Results of ARIN/CAIDA IPv6 Penetration Survey
ARIN thanks those community members who participated in the recent ARIN/CAIDA IPv6 Penetration Survey. kc claffy presented an analysis of the survey results earlier this week during ARIN XXI in Denver, Co. You will find the link to this presentation on ARIN's IPv6 wiki at: www.getipv6.net. We encourage community members to post IPv6 experiences, knowledge and resources on the ARIN IPv6 wiki. Also, be sure to check back there soon for data from the 8 April ARIN IPv6 Main Event, where participants connected to an IPv6-only network. Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
Re: IPv6 tunnel for ISP sought
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Adam Armstrong wrote: > Joel Snyder wrote: > > We would like to get an IPv6 tunnel to begin limited testing of IPv6 > > for customers. Is there any IPv6-savvy ISP out there who will > > give/sell tunnels to other ISPs? > Are there any EU ISPs doing IPv6 BGP peering/freebie transit-ish via > tunnels? > > I'm trying to do some testing of IPv6 at the moment, just in case anyone > asks me to deploy it in anger at some point in the future. Sadly none of > my transit providers will do IPv6, so I'm currently doing my testing > using a BGP tunnel to those lovely people at HE. Sadly the latency to > destinations on this side of the atlantic is high with packets hopping > across to their US tunnel server and back! We do have tunnel servers in Europe, however our BGP tunnel servers are separate we are in the process of deploying them to Europe. If you don't need BGP, and just need to do some basic testing then one of our regular European tunnel servers will fix your latency concerns. For BGP, we strongly encourage you (or your upstream) to run native with us at one of any of the exchange points we might have in common. We are AS6939. Mike. Exchange Point Connections: NAP Status Speed IPv4IPv6 --- --- --- --- EQUINIX-ASH UP 10GigE 206.223.115.37 2001:504:0:2::6939:1 EQUINIX-CHI UP 10GigE 206.223.119.37 2001:504:0:4::6939:1 EQUINIX-DAL UP 10GigE 206.223.118.37 2001:504:0:5::6939:1 EQUINIX-LAX UP 10GigE 206.223.123.37 2001:504:0:3::6939:1 EQUINIX-SJC UP 10GigE 206.223.116.37 2001:504:0:1::6939:1 LINXUP 10GigE 195.66.224.21 2001:7f8:4:0::1b1b:1 LoNAP UP GigE193.203.5.128 2001:7f8:17::1b1b:1 AMS-IX UP 10GigE 195.69.145.150 2001:7f8:1::a500:6939:1 NL-IX UP GigE193.239.116.14 2001:7f8:13::a500:6939:1 PAIX Palo Alto UP 10GigE 198.32.176.20 2001:504:d::10 PAIX New York UP 10GigE 198.32.118.57 2001:504:f::39 NYIIX UP 10GigE 198.32.160.61 2001:504:1::a500:6939:1 LAIIX UP GigE198.32.146.50 2001:504:a::a500:6939:1 NYCXUP GigE198.32.229.22 BIGEAPE UP 100BT 2001:458:26:2::500 SIX UP 10GigE 198.32.180.40 2001:478:180::40 PaNAP UP 10GigE 62.35.254.111 2001:860:0:6::6939:1 DE-CIX UP 10GigE 80.81.192.172 2001:7f8::1b1b:0:1 NOTAUP 10GigE 198.32.124.176 2001:478:124::176 Any2-LAXUP 10GigE 206.223.143.122 2001:504:13:0:0:0:0:1A +- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -+ | Mike Leber Wholesale IPv4 and IPv6 Transit 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation AS6939 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://he.net | +---+
Re: IPv6 tunnel for ISP sought
Joel Snyder wrote: We would like to get an IPv6 tunnel to begin limited testing of IPv6 for customers. Is there any IPv6-savvy ISP out there who will give/sell tunnels to other ISPs? Are there any EU ISPs doing IPv6 BGP peering/freebie transit-ish via tunnels? I'm trying to do some testing of IPv6 at the moment, just in case anyone asks me to deploy it in anger at some point in the future. Sadly none of my transit providers will do IPv6, so I'm currently doing my testing using a BGP tunnel to those lovely people at HE. Sadly the latency to destinations on this side of the atlantic is high with packets hopping across to their US tunnel server and back! Thanks, adam.
ARIN & CAIDA IPv6 Survey Is Now Closed
ARIN wishes to thank the 300+ people who completed the IPv6 survey. CAIDA will analyze the results and present them on 7 April during the ARIN XXI Public Policy Meeting in Denver. The results will be posted on the ARIN website in the IPv6 Information Center and on the IPv6 wiki at www.getipv6.info. ARIN thanks NANOG for the opportunity to announce the survey on its mailing list and appreciates the participation by many in the operator community. When available, ARIN will post a link to the survey results on the NANOG mailing list. Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
Re: IPv6 tunnel for ISP sought
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 03:44:14PM -0400, Joel Snyder wrote: > We have a UUnet link and a secondary provider. The secondary provider > has no IPv6 facilities. UUnet (er, Verizon Business) has IPv6 clue, but > there is an impenetrable wall between the customer and the clue which > assures that there will be no IPv6 links or tunnels ever given to customers. Hi Joel, Most ISPs that are doing IPv6 have contacts outside of the normal support and sales infrastructure for dealing with IPv6 turn up. Sprint, for example, has a different email address that you can hit and get straight to some people that understand what you're asking about. Searching in whois maybe points to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and if that doesn't pan out, someone on ipv6-ops might have a better idea. -- Ross Vandegrift [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell." --St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram, Book II, xviii, 37
Re: IPv6 tunnel for ISP sought
Joel Snyder wrote: [..] Experimentation with SixXS.NET has proven to be problematic, How so? It is always fun to read that people have 'problems', but it is even funnier then when the person's name isn't even listed in whois.sixxs.net and thus doesn't even have an account, nor am I able to even find a single email from either opus1 or your name, thus I really wonder what things are 'problematic' for you. You might be interested to try this marvelous thing called the World Wide Web, and read http://www.sixxs.net/contact/ and when you have done that, use this great invention called email to contact us, if you still have questions about things, that is why that page is there, clearly people are scared by it and don't dare to ask... As you might guess, our IPv6 traffic load is estimated to be between "zero" and "unmeasurably small," but we'd still like to have it hover above the absolute zero mark. Then again, if you are a real ISP, you will have to do what everybody else in the business is doing: - get a block from ARIN (or your favorite local RIR :) http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/arin/ doesn't list you, thus you might want to start out there - arrange transit - this generally means you are going to pay for bits just like in the IPv4 world. - fix your routers and the rest of your network Though SixXS is there to get people going in using IPv6, it definitely is not meant to support your full business process, if you require that, go pay somebody who can give you their full attention, there are lists in the FAQ with organizations who can do that for you for that purpose. Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: IPv6 tunnel for ISP sought
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Kevin Day wrote: > On Mar 22, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Joel Snyder wrote: > > > > We would like to get an IPv6 tunnel to begin limited testing of IPv6 > > for customers. Is there any IPv6-savvy ISP out there who will give/ > > sell tunnels to other ISPs? > > > > Experimentation with SixXS.NET has proven to be problematic, so I'd > > rather have a more stable and commercial relationship if possible. > > > > You've got a few options. > > First, if you're having a problem with SixXS, make sure you let them > know. They're good guys there, and their support tends to be faster > than some companies we've bought transit from. :) But, you're right, > that isn't a commercial service and is more on the "best effort" side > of things, instead of the SLA side. There are other services like > SixXS that give out tunnels more-or-less automatically > (tunnelbroker.net from Hurricane Electric, is the other big one), but > that's also pretty much a best effort service. FWIW, we handle the tunnelbroker.net tickets sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] the same as customer tickets sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] (same ticket system). We also follow up in the forums: http://tunnelbroker.net/forums Since we provide /48s via a button and the ability to set your reverse DNS servers in the tunnelbroker.net interface, those two sources of traditional support tickets are reduced. > If you're wanting more than an auto-created tunnel, because you want > to run BGP or have your own space announced, or someone to yell at > when it breaks, you'll probably need to find someone who will treat a > tunnel like a customer connection. In our case: phone support and priority for network engineer attention. > Hurricane Electric was offering BGP over tunnels at one point, but I > don't know if they still are. Sprint made an announcement years ago > that they were offering free tunnels with BGP and treated them more or > less like customer ports, but I don't know if that's still happening. We review BGP tunnel requests manually to ensure that request came from somebody at the actual AS owner. We setup tunnels with BGP using specific routers in various locations, that are separate from the auto-created tunnels. We are gradually adding geographically disperse BGP tunnel servers to provide closer endpoints for users. When possible Hurricane would prefer to give native IPv6 transit at an exchange we have in common rather than giving IPv6 transit via a tunnel. The vast majority of Hurricane's IPv6 peering is via native sessions. > If your use is really small, we've given some free "tunnels as > customers" to a few ISPs, but I don't know if the level of support I'm > offering is really what you're looking for either. > > I don't know that anyone out there right now is doing a "Tunnels for > Dollars" kinda situation, because it's so hard to support. We do. We have customers with paid commercial IPv6 tunnels. Some companies and organizations can't or don't want to use free service. Paying for service gets phone support, help with custom configurations, engineering attention to your specific use, and a sales rep to deploy more service. Of course we provide and recommend native connectivity for transit connections and colo. Mike. +- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -+ | Mike Leber Wholesale IPv4 and IPv6 Transit 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation AS6939 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://he.net | +---+
Re: IPv6 tunnel for ISP sought
Kevin Day wrote: Hurricane Electric was offering BGP over tunnels at one point, but I don't know if they still are. Sprint made an announcement years ago that they were offering free tunnels with BGP and treated them more or less like customer ports, but I don't know if that's still happening. If your use is really small, we've given some free "tunnels as customers" to a few ISPs, but I don't know if the level of support I'm offering is really what you're looking for either. I can vouch that Sprint is still offering IPv6 with BGP over tunnels. I'm currently announcing my /48 with it, but I don't use it too much beyond testing/playing. I'm still waiting for it to become dual-stack, so if anyone from Sprint is reading this... ;) ~Seth
Re: IPv6 tunnel for ISP sought
