.0/20   17271  0.3%   AS9498  -- BBIL-AP BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD.
11 - 89.4.131.0/24 16754  0.3%   AS24731 -- ASN-NESMA National Engineering 
Services and Marketing Company Ltd. (NESMA)
12 - 89.4.130.0/24 16740  0.3%   AS24731 -- ASN-NESMA National Engineering 
Services and Marketing Company Ltd. (NESMA)
13 - 89.4.128.0/24 15533  0.3%   AS24731 -- ASN-NESMA National Engineering 
Services and Marketing Company Ltd. (NESMA)
14 - 203.55.229.160/2  14743  0.2%   AS4802  -- ASN-IINET iiNe

RE: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

[michael.dillon]

> I'm told by some folks who run core networks for a living 
> that while the routers may sling IPv6 packets as fast or 
> faster than IPv4, doing  
> so with ACLs, filter lists, statistics, monitoring, etc., is 
> lacking.   
> What's worse, the vendors aren't spinning the ASICs (which 
> I'm told have a 2 to 3 year lead time from design to being 
> shipped) necessary to do everything core routers are expected 
> to do for IPv6 yet.

This may mean that you are better off building an IPv6 overlay
using tunnels over an IPv4 core, or using MPLS with 6PE. These
are the sort of detailed questions that people should be asking
their vendors now. Will you really be able to get the expected
work lifetime out of the boxes that you are buying today?

> I thought parts of the USG were under a mandate to be "IPv6 
> capable" (whatever that means) by this summer.  If there is a 
> mandate to be running IPv6 within the USG by the end of the 
> year, people are going to have to get very, very busy very, 
> very quickly.

Lots of the USG and DOD folks are buying Hexago boxes which
basically means that they are going to talk IPv6 to each other
using tunnels over an IPv4 core network.

--Michael Dillon

Recall: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

[michael.dillon]

Dillon,M,Michael,DMK R would like to recall the message, "cost of dual-stack vs 
cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]".

RE: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]

[michael.dillon]

---
Michael Dillon
RadianzNet Capacity Forecast & Plan -- BT Design
66 Prescot St., London, E1 8HG, UK
Mobile: +44 7900 823 672 
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: +44 20 7650 9493 Fax: +44 20 7650 9030
http://www.btradianz.com
 
Use the wiki: http://collaborate.intra.bt.com/  

 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
> Behalf Of David Conrad
> Sent: 13 March 2008 16:49
> To: Jamie Bowden
> Cc: North American Network Operators Group
> Subject: Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 
> on SOHO routers?]
> 
> 
> Jamie,
> 
> On Mar 13, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
> > MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently.
> 
> The fact that the kernel may support IPv6 does not mean that 
> IPv6 is actually usable (as events at NANOG, APRICOT, and the 
> IETF have shown).  There are lots of bits and pieces that are 
> necessary for mere mortals to actually use IPv6.
> 
> > The core is IPv6/dual stack capable, even if it's not enabled 
> > everywhere,
> 
> I'm told by some folks who run core networks for a living 
> that while the routers may sling IPv6 packets as fast or 
> faster than IPv4, doing  
> so with ACLs, filter lists, statistics, monitoring, etc., is 
> lacking.   
> What's worse, the vendors aren't spinning the ASICs (which 
> I'm told have a 2 to 3 year lead time from design to being 
> shipped) necessary to do everything core routers are expected 
> to do for IPv6 yet.
> 
> > and a large chunk of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now.
> 
> I keep hearing this, but could you indicate what parts of 
> Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now?  I'm aware, for 
> example, that NTT is using IPv6 for their FLETS service, but 
> that is an internal transport service not connected to the 
> Internet.  I'm unaware (but would be very interested in 
> hearing about) any service in Asia or Europe that is seeing 
> significant IPv6 traffic.
> 
> > The US Govt. is under mandate to transition to v6 by the end of the 
> > year.
> 
> I thought parts of the USG were under a mandate to be "IPv6 
> capable" (whatever that means) by this summer.  If there is a 
> mandate to be running IPv6 within the USG by the end of the 
> year, people are going to have to get very, very busy very, 
> very quickly.
> 
> > The
> > only bits that are missing right now are the routers and 
> switches at  
> > the
> > edge, and support from transit providers,
> 
> My understanding is that there are lots of bits and pieces that are  
> missing in the infrastructure, but that's almost irrelevant.  
> What is  
> _really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it 
> results in the  
> chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request  
> IPv6.  Without customer requests for IPv6, it's hard to make the  
> business case to deploy the infrastructure to support it.  Without  
> infrastructure to support IPv6, it's hard to make the 
> business case to  
> deploy content on top of IPv6.
> 
> > and if they're going to keep
> > supplying the Fed with gear and connectivity, at least one major  
> > player
> > in those areas of the NA market is going to HAVE to make it happen.
> 
> Remember GOSIP?
> 
> Regards,
> -drc
> 
>