On Mar 22, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Joel Snyder wrote: We would like to get an IPv6 tunnel to begin limited testing of IPv6 for customers. Is there any IPv6-savvy ISP out there who will give/ sell tunnels to other ISPs? Experimentation with SixXS.NET has proven to be problematic, so I'd rather have a more stable and commercial relationship if possible. You've got a few options. First, if you're having a problem with SixXS, make sure you let them know. They're good guys there, and their support tends to be faster than some companies we've bought transit from. :) But, you're right, that isn't a commercial service and is more on the "best effort" side of things, instead of the SLA side. There are other services like SixXS that give out tunnels more-or-less automatically (tunnelbroker.net from Hurricane Electric, is the other big one), but that's also pretty much a best effort service. If you're wanting more than an auto-created tunnel, because you want to run BGP or have your own space announced, or someone to yell at when it breaks, you'll probably need to find someone who will treat a tunnel like a customer connection. Hurricane Electric was offering BGP over tunnels at one point, but I don't know if they still are. Sprint made an announcement years ago that they were offering free tunnels with BGP and treated them more or less like customer ports, but I don't know if that's still happening. If your use is really small, we've given some free "tunnels as customers" to a few ISPs, but I don't know if the level of support I'm offering is really what you're looking for either. I don't know that anyone out there right now is doing a "Tunnels for Dollars" kinda situation, because it's so hard to support. If the v4 path between you and the tunnel provider breaks, there's not always anything anyone can do about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IPv6_tunnel_brokers might be a good place to start. -- Kevin
Re: IPv6 tunnel for ISP sought
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Joel Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We would like to get an IPv6 tunnel to begin limited testing of IPv6 for > customers. Is there any IPv6-savvy ISP out there who will give/sell > tunnels to other ISPs? > > Experimentation with SixXS.NET has proven to be problematic, so I'd > rather have a more stable and commercial relationship if possible. Joel, Give the folks at Hurricane Electric a shot if you haven't already: http://tunnelbroker.net/ Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
IPv6 tunnel for ISP sought
Hello. I looked through the recent archives and didn't see this question addressed, so please excuse me if it has been beaten to death or is considered off-topic. We have a UUnet link and a secondary provider. The secondary provider has no IPv6 facilities. UUnet (er, Verizon Business) has IPv6 clue, but there is an impenetrable wall between the customer and the clue which assures that there will be no IPv6 links or tunnels ever given to customers. We would like to get an IPv6 tunnel to begin limited testing of IPv6 for customers. Is there any IPv6-savvy ISP out there who will give/sell tunnels to other ISPs? Experimentation with SixXS.NET has proven to be problematic, so I'd rather have a more stable and commercial relationship if possible. As you might guess, our IPv6 traffic load is estimated to be between "zero" and "unmeasurably small," but we'd still like to have it hover above the absolute zero mark. Any help/pointers/advice/proposals gratefully solicited. jms -- Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719 Senior Partner, Opus One Phone: +1 520 324 0494 [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.opus1.com/jms
Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt
> Still trying to understand deployment scenarios for nat-pt. enterprise > native-v6 + v4-nat (as outlined in Michael Sinatra's lightning talk) i am not unhappy with ms's preso except that enterprise keeps whining about 1918 conflicts > and Alain Durand's v4v6v4 seem more likely deployment candidates useful for big (broadband) provider where edge is consumer randy
Re: US Gvt ipv6 change, associated agencies
> From: Jerry Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:06:24 -0400 > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Patrick/NANOG, see list of sites below to get information on IPV6 > transitions. When you go to www.cio.gov you can type in ipv6 in the > search bar to get more information. When the USG migrates to IPv6 > those agencies working with them will have to migrate or take one of > the approaches listed in previous postings to the nanog list. It'll > most likely be a slow transition but you'll really need to have that > conversation with the agency you're supporting or getting services > from to determine their timeline and what will be supported in the > future. > > Now more specifically in your case that would be a good question for > HHS & SSA on what the roadmap is for pushing information and receiving > it for medicare or other e-gov programs. > > I typed in the following into google and got all kinds of good info > related to your question: ipv6 medicare and site:.gov > > > http://www.cio.gov/ > > http://www.cio.gov/documents/IPv6_FAQs.pdf > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/a-1-fea.html > > http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SMA/ispab/documents/minutes/2007-03/IPv6-NIST-ITL_ISPAB0307.pdf > > Jerry > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Mar 18, 2008, at 9:32 AM, Darden, Patrick S. wrote: > > > > > > > I'm looking for documentation on how the US Government IPv6 mandate > > affects associated agencies--e.g. healthcare providers, non-profits, > > or any company that depends on US Gvt. funding, record keeping, or > > financial reimbursement for services rendered (e.g. via Medicare). > > > > Over the past 5 years most US Gvt--Assoc. Agencies communications > > have moved from modem/BBS type systems to Internet based systems. > > With the mandate, IPv4 will still be available, but I would bet it > > will be less and less supported as time moves on. I would like to > > see what the Gvt. has planned > > > > I've googled, read FAQs, and looked over the docs at whitehouse.gov > > without much luck. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Please DON'T PANIC! People keep reporting that the US government is about to (or in the process of) transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6. While this is true for some definition of transition, it is NOT true for any definition I would normally use. >From the IPv6 FAQ at cio.gov: OMB Memorandum 05-22 requires the agency's network backbone (aka. "network core") to be capable of transmitting both IPv4 and IPv6 traffic and supporting IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, by June 30, 2008. Note: 1. This only applies to backbone networks, not services or end systems. 2. This "transition" is NOT away form IPv4, but to a dual stack supporting both IPv4 and IPv6. This means that the DOE backbone nets (I work for one of them) must be capable of accepting IPv6 traffic from our sites and passing it to other sites or to other networks and most have IPv6 capable DNS. The FAQ makes this clear with the statement: The requirements for June 30, 2008 are for the network backbone (core) only. Applications, peripherals, and other IT assets which are not leveraged in the execution of the functions mentioned above are not required for the June 30, 2008 deadline. So nobody doing business with the US government is required to use or even support IPv6 to access the government services. Only US Government backbone provides are in any way impacted by OMB 05-22. That said, it is likely that dual stack services will be required at some future date by some future memorandum, but when and what is unknown at this time. There is not indication of any plan to remove IPv4 capability from any network or service. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 pgpFsHy0x7u52.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt
Randy Bush wrote: And the NAT-PT implementation at NANOG (naptd) did seem to work once some configuration issues were ironed out. Unfortunately, this was not resolved until the very end of the meeting. your made heroic efforts with the linux nat-pt, and finally got it. but do you think it will scale well? For the size of a NANOG meeting, it seemed to be sufficient. I don't think I'd recommend trying to put thousands of users behind it though. i suspect that all the nat-pt implementations are old and not well maintained. this needs to be fixed. Still trying to understand deployment scenarios for nat-pt. I could see a case for very controlled environments with uniform clients (with robust v6 support). Outside of that, native-v6 + v4-nat (as outlined in Michael Sinatra's lightning talk) and Alain Durand's v4v6v4 seem more likely deployment candidates. That said, nat-pt is very useful for exercising native v6 support in clients and their applications. -Larry
Re: US Gvt ipv6 change, associated agencies
Darden, Patrick S. wrote: I'm looking for documentation on how the US Government IPv6 mandate affects associated agencies--e.g. healthcare providers, non-profits, or any company that depends on US Gvt. funding, record keeping, or financial reimbursement for services rendered (e.g. via Medicare). Over the past 5 years most US Gvt--Assoc. Agencies communications have moved from modem/BBS type systems to Internet based systems. With the mandate, IPv4 will still be available, but I would bet it will be less and less supported as time moves on. I would like to see what the Gvt. has planned I've googled, read FAQs, and looked over the docs at whitehouse.gov without much luck. Can anyone point me in the right direction? --Patrick Darden Patrick, the mandate (note, it is an *unfunded* mandate) comes from the OMB. Search terms including "OMB IPv6 mandate" will point you to useful information. Thus far, as with any such mandate, there will be "loads" of waivers in place, and providers wanting to do business with the US gov't may fall under such requirements. http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?sid=1319907&nid=169 might also prove useful. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/b-1-information.html INTERNET PROTOCOL VERSION 6 (IPV6) On August 2, 2005, the OMB Office of E-Gov and IT issued OMB Memorandum 05-22, “Transition Planning for Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6),” directing all Federal government agencies to transition their network backbones to the next generation of the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6), by June 30, 2008. The memorandum identifies several key milestones and requirements for all Federal government agencies in support of the June 30, 2008 target date. The existing protocol supporting the Internet today - Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4) – supports only 4 billion IP addresses, limiting the number of devices that can be given a unique, globally routable location on the Internet. This has constrained the growth of the Internet worldwide, and has limited the number of computers and other devices that can be connected to one another via the Internet. In contrast to IPv4, IPv6 provides an almost unlimited number of IP addresses, and offers enhanced mobility, security, and network management features. IPv6 supports the continued growth of the Internet and development of new business capabilities leveraging mobile, Internet connectivity. The CIO Council will issue guidance to assist agencies with transition planning.
Re: US Gvt ipv6 change, associated agencies
Patrick/NANOG, see list of sites below to get information on IPV6 transitions. When you go to www.cio.gov you can type in ipv6 in the search bar to get more information. When the USG migrates to IPv6 those agencies working with them will have to migrate or take one of the approaches listed in previous postings to the nanog list. It'll most likely be a slow transition but you'll really need to have that conversation with the agency you're supporting or getting services from to determine their timeline and what will be supported in the future. Now more specifically in your case that would be a good question for HHS & SSA on what the roadmap is for pushing information and receiving it for medicare or other e-gov programs. I typed in the following into google and got all kinds of good info related to your question: ipv6 medicare and site:.gov http://www.cio.gov/ http://www.cio.gov/documents/IPv6_FAQs.pdf http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/a-1-fea.html http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SMA/ispab/documents/minutes/2007-03/IPv6-NIST-ITL_ISPAB0307.pdf Jerry [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mar 18, 2008, at 9:32 AM, Darden, Patrick S. wrote: I'm looking for documentation on how the US Government IPv6 mandate affects associated agencies--e.g. healthcare providers, non-profits, or any company that depends on US Gvt. funding, record keeping, or financial reimbursement for services rendered (e.g. via Medicare). Over the past 5 years most US Gvt--Assoc. Agencies communications have moved from modem/BBS type systems to Internet based systems. With the mandate, IPv4 will still be available, but I would bet it will be less and less supported as time moves on. I would like to see what the Gvt. has planned I've googled, read FAQs, and looked over the docs at whitehouse.gov without much luck. Can anyone point me in the right direction? --Patrick Darden
US Gvt ipv6 change, associated agencies
I'm looking for documentation on how the US Government IPv6 mandate affects associated agencies--e.g. healthcare providers, non-profits, or any company that depends on US Gvt. funding, record keeping, or financial reimbursement for services rendered (e.g. via Medicare). Over the past 5 years most US Gvt--Assoc. Agencies communications have moved from modem/BBS type systems to Internet based systems. With the mandate, IPv4 will still be available, but I would bet it will be less and less supported as time moves on. I would like to see what the Gvt. has planned I've googled, read FAQs, and looked over the docs at whitehouse.gov without much luck. Can anyone point me in the right direction? --Patrick Darden
Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt
Nathan Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Perhaps you could integrate your work with a project like pfsense? >> >> From what I've seen, that's the best "open source CPE" solution, and >> doesn't yet have real IPv6 support (but has just about everything >> else). >> That would be a huge benefit to the community and potentially open >> up some >> business opportunities for you. > > > It'd be good if the pfsense guys would do some IPv6 stuff, yes. I > however, am not really interested in building CPEs, nor am I > interested in building CPEs commercially. My understanding is that there is some IPv6 support in HEAD, but not in RELENG_1. Someone who has the time and inclination should join the development team; they do not seem averse to the notion of having v6 support in there, but like so many other endeavors, effort is commensurate with demand, yadda yadda yadda... ---rob
RE: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt
> Giving away code and hardware is quite the opposite of > lucrative, let me assure you. Right. I looked at your message and it does not parse very clearly. Given that it is odd for people to offer to give away boxes, let alone quote a price for the box that they are giving away, I thought you were advertising something for sale. > It moves about 20Mbit/s on a Soekris box, probably more. If > you're doing more 6to4 and Teredo traffic than that, then > well done. How fast can you do it on a Cisco (or, whatever) > box? Someone lend me some hardware for a week and I'd be more > than happy to test and publish numbers on that. It would be good for people to do some performance testing of all the various bits and pieces. And publish all that test info on the ARIN wiki. Perhaps you could test the hardware that you have and document the test environment so that people with Juniper, Cisco, etc. can do the same tests and post their numbers. If people are interested in alternatives to Soekris, then http://www.linuxdevices.com has pointers to tons of embedded systems which are quite capable of running FreeBSD as well as Linux. > I've actually given this Soekris hardware away to several > ISPs here in New Zealand, sponsored by InternetNZ. One wonders if there is any organization in the USA that might sponsor similar giveaways to ISPs. Just how much importance does the Federal government attach to IPv6 transition? Has anyone talked to their Congressional reps about tax relief for the special one-time costs of enabling IPv6? > I've also got several slide packs with this stuff in it, if > people want those. I believe they're reachable via the NZNOG > website somewhere (nznog.org, I think). They can now also find it by looking at the wiki page <http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/IPv6_Presentations_and_Documents> with your name on it. It was a full-day tutorial on all aspects of IPv6 deployment. --Michael Dillon
Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt
On 18/03/2008, at 3:34 PM, Andy Dills wrote: On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Nathan Ward wrote: I'm not selling anything. Code is freely available. When I've got some decent instructions for it I'll post links to NANOG if you like. To be fair, it's really nothing more than FreeBSD with a couple of patches, and Miredo packaged up in a nice-to-deal-with bundle, that means you can plug it in today and make it work with 2 or 3 lines of config, instead of spending the next 3 years "engineering a solution" that the various parts of "the business" agree with - that is, assuming they give their engineers time to even think about IPv6, let alone engineer for it. Key word: pragmatic. Perhaps you could integrate your work with a project like pfsense? From what I've seen, that's the best "open source CPE" solution, and doesn't yet have real IPv6 support (but has just about everything else). That would be a huge benefit to the community and potentially open up some business opportunities for you. It'd be good if the pfsense guys would do some IPv6 stuff, yes. I however, am not really interested in building CPEs, nor am I interested in building CPEs commercially. Thanks, -- Nathan Ward
Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt
> And the NAT-PT implementation at NANOG (naptd) did seem > to work once some configuration issues were ironed out. Unfortunately, > this was not resolved until the very end of the meeting. your made heroic efforts with the linux nat-pt, and finally got it. but do you think it will scale well? i suspect that all the nat-pt implementations are old and not well maintained. this needs to be fixed. randy
Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt
Randy Bush wrote: I believe whoever shows off a functional NAT-PT device at the next NANOG might get some praise. I heard it was a bit of a disaster. by the time the show got to apnic/apricot the week after nanog, we had the cisco implementation of nat-pt and totd working and it worked well. randy And the NAT-PT implementation at NANOG (naptd) did seem to work once some configuration issues were ironed out. Unfortunately, this was not resolved until the very end of the meeting.
Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt
> I believe whoever shows off a functional NAT-PT device at the next NANOG > might get some praise. I heard it was a bit of a disaster. by the time the show got to apnic/apricot the week after nanog, we had the cisco implementation of nat-pt and totd working and it worked well. randy
Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008, Andy Dills wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Nathan Ward wrote: > > > I'm not selling anything. Code is freely available. When I've got some > > decent > > instructions for it I'll post links to NANOG if you like. > > To be fair, it's really nothing more than FreeBSD with a couple of patches, > > and Miredo packaged up in a nice-to-deal-with bundle, that means you can > > plug > > it in today and make it work with 2 or 3 lines of config, instead of > > spending > > the next 3 years "engineering a solution" that the various parts of "the > > business" agree with - that is, assuming they give their engineers time to > > even think about IPv6, let alone engineer for it. Key word: pragmatic. > > Perhaps you could integrate your work with a project like pfsense? > > >From what I've seen, that's the best "open source CPE" solution, and > doesn't yet have real IPv6 support (but has just about everything else). > That would be a huge benefit to the community and potentially open up some > business opportunities for you. I believe whoever shows off a functional NAT-PT device at the next NANOG might get some praise. I heard it was a bit of a disaster. Adrian
Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Nathan Ward wrote: > I'm not selling anything. Code is freely available. When I've got some decent > instructions for it I'll post links to NANOG if you like. > To be fair, it's really nothing more than FreeBSD with a couple of patches, > and Miredo packaged up in a nice-to-deal-with bundle, that means you can plug > it in today and make it work with 2 or 3 lines of config, instead of spending > the next 3 years "engineering a solution" that the various parts of "the > business" agree with - that is, assuming they give their engineers time to > even think about IPv6, let alone engineer for it. Key word: pragmatic. Perhaps you could integrate your work with a project like pfsense? >From what I've seen, that's the best "open source CPE" solution, and doesn't yet have real IPv6 support (but has just about everything else). That would be a huge benefit to the community and potentially open up some business opportunities for you. Andy --- Andy Dills Xecunet, Inc. www.xecu.net 301-682-9972 ---
Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt
On 17/03/2008, at 11:07 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: If you're providing content or network services on v6 and you don't have both a Teredo and 6to4 relay, you should - there are more v6 users on those two than there are on native v6[1]. Talk to me and I'll give you a pre-built FreeBSD image that does it, boot off compact flash or hard drives. Soekris (~$350USD, incl. power supply and CF card), or regular server/whatever PC. Pardon me for interfering with your lucrative business here, but anyone contemplating running a Teredo relay and 6to4 relay should first understand the capacity issues before buying a little embedded box to stick in their network. The ARIN IPv6 wiki has this page <http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/First_Steps_for_ISPs> which not only gives you a number of options for setting up 6to4 and Teredo relays, it also points you to documents which describe what these things do so that you can understand how to size them and how to manage them. And the ARIN wiki tries to be vendor agnostic as well. Hi Michael, Giving away code and hardware is quite the opposite of lucrative, let me assure you. I'm not selling anything. Code is freely available. When I've got some decent instructions for it I'll post links to NANOG if you like. To be fair, it's really nothing more than FreeBSD with a couple of patches, and Miredo packaged up in a nice-to-deal-with bundle, that means you can plug it in today and make it work with 2 or 3 lines of config, instead of spending the next 3 years "engineering a solution" that the various parts of "the business" agree with - that is, assuming they give their engineers time to even think about IPv6, let alone engineer for it. Key word: pragmatic. It moves about 20Mbit/s on a Soekris box, probably more. If you're doing more 6to4 and Teredo traffic than that, then well done. How fast can you do it on a Cisco (or, whatever) box? Someone lend me some hardware for a week and I'd be more than happy to test and publish numbers on that. Soekris was an example of hardware, as that's what I've developed on. As I mentioned, it works on regular PC hardware as well - it's just an i386 FreeBSD thing. I've actually given this Soekris hardware away to several ISPs here in New Zealand, sponsored by InternetNZ. That's also related to another project - when I've got that all written up properly I'll let you know. Geoff Huston wrote about it on his ISP column a month or so back. The reason I do this, is so people at ISPs are deploying these things, instead of not because it might not scale at some point in the future. If it doesn't suit their needs in terms of scale, I'm more than happy to tell them other ways to do it - and have done. Note my comment something along the lines of "ask me if you want cisco configs", and as I mentioned, this code will run on any i386 box you throw it at. I've also got several slide packs with this stuff in it, if people want those. I believe they're reachable via the NZNOG website somewhere (nznog.org, I think). Ps. Yes, vendors should do Teredo relay and 6to4 in hardware. If you're a vendor and do, tell me, and I'll encourage people to give you lots of money. Pps. I'll reply to those of you who asked me for 6to4 Cisco configs and code later today (it's 1.30pm here), I'm just heading off to fix some stuff first. That wiki thing Michael posted links to has the cisco stuff. Thanks, -- Nathan Ward
Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Joe Abley wrote: | I'm sure for many small networks a Soekris box would do fine. For the | record, FreeBSD also runs on more capable hardware. Can attest to that. I have picked up Nathan's handywork and used it on other hardware. some work is needed, but nevertheless quite useful for small networks. the soekris boxes are of good value nevertheless for something like this. thanks ~ -gaurab -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH3paBSo7fU26F3X0RAi2iAKC86xc9nqiK7CQDIgE5Jxmaf6xKhACg6oXg d9Ky9Rd4+kA0uH5ecLlIGVQ= =O5IL -END PGP SIGNATURE-
ARIN & CAIDA IPv6 Survey
As a reminder to those of you that have not participated in the IPv6 survey. The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), in cooperation with the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA), is conducting a survey to gather data regarding the current and future use of IPv6 throughout the ARIN Region. For a complete list of countries go to: http://www.arin.net/community/ARINcountries.html We encourage all organizations in the ARIN region to participate in the survey so we can establish a comprehensive view of present IPv6 penetration and future plans of IPv6 deployment. The survey will open on 10 March and remain available until noon ET on 24 March. The results of the survey will be presented and discussed at the ARIN XXI Public Policy and Members Meeting to be held in Denver 6-9 April 2008, and the survey data will support ongoing research. The survey is composed of 20 questions that can be answered in a few minutes. When you complete the survey you will be entered in a drawing for prizes. You must provide your contact information to win. This is a secure survey and all data will be presented in summary form only, and kept confidential between ARIN and CAIDA. Please take a few moments to complete the survey located at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=2x5j2OlJl0cq44iYfQadrw_3d_3d Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt
On 17-Mar-2008, at 06:07, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you're providing content or network services on v6 and you don't have both a Teredo and 6to4 relay, you should - there are more v6 users on those two than there are on native v6[1]. Talk to me and I'll give you a pre-built FreeBSD image that does it, boot off compact flash or hard drives. Soekris (~$350USD, incl. power supply and CF card), or regular server/whatever PC. Pardon me for interfering with your lucrative business here, but anyone contemplating running a Teredo relay and 6to4 relay should first understand the capacity issues before buying a little embedded box to stick in their network. Do you imagine that Soekris are giving Nathan kick-backs for mentioning the price of their boxes on NANOG? :-) I'm sure for many small networks a Soekris box would do fine. For the record, FreeBSD also runs on more capable hardware. Joe
RE: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt
> If you're providing content or network services on v6 and you > don't have both a Teredo and 6to4 relay, you should - there > are more v6 users on those two than there are on native > v6[1]. Talk to me and I'll give you a pre-built FreeBSD image > that does it, boot off compact flash or hard drives. Soekris > (~$350USD, incl. power supply and CF card), or regular > server/whatever PC. Pardon me for interfering with your lucrative business here, but anyone contemplating running a Teredo relay and 6to4 relay should first understand the capacity issues before buying a little embedded box to stick in their network. The ARIN IPv6 wiki has this page <http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/First_Steps_for_ISPs> which not only gives you a number of options for setting up 6to4 and Teredo relays, it also points you to documents which describe what these things do so that you can understand how to size them and how to manage them. And the ARIN wiki tries to be vendor agnostic as well. --Michael Dillon
RE: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt
My understanding of the mandate is that they (the Department and Agencies) demonstrate passing IPv6 traffic on their backbone from one system out to their backbone and back to another system. A number of agencies, if I remember the number of about 30 have IPv6 allocations. IRS has demonstrated mandate compliance and several others are in line to also show mandate compliance. Both the Federal CIO Council and the Small CIO council are working with a number of their members to not only obtain compliance with the mandate but examine their processes to see how IPv6 can give them a better method of providing their services to each other and the public. John (ISDN) Lee From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Glen Kent Sent: Sat 3/15/2008 2:19 AM To: NANOG list Subject: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt 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: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt
On 15/03/2008, at 7:19 PM, Glen Kent wrote: 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? Yes - 6to4 and Teredo. 6to4[1] if your router (or some host with an unfiltered non-RFC1918 address) supports it. Teredo[2] if you're behind NAT or some other filtering. - These are enabled by default in Vista. - Enable them in XP SP2 by typing 'netsh interface ipv6 install'. - Apple Airport Extreme has 6to4 enabled by default if it is your NAT router (stateful firewall, allowing new connections outgoing- only by default) - Cisco supports 6to4 and has for years. - Linux and FreeBSD both support 6to4 (no OpenBSD, can't recall RE. NetBSD). - Teredo support in Linux and *BSD with 'miredo' software - it's in APT and FreeBSD ports. Azureus bittorrent client uses IPv6 for DHT. More DHT IPv6 bidirectional relationships than DHT IPv4 bidirectional relationships. So, it's not just IPv6 "enthusiasts". Numbers here: http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2007/msg00859.html More up to date numbers when I get around to processing them [3]. Upcoming version of uTorrent will enable IPv6 (so, Teredo/6to4) on XP SP2 as part of the install process - currently Azureus only uses it if it's enabled already. If you're providing content or network services on v6 and you don't have both a Teredo and 6to4 relay, you should - there are more v6 users on those two than there are on native v6[1]. Talk to me and I'll give you a pre-built FreeBSD image that does it, boot off compact flash or hard drives. Soekris (~$350USD, incl. power supply and CF card), or regular server/whatever PC. Also, if you want config for 6to4 on Cisco, email me and I'll hook you up so I'm not spamming the list with it, alternatively Google. It's about 10 lines, and requires you to inject an anycast IPv4 /24 and an IPv6 /16 in to your IGP(s). Thanks, -- Nathan Ward [1] RFC3056 [2] RFC4380, see also http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457011.aspx [3] I made this up. But seriously, prove me wrong. Current numbers (well, I got bored of waiting, processing 800MB of PCAP takes a while) are that I've had 1,402,634 unique host addresses talk to one of my test host over IPv6/6to4 - and that's just people running a recent version of Azureus with a public unfiltered IPv4 address, and have 6to4 enabled. Imagine what the numbers are like for Teredo users (ie. no requirement for public unfiltered IPv4 address, works through NAT). Imagine what the numbers are for people not running Azureus. Yeah, you get the idea. I really should get around to writing this stuff up properly.. If there's anyone out there who wants to roll some code to pull some stats out of PCAP files so I don't have to process this stuff with cut sed awk uniq etc. please contact me. Oh also if anyone knows Java and can hack some changes in to Azureus for me that'd be useful - it only seems to want to listen on one IPv6 address, I want it to listen on.. 3.
Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt
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
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: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
> > 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 <http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Broadband_CPE> has been updated. --Michael Dillon
RE: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
> 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?]
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 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 > >
RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Joel: Besides the CM and CMTS itself, can the CPE attached to the CM use IPv6 if the CMTS has the right code to handle IPv6-based DHCP relay? To be clear, even if the CMTS doesn't have DOCSIS 3.0 support? Standing from a distance, I don't see why IPv6 on the routing piece of the CMTS has to require a DOCSIS 3.0 blade and/or CM. Regards, Frank -Original Message- From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 8:48 AM To: Mark Newton Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers? Mark Newton wrote: > Those of us who use ADSL or (heaven forbid) Cable are kinda out of luck. > I haven't yet found ADSL2+ CPE that does IPv6 over PPPoE or PPPoA out > of the box. Any cablelebs certified docsis 3.0 CM or CMTS supports ipv6. Your cable provider will have to upgrade their CMTS (line card swap) before you can leverage it directly on the cable in a consumer environment. DSL aggregation routers are challenge where again equipment lifecycle plays in to whether you're in a position to deploy. > (Billion in Taiwan has a device which they've stamped an "IPv6 Ready" > sticker onto, but the IPv6 version of the software hasn't left the > confines of their lab yet) > > As far as I've been able to determine, IPv6 SOHO CPE is largely > vaporware right now. And lets not even get started on residential > grade CPE, that doesn't even appear to be on most vendors' radar > _at all_. If anything useful is going to happen in this space, > my guess is that it'll be with custom Linux firmware running on > a LinkSys blob with no vendor support. > > > - mark > > > -- > Mark Newton Email: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (W) > Network Engineer Email: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (H) > Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 > "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223 > > > > >
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
> From: David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:48:43 -0700 > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > 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? Oh, boy, do I remember GOSIP. Deja vu, in too many ways. Just to clarify, the current mandates for US government IPv6 implementation is quite constrained. 1. For some time computer equipment/software had to be IPv6 capable. No definition of 'capable' and the usual weasel words so that it's not really hard to ge around, but it move IPv6 up the check-list quite a ways. 2. The implementation mandate is restricted to government 'backbone' networks. That really means that US Government network providers which connect government facilities need to be capable of running IPv6. Not end systems, LANS, or any networks within a single facility. This means DREN, DISA, DOJ, DOI, DOE, etc. networks need to support IPv6, but networks at a laboratory or military base don't and no end systems or servers need to do IPv6. It is possible that an infrstructure support service like DNS, at least for addresses in the external nets, will need IPv6 support, but not facility servers. It is likely (nearly certain) that the requirements for IPv6 will expand to cover facility networks and end systems, but it is not clear that they will actually require IPv6 user, just capability, though this is also considered as likely. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 pgptermTVHS5p.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FWIW, I had reason to go over to a local Fry's (www.frys.com) and they > had 2 SOHO routers that claimed to have IPv6 support: > > Linksys RVS4000 for $119.99 > Linksys WRVS4400 for $209.99 > > No idea how well they support IPv6... Looked at the manual, the only thing I could find regarding IPv6 connectivity was an option IP Versions * IPv4 Only. This option utilizes IPv4 on the Internet and local network * Dual-Stack IP. This option utilizes IPv4 over the Internet and IPv4 and IPv6 on the local network. No support for native connectivity on the WAN side apparently and no user-defined tunnels, so my guess is 6to4. Odd that you can manually specify the LAN IPv6 address, but well. Latest firmware readme talks about 6to4-only as well. Apple Airport Extreme can do 6to4 and manual proto-41 at least, the only other commercial SOHO product I could find that (according to the data-sheet) supports IPv6 is the Buffalo WZR-AG300NH. No hit in the (very brief) manual or the knowledge base though, so no idea how far this support is going. Best bet is still a WRT54G with OpenWRT :-\ Bernhard
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
FWIW, I had reason to go over to a local Fry's (www.frys.com) and they had 2 SOHO routers that claimed to have IPv6 support: Linksys RVS4000 for $119.99 Linksys WRVS4400 for $209.99 No idea how well they support IPv6... Regards, -drc
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
I have an 877m (no wireless): Vlan1 has an ipv6 address and and ipv6 nd prefix. All the devices plugged into the ethernet ports find out about IPv6 just peachy. "c870-advipservicesk9-mz.124-15.T1.bin" (Caveat: I'm running native dual stack over PPPoE because I can make the LNS do what I want) MMC Petri Helenius wrote: Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: It's not that bad. You can attach a v6 address to the 802.11 interface and the FastEthernet interface, but you can't put one on a BVI which means you need two /64's if you want v6 on wireless and wired. That workaround does not work on the models with the 4 port switch integrated. (running 12.4T) Pete -- Matthew Moyle-Croft - Internode/Agile - Networks Level 5, 150 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.on.net Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366 Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909 "The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones" - John Maynard Keynes
RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
> -Original Message- > From: Petri Helenius [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:49 PM > To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost > Cc: Mohacsi Janos; Matthew Moyle-Croft; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers? > > Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: > > > > It's not that bad. You can attach a v6 address to the 802.11 > interface and the FastEthernet interface, but you can't put one on a > BVI which means you need two /64's if you want v6 on wireless and > wired. > > > That workaround does not work on the models with the 4 port switch > integrated. (running 12.4T) > > Pete Check out: http://www.andbobsyouruncle.net and my wiki post on a v6 config. I *think* this has the module you're talking about and is running flash:c870-advipservicesk9-mz.124-15.XY.bin. Cisco 871W (MPC8272) processor (revision 0x200) with 118784K/12288K bytes of memory. Processor board ID FHK1109132B MPC8272 CPU Rev: Part Number 0xC, Mask Number 0x10 5 FastEthernet interfaces 1 802.11 Radio 128K bytes of non-volatile configuration memory. 24576K bytes of processor board System flash (Intel Strataflash) Regards, Mike PGP.sig Description: PGP signature
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: It's not that bad. You can attach a v6 address to the 802.11 interface and the FastEthernet interface, but you can't put one on a BVI which means you need two /64's if you want v6 on wireless and wired. That workaround does not work on the models with the 4 port switch integrated. (running 12.4T) Pete
RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
> > > The IPv6 "support" on 87x Cisco is nothing to write home about. It's > not supported on most physical interfaces that exist on the devices. > But > it does work over tunnel interfaces if you have something on your lan > to > tunnel to. > > Pete It's not that bad. You can attach a v6 address to the 802.11 interface and the FastEthernet interface, but you can't put one on a BVI which means you need two /64's if you want v6 on wireless and wired. Regards, Mike PGP.sig Description: PGP signature
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Mohacsi Janos wrote: On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote: Actually Cisco 850 series does not support IPv6, only 870 series. We tested earlier cisco models also: 830 series has ipv6 support. My colleague tested NetScreen routers: apart for the smallest devices they have IPv6 support. However I think these devices are not consumer equipments. I would call SO (Small Office) devices. The HO (home office) devices are the ~ 50-100 USD devices - you rarely see official ipv6 support. The IPv6 "support" on 87x Cisco is nothing to write home about. It's not supported on most physical interfaces that exist on the devices. But it does work over tunnel interfaces if you have something on your lan to tunnel to. Pete
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, David Conrad wrote: There are already things like http://ipv6.google.com/, True, since yesterday. However, while I applaud their efforts, Google is still primarily a search engine. How much of the content Google serves up is accessible via IPv6? I might suggest reviewing http://bgp.he.net/ipv6-progress-report.cgi... Google is still a search engine, but through many of the products they've grown in-house (GMail, etc...) and acquired (YouTube, etc...), they control a growing amount of content jms
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
There are already things like http://ipv6.google.com/, True, since yesterday. However, while I applaud their efforts, Google is still primarily a search engine. How much of the content Google serves up is accessible via IPv6? I might suggest reviewing http://bgp.he.net/ipv6-progress-report.cgi ... Regards, -drc
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
Randy, actally, drc, here is where you and i diverge. there will never be demand for ipv6 from the end user. they just want their mtv, and do not care if it comes on ipv4, ipv6, or donkey-back. I agree. What I meant was that customers will demand content and since that content is available (largely exclusively) over IPv4, it will be difficult to make the business case to deploy IPv6. it is we operators, and the enterprise base, which will feel the ipv4 squeeze and need to seek alternatives. and, imiho, ipv6 is the preferable alternative we have today. I can see a case being made for converting an ISP's network to IPv6- only with edges (both customer facing as well as core facing, the latter being the tricky bit) that take v4 packets and tunnel them across the v6 infrastructure since the ISP would then be unconstrained on infrastructure growth and be able to use all their existing v4 holdings to connect customers. This also provides those customers that are dual stacked (and who haven't turned off v6 because that's what the ISP/software vendor/etc. call center told them to do) native v6 connectivity. However, more realistically, I fear we're more likely to see a world of multi-layer NAT because (a) the technology exists, (b) the ISP doesn't have to learn much (if anything) new, and (c) it fits nicely into a walled garden business model that permits the ISP to sell "value added" services (e.g., "a mere additional $5/month if you'd like port X forwarded."). Blech. Regards, -drc
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2008-03-13, David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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. There are already things like http://ipv6.google.com/, though content which is _only_ available over IPv6 is probably more likely to stimulate demand. But there's no $$ benefit for being either the chicken or the egg. The carriers (many still with oversized debt loads) don't see any advantage for deployment in a general sense. But they'll likely have an easier time than access providers. it's a 'no thanks, but I need more address space' for many of the access providers, given the orders of magnitude of ports, customers, customer care, billing systems and so on that may have to be updated to handle yet another layer in their networks. And content providers without an audience are just toying around. Maybe they'll have the easiest time. hard to say. It's almost like the volunteer line, where everyone else in line has to step back so that someone gets stuck being first doing the dirty work. Same for the end user. They don't care how a microwave oven works, they simply toss in a bag, press the popcorn button and expect results. regards, andy
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Leo Bicknell wrote: In a message written on Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:24PM -0500, Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote: Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've heard this posited -- I had a hard believing that, but he claims it with some authority. Anyone hear anything like this? My own opinion is that we'll see dual-stack for at least a decade or two to come. ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost. Running dual stack increases cost. While I'm not sure about the 5 year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to disable IPv4 support as soon as the market will let them as a cost saving measure. Runing for "decades" dual stacked does not make a lot of economic sense for all involved. labels in the core, for a long while. This transition will be about as smooth as the US moving to the metric system. (e.g. everyone buys soda in two liter bottles, wine in 750ml bottles, but can't mentally buy liters of gasolineor 1.1826 liters of beer, aka 'forty'). Same could be said for the Auto Industry. Thank [some dead mathematician] that 3/4" lug nuts are also 19mm or we'd really be screwed :-) No flag day here (I would pay serious money to see that happen though, it would be a total riot from the get go). There is some interesting movement in the US in particular to put up 'enough' v6 window dressing to be compliant with US gov't contracts and so on which will match up with the OMB [unfunded] mandate to be IPv6 compatible by this june. As for the SOHO, not sure if anything other the next chip revision and firmware are needed. Besides, will they be NAT boxen with a dozen application layer gateway helpers like today? Or will they be actual firewalls. Hard to say which is more difficult or code complex. With the pace of silicon replacement in SOHO product lines, the next silicon spin could do the either stack or both for the same cost. best regards, andy
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
On 2008-03-13, David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. There are already things like http://ipv6.google.com/, though content which is _only_ available over IPv6 is probably more likely to stimulate demand.
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
>> 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. you mean aside from the ipv6 forum mailing list? [ note that ipv6 forum members do not actually run ipv6, they just think other people should. ] the stats i am seeing, and they are not really great measurements, but they're what we have, are coming up on 1% ipv6 traffic. and this is pretty much the same asia, europe, and north america, with less down south. > 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. actally, drc, here is where you and i diverge. there will never be demand for ipv6 from the end user. they just want their mtv, and do not care if it comes on ipv4, ipv6, or donkey-back. it is we operators, and the enterprise base, which will feel the ipv4 squeeze and need to seek alternatives. and, imiho, ipv6 is the preferable alternative we have today. and it is we the operators who get to make it deployable so that the customers will not have to care how their mtv is delivered. and the chicks ain't free. randy
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
At 9:48 AM -0700 3/13/08, David Conrad wrote: > 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. If ISP's are waiting for new IPv6-only content to create customer demand to justify their business case for IPv6 enablement, then that's their choice. Reality will win in the end, and my $$ will be on the providers who justified their IPv6 enablement on being able to continue to grow. /John
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
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
--- On Thu, 3/13/08, Leo Bicknell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now think hard about a prediction we'll still be > running IPv4 in 20 > years. A two decade transition period just does not fit > this industry's > history. To be fair, I've encourntered an awful lot of SNA which is still out there, so you might be surprised how long things linger. But your point is well taken - once IPv4 stops being the primary internetworking protocol, it'll be reduced to special cases pretty quickly. David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
RE: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
> I don't know why Leo thinks so, but even I can observe the > "extra recurring support cost of having to work through two > stacks with every customer that dials in" as being far > greater than any technology costs in either single-stack > scenario. The 'recurring' part is the real killer. This is why any ISP that has not moved their core network over to MPLS, really needs to take a serious look at doing so now. If you do this then you only really need to support IPv6 on your edge routers (MPLS PE) which are used to connect IPv6 customers. Those PEs will use 6PE to provide native IPv6 to your customers. Dual stack is not the only solution. Note that it is also possible to use something like GRE tunnels over IP4 to build an IPv6 overlay. Depending on the scale of your network (and your capital budget) this may also be an attractive way to ease into IPv6 without changing everything. There is a whole smorgasbord of choices to make. It's not an easy slam-dunk proposition and you can't just find someone to tell you how to handle your network situation. It's not like the early 1990's when you could get away with following the crowd. --Michael Dillon
RE: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently. The core is IPv6/dual stack capable, even if it's not enabled everywhere, and a large chunk of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now. The US Govt. is under mandate to transition to v6 by the end of the year. The only bits that are missing right now are the routers and switches at the edge, and support from transit providers, 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. >From there, I'd expect a slow but steady uptake across the rest of North America. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pekka Savola Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:18 AM To: Leo Bicknell Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?] On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote: > 1) Early adopters deploy IPv6 while continuing to make most of their > money off IPv4. We're already well into this state. > > 2) Substantially all (> 90%?) of the Internet is dual stacked, or has > other transition mechanisms in place. Who has the other transition mechanisms in place? What is the cost of deploying those transition mechanisms? At present it's not obvious how you can explain to the bean counters that deploying these are profitable. > 3) IPv4 is removed from the network, leaving only IPv6. > > Your comment compares the cost of phase 1 to the cost of phase two, > making the assumption that it's more expensive to be an early adopter > than it is to run dual stack down the road. On that point, I agree. That's not all. I also tried to point out that in order to get to 2), you're facing a decade of slow transition or you have to deploy transition mechanisms which have substantial cost. A transition mechanism is also needed to move from 2) to 3). My point is that it seems somewhat premature to talk extensively of 2) -> 3) transition because we haven't even figured out 1) -> 2) yet. Getting to 2) is the challenge, from there it is straightforward. > My point is once we're in phase #2 the bean counters will look > around and start to ask "can we reduce cost if we remove IPv4". I agree but you don't clearly address how exactly we're going to get to 2) in the first place -- that's a huge step. In order to move to stage 2), a LOT of deployment is needed and/or a lot of transition mechanisms (mainly translation in this context, I assume) need to be deployed which has significant cost involved. I agree that if 90% or 99% of net is dual-stack or using a working transition mechanisms (so the expectation is that almost everything would work with v6-only), the jump to 3) will be relatively quick for the reasons you say. We've been a decade in step 1). We'll likely continue to be another decade in step 1) before moving to 2) unless radical transition technology is developed and deployed in a significant scale (and someone figures out a business model how it helps in the short term). Once we get 2), the time it takes to move to 3) is probably almost an order of magnitude less than what it took to get to 2). > The specific original comment was that we would run dual-stacked, that > is in phase 2, for "decades". I proport there are strong economic > reasons why that is probably not ging to be the case. I may interpret your steps differently, but I see at least a decade more of work before we get to step 2) (i.e., before we get to 90% penetration). -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
In a message written on Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 05:18:16PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > Who has the other transition mechanisms in place? What is the cost of > deploying those transition mechanisms? At present it's not obvious > how you can explain to the bean counters that deploying these are > profitable. It's very hard, so most people aren't deploying, yet. > My point is that it seems somewhat premature to talk extensively of 2) > -> 3) transition because we haven't even figured out 1) -> 2) yet. > Getting to 2) is the challenge, from there it is straightforward. The driver for 1-2 is the end of the IPv4 free pool. It doesn't much matter if the cause is IPv4 simply not being available anymore, or if the result is some way of moving IPv4 addresses around for money; they both will get the bean counters attention real quick. In essense the cost of IPv4 is going to dramatically rise, one way or another. And that's only the first order effect of getting the addresses. Second order effects like hanling the routing table deaggregation haven't begun to be calculated. So basically the IPv4 free pool exhaustion will drive 1-2 rather rapidly. Once we're in state 2, simple economics will drive the 2-3 transtion rather rapidly. 20 years ago was 1988. The World Wide Web did not even exist. AOL (the first service branded under that name) wasn't launched until 1989. A T1 served an enter university campus. 9600 baud was a fast modem. In essense, the entire industry as we know it was built in the last 20 years. Now think hard about a prediction we'll still be running IPv4 in 20 years. A two decade transition period just does not fit this industry's history. -- Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpVCVnV6tYYq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote: 1) Early adopters deploy IPv6 while continuing to make most of their money off IPv4. We're already well into this state. 2) Substantially all (> 90%?) of the Internet is dual stacked, or has other transition mechanisms in place. Who has the other transition mechanisms in place? What is the cost of deploying those transition mechanisms? At present it's not obvious how you can explain to the bean counters that deploying these are profitable. 3) IPv4 is removed from the network, leaving only IPv6. Your comment compares the cost of phase 1 to the cost of phase two, making the assumption that it's more expensive to be an early adopter than it is to run dual stack down the road. On that point, I agree. That's not all. I also tried to point out that in order to get to 2), you're facing a decade of slow transition or you have to deploy transition mechanisms which have substantial cost. A transition mechanism is also needed to move from 2) to 3). My point is that it seems somewhat premature to talk extensively of 2) -> 3) transition because we haven't even figured out 1) -> 2) yet. Getting to 2) is the challenge, from there it is straightforward. My point is once we're in phase #2 the bean counters will look around and start to ask "can we reduce cost if we remove IPv4". I agree but you don't clearly address how exactly we're going to get to 2) in the first place -- that's a huge step. In order to move to stage 2), a LOT of deployment is needed and/or a lot of transition mechanisms (mainly translation in this context, I assume) need to be deployed which has significant cost involved. I agree that if 90% or 99% of net is dual-stack or using a working transition mechanisms (so the expectation is that almost everything would work with v6-only), the jump to 3) will be relatively quick for the reasons you say. We've been a decade in step 1). We'll likely continue to be another decade in step 1) before moving to 2) unless radical transition technology is developed and deployed in a significant scale (and someone figures out a business model how it helps in the short term). Once we get 2), the time it takes to move to 3) is probably almost an order of magnitude less than what it took to get to 2). The specific original comment was that we would run dual-stacked, that is in phase 2, for "decades". I proport there are strong economic reasons why that is probably not ging to be the case. I may interpret your steps differently, but I see at least a decade more of work before we get to step 2) (i.e., before we get to 90% penetration). -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
In a message written on Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 03:26:48PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote: > >ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost. > >Running dual stack increases cost. While I'm not sure about the 5 > >year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to disable IPv4 support as soon > >as the market will let them as a cost saving measure. Runing for > >"decades" dual stacked does not make a lot of economic sense for > >all involved. > > So, can you elaborate why you think the cost of running dual stack is > higher than the cost of spending time&money on beind on the bleeding > edge to do v6-only yet supporting v4 for your existing and future > customers still wedded to the older IP protocol? You are mixing stages of adoption. The Internet will progress as follows: 1) Early adopters deploy IPv6 while continuing to make most of their money off IPv4. We're already well into this state. 2) Substantially all (> 90%?) of the Internet is dual stacked, or has other transition mechanisms in place. 3) IPv4 is removed from the network, leaving only IPv6. Your comment compares the cost of phase 1 to the cost of phase two, making the assumption that it's more expensive to be an early adopter than it is to run dual stack down the road. On that point, I agree. My point is once we're in phase #2 the bean counters will look around and start to ask "can we reduce cost if we remove IPv4". The answer will be yes. Initially the answer will be "but our customers will be upset", and it won't happen, but the bean counters are persistent, and will keep asking the question over and over. They will make sure phase 2 lasts no longer than it must. Which brings us into phase 3. While engineers may see it as simple clean up, large networks will see phase 3 has a huge money saving operation by that point in time. Once the first major (top 10?) network removes IPv4 support I expect all the rest to follow within 2 years, tops. Edge and nitche networks may support it longer, but it will drop from the Internet core quickly. The specific original comment was that we would run dual-stacked, that is in phase 2, for "decades". I proport there are strong economic reasons why that is probably not ging to be the case. -- Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpDI8UStbi8R.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, David W. Hankins wrote: I don't know why Leo thinks so, but even I can observe the "extra recurring support cost of having to work through two stacks with every customer that dials in" as being far greater than any technology costs in either single-stack scenario. The 'recurring' part is the real killer. If the customer would be v6-only, I agree. If the customer is v4-only, I would posit that it's in most cases impossibleto get the customers upgraded to v6. I would also argue (based on my understanding) that translating or tunneling v4-only clients over v6-only network would cause pretty much equal or greater complexities as dual-stack. If the customer is dual-stack, I would agree that v6-only is simpler, but that gets back to the point of, "does the whole internet support v6 or is there alternative, reliable way to reach the rest?" As a result you will need to deal with v4 connectivity issues as well. NB: we have had dual-stack backbone for about 6 years and are not seeing major pain. Sure, v6-only would be even easier in the longer term, but as far as I've seen, the major transition issues are at the edges, not in the core network. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 03:26:48PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote: > >ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost. > >Running dual stack increases cost. While I'm not sure about the 5 > >year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to disable IPv4 support as soon > >as the market will let them as a cost saving measure. Runing for > >"decades" dual stacked does not make a lot of economic sense for > >all involved. > > So, can you elaborate why you think the cost of running dual stack is > higher than the cost of spending time&money on beind on the bleeding > edge to do v6-only yet supporting v4 for your existing and future > customers still wedded to the older IP protocol? I don't know why Leo thinks so, but even I can observe the "extra recurring support cost of having to work through two stacks with every customer that dials in" as being far greater than any technology costs in either single-stack scenario. The 'recurring' part is the real killer. -- Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul. Why settle for the lesser evil? https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/ -- David W. Hankins"If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineeryou'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins pgpolPyLiJUnU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote: The only ADSL one listed "Billion 7402R2" doesn't _actually_ do IPv6 yet, but it might if they release software for it! Which would be nice as we sell them to customers and would love to magically turn on IPv6 to them one day. Hi MMC, You might want to contribute to <http://au.billion.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10042> and suggest to them that Internode wants this release for their customers. Mark.
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Mark Newton wrote: Those of us who use ADSL or (heaven forbid) Cable are kinda out of luck. I haven't yet found ADSL2+ CPE that does IPv6 over PPPoE or PPPoA out of the box. Any cablelebs certified docsis 3.0 CM or CMTS supports ipv6. Your cable provider will have to upgrade their CMTS (line card swap) before you can leverage it directly on the cable in a consumer environment. DSL aggregation routers are challenge where again equipment lifecycle plays in to whether you're in a position to deploy. (Billion in Taiwan has a device which they've stamped an "IPv6 Ready" sticker onto, but the IPv6 version of the software hasn't left the confines of their lab yet) As far as I've been able to determine, IPv6 SOHO CPE is largely vaporware right now. And lets not even get started on residential grade CPE, that doesn't even appear to be on most vendors' radar _at all_. If anything useful is going to happen in this space, my guess is that it'll be with custom Linux firmware running on a LinkSys blob with no vendor support. - mark -- Mark Newton Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (W) Network Engineer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (H) Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223
cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote: In a message written on Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:24PM -0500, Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote: Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've heard this posited -- I had a hard believing that, but he claims it with some authority. Anyone hear anything like this? My own opinion is that we'll see dual-stack for at least a decade or two to come. ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost. Running dual stack increases cost. While I'm not sure about the 5 year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to disable IPv4 support as soon as the market will let them as a cost saving measure. Runing for "decades" dual stacked does not make a lot of economic sense for all involved. So, can you elaborate why you think the cost of running dual stack is higher than the cost of spending time&money on beind on the bleeding edge to do v6-only yet supporting v4 for your existing and future customers still wedded to the older IP protocol? -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote: The only ADSL one listed "Billion 7402R2" doesn't _actually_ do IPv6 yet, but it might if they release software for it! Which would be nice as we sell them to customers and would love to magically turn on IPv6 to them one day. The only IPv6 ADSL router I'm aware of, that I can buy in Australia, is the Cisco 857/877 series (which work quite nicely I have to say :-) (Some earlier Cisco 800 series ADSL routers will work, but aren't currently available). Actually Cisco 850 series does not support IPv6, only 870 series. We tested earlier cisco models also: 830 series has ipv6 support. My colleague tested NetScreen routers: apart for the smallest devices they have IPv6 support. However I think these devices are not consumer equipments. I would call SO (Small Office) devices. The HO (home office) devices are the ~ 50-100 USD devices - you rarely see official ipv6 support. Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 A friend of mine who works for a company that owns another company that sells consumer CPE said "Well, this is a volume business. Why release a feature that isn't being demanded much yet, when we could do it later and sell you ANOTHER CPE to replace the one you just bought?". Bah. And people wonder why I'm cynical. MMC Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote: Looks like there's some kind of wiki here, too: http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Broadband_CPE Frank -- Matthew Moyle-Croft - Internode/Agile - Networks Level 5, 150 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.on.net Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366 Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909 "The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones" - John Maynard Keynes
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Justin M. Streiner wrote: On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote: A friend of mine who works for a company that owns another company that sells consumer CPE said "Well, this is a volume business. Why release a feature that isn't being demanded much yet, when we could do it later and sell you ANOTHER CPE to replace the one you just bought?". While it doesn't quality as out-of-the-box v6 support, a Linksys WRT54G with a replacement image like Sveasoft Talisman does claim to support it. Yeah - not quite the issue - I've got a Cisco 877 at home and am running dual stack natively at home. But I'm not a typical customer. But really, we need to start seeing some CPE, even in beta form, so we can start working through how a transition to IPv6 might work. (eg. customer local networks, SIP for VOIP, stateful firewalls (given the anti-NAT-brigade have made it the only solution - don't get me started about how low end CPE stateful firewalls suck). Customers tend to keep their CPE for a few years. That means customers buying now will still have it in 2010. MMC I haven't tested it yet on a guinea pig WRT54G, but I'll get around to that at some point soon :) jms -- Matthew Moyle-Croft - Internode/Agile - Networks Level 5, 150 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.on.net Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366 Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909 "The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones" - John Maynard Keynes
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote: A friend of mine who works for a company that owns another company that sells consumer CPE said "Well, this is a volume business. Why release a feature that isn't being demanded much yet, when we could do it later and sell you ANOTHER CPE to replace the one you just bought?". While it doesn't quality as out-of-the-box v6 support, a Linksys WRT54G with a replacement image like Sveasoft Talisman does claim to support it. I haven't tested it yet on a guinea pig WRT54G, but I'll get around to that at some point soon :) jms
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
The only ADSL one listed "Billion 7402R2" doesn't _actually_ do IPv6 yet, but it might if they release software for it! Which would be nice as we sell them to customers and would love to magically turn on IPv6 to them one day. The only IPv6 ADSL router I'm aware of, that I can buy in Australia, is the Cisco 857/877 series (which work quite nicely I have to say :-) (Some earlier Cisco 800 series ADSL routers will work, but aren't currently available). A friend of mine who works for a company that owns another company that sells consumer CPE said "Well, this is a volume business. Why release a feature that isn't being demanded much yet, when we could do it later and sell you ANOTHER CPE to replace the one you just bought?". Bah. And people wonder why I'm cynical. MMC Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote: Looks like there's some kind of wiki here, too: http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Broadband_CPE Frank -- Matthew Moyle-Croft - Internode/Agile - Networks Level 5, 150 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.on.net Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366 Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909 "The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones" - John Maynard Keynes
RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
And it looks like the Buffalo WZR-AG300NH claims support, too: http://www.buffalotech.com/files/products/wzr-ag300nh_DS.pdf I don't consider Buffalo a tier 1 or 2 SOHO vendor, but they're still on my top-ten list for SOHO networking vendors. Regards, Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk - iNAME Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:06 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: IPv6 on SOHO routers? Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask. I'm attending an "Emerging Communications" course where the instructor stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to Asia specifically. Do Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc. have such software for the Asian markets? Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've heard this posited -- I had a hard believing that, but he claims it with some authority. Anyone hear anything like this? My own opinion is that we'll see dual-stack for at least a decade or two to come. Frank
RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Looks like there's some kind of wiki here, too: http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Broadband_CPE Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk - iNAME Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:06 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: IPv6 on SOHO routers? Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask. I'm attending an "Emerging Communications" course where the instructor stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to Asia specifically. Do Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc. have such software for the Asian markets? Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've heard this posited -- I had a hard believing that, but he claims it with some authority. Anyone hear anything like this? My own opinion is that we'll see dual-stack for at least a decade or two to come. Frank
RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
I must be blind, but I don't recognize any brands there that support IPv6 (besides the Apple Airport). I see the Linksys WRT54G, but I don't know where they find the validation for IPv6 support, unless they mean DD-WRT. Based on all the responses I received on and off list, it appears, that as far as name brands recognized in the U.S., only Apple makes a SOHO router that support IPv6. Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:56 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers? Yes, there are many. Take a look at www.ipv6-to-standard.org Regards, Jordi > De: Frank Bulk - iNAME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fecha: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:06:24 -0500 > Para: > Asunto: IPv6 on SOHO routers? > > > Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask. > > I'm attending an "Emerging Communications" course where the instructor > stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to > Asia specifically. > > Do Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc. have such software for the Asian markets? > > Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will > be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've > heard this posited -- I had a hard believing that, but he claims it with > some authority. Anyone hear anything like this? My own opinion is that > we'll see dual-stack for at least a decade or two to come. > > Frank > ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
On 13/03/2008, at 11:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:06:24 CDT, Frank Bulk - iNAME said: Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask. I'm attending an "Emerging Communications" course where the instructor stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to Asia specifically. Well, of *course* you're more likely to find such SOHO routers in markets where a SOHO router owner might actually be able to use the feature. But in most parts of the US, IPv6 support in a SOHO router is right up there with GOSIP compliance as far as actual usefulness goes... Yup. If you look at the devices claimed to be IPv6 CPE in Asian markets, they're inevitably Ethernet-only, to be used on networks where the customer is provided with an Ethernet jack in their home or apartment complex. Those of us who use ADSL or (heaven forbid) Cable are kinda out of luck. I haven't yet found ADSL2+ CPE that does IPv6 over PPPoE or PPPoA out of the box. (Billion in Taiwan has a device which they've stamped an "IPv6 Ready" sticker onto, but the IPv6 version of the software hasn't left the confines of their lab yet) As far as I've been able to determine, IPv6 SOHO CPE is largely vaporware right now. And lets not even get started on residential grade CPE, that doesn't even appear to be on most vendors' radar _at all_. If anything useful is going to happen in this space, my guess is that it'll be with custom Linux firmware running on a LinkSys blob with no vendor support. - mark -- Mark Newton Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (W) Network Engineer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (H) Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:06:24 CDT, Frank Bulk - iNAME said: > Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask. > > I'm attending an "Emerging Communications" course where the instructor > stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to > Asia specifically. Well, of *course* you're more likely to find such SOHO routers in markets where a SOHO router owner might actually be able to use the feature. But in most parts of the US, IPv6 support in a SOHO router is right up there with GOSIP compliance as far as actual usefulness goes... pgpaykU0TZGy0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, John Lee wrote: What I would like to see today is SOHO routers that do not interfere with 6 over 4 transport since my ISP does not offer home DSL termination of v6. Taking the silicon in a SOHO and adding 5 to 10 $ US in cost for v6 and multiple that by 5 to get a retail price of those features. Then offset that with the decrease in silicon size when you add both together with smaller size lines and transistors on the chips, I would project SOHO prices of 250 - 350 $ US to start with for v4 & v6 and dropping from there. OpenWRT which actually supports IPv6 (by virtue of being linux based) can be run on very cheap devices (as most smaller home NAT-gateways are CPU based, no biggie), I suspect IPv6 on most of these is only a matter of someone actually putting it in their RFQ and be willing to pay a few $ extra per unit when buying the normal large telco volumes. Running code is out there, it's just a matter of getting it into the devices. The smaller SOHO routers that cisco has (800 and 1800 series) are quite ready for this, 12.4T even has support for DHCPv6 prefix delegation on the 878 for instance (it was the only one I checked in the software advisor). -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
If history is any guide the last Cisco boxes I worked on supported various flavors of SDLC and pre-SNA IBM comm, DECnet and DECnet LAT, IPX, Burroughs, poll select and the only protocol they do not still support is CorvisNet on twisted pair. Some of these protocols have not seen the light of day since when? What is a Good CCIE test without arcane SDLC, HDLC and DECnet protocol questions. Most SOHO routers use standard or proprietary silicon to do the IP stack or IP route assist and when the silicon is available for dual stack in quantity 10,000 units or more at a reasonable price the SOHO routers will support both. IMHO before Linksys was owned by Cisco, I liked Netgear because there code was from Bay networks and had better routing. Finally, when I bought the expensive $ 150.00 routers with integral VPN support that was neat. What I would like to see today is SOHO routers that do not interfere with 6 over 4 transport since my ISP does not offer home DSL termination of v6. Taking the silicon in a SOHO and adding 5 to 10 $ US in cost for v6 and multiple that by 5 to get a retail price of those features. Then offset that with the decrease in silicon size when you add both together with smaller size lines and transistors on the chips, I would project SOHO prices of 250 - 350 $ US to start with for v4 & v6 and dropping from there. John (ISDN) Lee From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Frank Bulk - iNAME Sent: Wed 3/12/2008 4:06 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: IPv6 on SOHO routers? Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask. I'm attending an "Emerging Communications" course where the instructor stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to Asia specifically. Do Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc. have such software for the Asian markets? Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've heard this posited -- I had a hard believing that, but he claims it with some authority. Anyone hear anything like this? My own opinion is that we'll see dual-stack for at least a decade or two to come. Frank
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Frank, Juniper Networks Does support IPv6 in J-Series Routers and SSG Firewalls: http://www.juniper.net/products_and_services/j_series_services_routers/ http://www.juniper.net/products_and_services/ex_series/index.html http://www.juniper.net/products_and_services/firewall_slash_ipsec_vpn/index.html http://www.juniper.net/federal/IPv6/ SSG-5 and SSG-20 does support it after Screenos 6.1 ... for small office business. Other vendor like Fortinet is supporting IPv6 in SOHO equipment too. Att, Giuliano Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask. I'm attending an "Emerging Communications" course where the instructor stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to Asia specifically. Do Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc. have such software for the Asian markets? Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've heard this posited -- I had a hard believing that, but he claims it with some authority. Anyone hear anything like this? My own opinion is that we'll see dual-stack for at least a decade or two to come. Frank __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 2942 (20080312) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
I seem to remember something about Earthlink rolling out v6 enabled wifi routers to its customers (linksys with a hacked up firmware that'd create a v6 tunnel between the cpe and an elnk tunnelbroker) .. what happened to that interesting little product? Killed off and the few remaining users grandfathered? srs On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:36 AM, Frank Bulk - iNAME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask. > > I'm attending an "Emerging Communications" course where the instructor > stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to > Asia specifically. >
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Yes, there are many. Take a look at www.ipv6-to-standard.org Regards, Jordi > De: Frank Bulk - iNAME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fecha: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:06:24 -0500 > Para: > Asunto: IPv6 on SOHO routers? > > > Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask. > > I'm attending an "Emerging Communications" course where the instructor > stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to > Asia specifically. > > Do Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc. have such software for the Asian markets? > > Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will > be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've > heard this posited -- I had a hard believing that, but he claims it with > some authority. Anyone hear anything like this? My own opinion is that > we'll see dual-stack for at least a decade or two to come. > > Frank > ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
On Mar 12, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote: Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask. I'm attending an "Emerging Communications" course where the instructor stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, <http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=33DD138B&fnode=home/shop_mac/mac_accessories/networking&nplm=MB053LL/A > There are a couple of other boxes I noticed recently at Fry's (in the SF Bay Area) that claimed IPv6 support on the box, but I have no idea how real those claims are. Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've heard this posited -- I had a hard believing that, but he claims it with some authority. Anyone hear anything like this? My own opinion is that we'll see dual-stack for at least a decade or two to come. I suspect you should back away slowly from anyone who suggests IPv4 is going to go away within 5 years. Regards, -drc
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
In a message written on Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:24PM -0500, Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote: > Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will > be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've > heard this posited -- I had a hard believing that, but he claims it with > some authority. Anyone hear anything like this? My own opinion is that > we'll see dual-stack for at least a decade or two to come. ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost. Running dual stack increases cost. While I'm not sure about the 5 year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to disable IPv4 support as soon as the market will let them as a cost saving measure. Runing for "decades" dual stacked does not make a lot of economic sense for all involved. -- Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpCewdFdfeY9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
On 12-Mar-2008, at 16:06, Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote: Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask. I'm attending an "Emerging Communications" course where the instructor stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to Asia specifically. Do Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc. have such software for the Asian markets? I seem to think I've seen SOHO routers (or "gateways" I suppose, assuming that these boxes are rarely simply routers) on display at beer'n'gear-type venues at APRICOT meetings, going back several years. The glossy pamphlets have long since been discarded, so I can't tell you names of vendors. More mainstream for this market, Apple's airport extreme "SOHO router" does IPv6. http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/specs.html I have not had the time to figure out what "does IPv6" means, exactly (DHCPv6? IPv6 DNS resolver?) but I seem to think it will provide route advertisements and route out either using 6to4 or a manually- configured tunnel. Joe
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote: Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask. I'm attending an "Emerging Communications" course where the instructor stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to Asia specifically. Do Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc. have such software for the Asian markets? Get yourself a copy of ipv6style magazine. http://www.ipv6style.jp The answer is yes. Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've heard this posited -- I had a hard believing that, but he claims it with some authority. Anyone hear anything like this? My own opinion is that we'll see dual-stack for at least a decade or two to come. That's to say, if you're projecting a particular tipping point in ipv4 vs ipv6 usability then sure that's plausible. there are plenty of divergent opinions on the subject. Frank
IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask. I'm attending an "Emerging Communications" course where the instructor stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to Asia specifically. Do Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc. have such software for the Asian markets? Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've heard this posited -- I had a hard believing that, but he claims it with some authority. Anyone hear anything like this? My own opinion is that we'll see dual-stack for at least a decade or two to come. Frank
ARIN & CAIDA IPv6 Survey
The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), in cooperation with the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA), is conducting a survey to gather data regarding the current and future use of IPv6 throughout the ARIN Region. For a complete list of countries go to: http://www.arin.net/community/ARINcountries.html We encourage all organizations in the ARIN region to participate in the survey so we can establish a comprehensive view of present IPv6 penetration and future plans of IPv6 deployment. The survey will open on 10 March and remain available until noon ET on 24 March. The results of the survey will be presented and discussed at the ARIN XXI Public Policy and Members Meeting to be held in Denver 6-9 April 2008, and the survey data will support ongoing research. The survey is composed of 20 questions that can be answered in a few minutes. When you complete the survey you will be entered in a drawing for prizes. You must provide your contact information to win. This is a secure survey and all data will be presented in summary form only, and kept confidential between ARIN and CAIDA. Please take a few moments to complete the survey located at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=2x5j2OlJl0cq44iYfQadrw_3d_3d Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET IPv6 address has changed.
With the official deployment of IPv6 addresses for the root servers, F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET IPv6 address changed. The old address, 2001:500::1035, is no longer valid and will be turn off at some point. The new address is 2001:500:2f::f. This will only affect users that have deliberately overridden the responses returned by the root servers. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Aggregation for IPv4-compatible IPv6 address space
On 4-Feb-2008, at 00:19, Scott Morris wrote: You mean do you have to express it in hex? There are two related things here: (a) the ability to represent a 32- bit word in an IPv6 address in the form of a dotted-quad, and (b) the legitimacy of an IPv6 address of the form ::A.B.C.D, where A.B.C.D is an IPv4 address. (a) is a question about the presentation of IPv6 addresses. (b) is a question about the construction of IPv6 addresses to be used in packet headers. I believe (a) is still allowed. However, (b) is not allowed. Since (b) is not allowed, (a) is arguably not very useful. Joe
RE: Aggregation for IPv4-compatible IPv6 address space
You mean do you have to express it in hex? The original spec allowed both ways I believe... but just so you realize, this has been deprecated. Mostly 'cause people can't subnet. :) Scott -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of snort bsd Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 11:10 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Aggregation for IPv4-compatible IPv6 address space Hi all: With IPv4-compatible IPv6 address space, could I aggregate the address space? say 192.168.0.0/16 become ::192.168/112? or It must be converted to native IPv6 address space? Just wondering, Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail
Re: Aggregation for IPv4-compatible IPv6 address space
in the most recent architecture, rfc 4291, that was deprecated. The exact statement is 2.5.5.1. IPv4-Compatible IPv6 Address The "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" was defined to assist in the IPv6 transition. The format of the "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" is as follows: |80 bits | 16 | 32 bits| +--+--+ |..||IPv4 address | +--++-+ Note: The IPv4 address used in the "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" must be a globally-unique IPv4 unicast address. The "IPv4-Compatible IPv6 address" is now deprecated because the current IPv6 transition mechanisms no longer use these addresses. New or updated implementations are not required to support this address type. I should think you are within bounds to not announce it at all. On Feb 4, 2008, at 6:09 AM, snort bsd wrote: Hi all: With IPv4-compatible IPv6 address space, could I aggregate the address space? say 192.168.0.0/16 become ::192.168/112? or It must be converted to native IPv6 address space? Just wondering, Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail
Aggregation for IPv4-compatible IPv6 address space
Hi all: With IPv4-compatible IPv6 address space, could I aggregate the address space? say 192.168.0.0/16 become ::192.168/112? or It must be converted to native IPv6 address space? Just wondering, Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail
Re: IPv6 Connectivity Saga (part n+1)
On Feb 2, 2008 6:24 PM, Thomas Kühne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Another factor is that with IPv4, you need to be pragmatic, because if > > you don't, you have no connectivity. With IPv6, you can impose > > arbitrary restrictions as much as you want, because IPv4 makes sure > > there is always fallback connectivity anyway. > > Maybe, but the most frequently encountered errors were time outs and > those usually degrade performance drastically. one might also consider that there may not be v4 conectivity in all cases, so if you offer up a please make sure the services on the relevant /A are consistent/available. -Chris
Re: IPv6 Connectivity Saga (part n+1)
Thomas Kühne wrote: On Saturday February 2 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 2 feb 2008, at 11:42, Thomas Kühne wrote: I took a DMOZ[1] dump What's a DMOZ dump? DMOZ: http://www.dmoz.org/about.html # The Open Directory Project is the largest, most comprehensive human-edited # directory of the Web. It is constructed and maintained by a vast, global # community of volunteer editors. A DMOZ dump is the complete data set including directory structure, links and descriptions. I've use this source because other lists are either too small or contain a lot of spam. I'd like to hear more about the methods that led to your summary, and, if possible, take a look at the raw data. It sounds to me like you took the dump file and parsed it so that all of the URLs could be sorted by domain. Did you then do DNS lookups on each domain name (or hostname?) and see how many had records? Did you also look at NS records (I am assuming you did)? I understand what TLDs and NSes are, but I don't quite know what you mean when you say things like "thus a cross check via TLDs' NS." As for raw data, at the very least, it would be useful to get a list of the resources that have some form of IPv6 brokenness, so that those of us who would actually like to provide our information resources over both IPv4 and IPv6 can get to work on fixing it. I personally am concerned that there are some islands of poor v6 connectivity out there that are having problems reaching v6 resources, even though other parts of the v6 world are able to reach those resources just fine. Because we may only be able to test from "good" v6 locations, we can't see what's wrong at the "bad" v6 locations. michael
Re: IPv6 Connectivity Saga (part n+1)
On Saturday February 2 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 2 feb 2008, at 11:42, Thomas Kühne wrote: > > I took a DMOZ[1] dump > > What's a DMOZ dump? DMOZ: http://www.dmoz.org/about.html # The Open Directory Project is the largest, most comprehensive human-edited # directory of the Web. It is constructed and maintained by a vast, global # community of volunteer editors. A DMOZ dump is the complete data set including directory structure, links and descriptions. I've use this source because other lists are either too small or contain a lot of spam. > > IPv6 failure rates of 4.3% (TLD) and 6.1% (NS) > > What does TLD and NS mean? TLD: Top Level Domain (e.g. .com, .us. org) NS: Name Server - in this case Domain Name Server (DNS) > > 43 : broadcast address > > ? Sorry, the same error message is also triggered by some firewalls. > Another factor is that with IPv4, you need to be pragmatic, because if > you don't, you have no connectivity. With IPv6, you can impose > arbitrary restrictions as much as you want, because IPv4 makes sure > there is always fallback connectivity anyway. Maybe, but the most frequently encountered errors were time outs and those usually degrade performance drastically. Thomas
Re: IPv6 Connectivity Saga (part n+1)
On 2 feb 2008, at 11:42, Thomas Kühne wrote: I took a DMOZ[1] dump What's a DMOZ dump? 33.4% of all services that advertised IPv6 failed to deliver or in other words the IPv6 failure rate is ten times the NS failure rate. "failing to deliver" is not necessarily a failure condition, in my opinion. IPv6 failure rates of 4.3% (TLD) and 6.1% (NS) What does TLD and NS mean? About 4 days later I did a more detailed check of the hosts with broken IPv6: 1624 : hosts total 827 : connection timed out That would be bad. 382 : no route to host Not quite as bad, but also not good. 249 : connection refused Although it would be better to avoid this condition, I wouldn't count it as a failure. This typically happens when a host has an IPv6 address in the DNS, but a service isn't reachable over IPv6. Since reasonable implementations will retry over IPv4 after a round trip, this doesn't cause any real trouble. 43 : broadcast address ? 22 : IPv6 assignments reclaimed (3ffe::/16) Which shows that installing IPv6 (or anything, really) is pretty much "install and forget", which goes to the "use it or lose it" doctrine: only services that are actually used will remain operational. Issues(cases not marked with a star) do tend to arise but why are fundamental issues like "connection timed out", "no route to host" and "connection refused" so frequent? Like I said: if something isn't used, it doesn't get fixed if it doesn't work. Interestingly, if something new is set up incorrectly and then someone comes along who wants to use the new option, and it doesn't work, the blame is laid at the person who decided to use the new option, rather than the person who offered a service over it but didn't make sure it worked correctly. I've been downloading files from the FTP servers of the five RIRs a few times a week for several years now. I haven't kept track of it, but it seems that it's gotten harder to reach these FTP servers over IPv6 the past year or so. This could very well have something to do with IPv6 becoming more mainstream, so it's no longer some experimental thing that can be enabled without trouble, but a production service that must be firewalled. This seems to be the source of much trouble, especially with ARIN, which I can't successfully reach over IPv6 anymore, probably because of a routing issue between their and my ISPs. But before that, I had path MTU problems towards them on several occasions. Another factor is that with IPv4, you need to be pragmatic, because if you don't, you have no connectivity. With IPv6, you can impose arbitrary restrictions as much as you want, because IPv4 makes sure there is always fallback connectivity anyway.
IPv6 Connectivity Saga (part n+1)
I took a DMOZ[1] dump, extracted all unique domain-name port combinations and checked their IPv6 connectivity. 3 388 012 : 100.000% : total 3 260 296 : 96.230% : IPv4 only 122 560 : 3.620% : bad NS 3 372 : 0.100% : IPv6 working 1 694 : 0.050% : broken or "fake" IPv6 broken: TCP connect failed fake: IPv6 mapped IPv4 addresses (e.g. :::1.2.3.4) 33.4% of all services that advertised IPv6 failed to deliver or in other words the IPv6 failure rate is ten times the NS failure rate. Seems high, thus a cross check via TLDs' NS: 270 : 100.0% : TLD total (excluding the IDN tests) 268 : 99.3% : IPv4 working 2 : 0.7% : IPv4 broken (HM and KP) 177 : 65.6% : IPv6 working 8 : 3.0% : IPv6 broken 1910 : 100.0% : NS total 1500 : 78.5% : IPv4 only 31 : 1.6% : IPv4 broken 356 : 19.1% : IPv6 working 23 : 1.2% : IPv6 broken IPv6 failure rates of 4.3% (TLD) and 6.1% (NS) is lower than the above 33.4% but are still significantly higher than the IPv4 failure rates of 0.7% (TLD) and 1.6% (NS). TLD root-NSs usually are managed by dedicated infrastructure organisations thus better trouble shooting than the DMOZ listed ones get is expected and suggests the above 33.4% failure rate isn't some kind of sampling artifact. About 4 days later I did a more detailed check of the hosts with broken IPv6: 1624 : hosts total 827 : connection timed out 382 : no route to host 249 : connection refused 95 : network unreachable 54 : SixXS never received a route announcement for that block 43 : broadcast address 30 : * IPv4 in IPv6 22 : IPv6 assignments reclaimed (3ffe::/16) 16 : * no IPv6 (::) 12 : * IPv4 only 10 : * IPv6 working 4 : IPv6 never assigned 4 : local (fe80::/10) 2 : local (::1) 2 : broken NS Issues(cases not marked with a star) do tend to arise but why are fundamental issues like "connection timed out", "no route to host" and "connection refused" so frequent? (testing was done from 2a01:4d0:102::31) Thomas [1] http://www.dmoz.org/help/getdata.html
Re: IPv6 questions
It does make sense though. Say one megabits interface with 20 VLANs. In that scenario, every VLAN, usually has own link-local address. It is more practical than "multiple interfaces with same link-local address." I found this on Juniper router and now assume it is Juniper specific implementation. Thanks all - Original Message From: Scott Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; snort bsd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: nanog@merit.edu; juniper-nsp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, 29 January, 2008 12:36:55 PM Subject: RE: IPv6 questions And unless you are on only certain particular devices (e.g. L3 switches) then the end device won't necessarily have any relevant clue what VLAN it's on. I have never seen/heard of an RFC for it either and would certainly wonder "WHY?". :) Scott -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Nordmark Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 1:44 PM To: snort bsd Cc: nanog@merit.edu; juniper-nsp Subject: Re: IPv6 questions snort bsd wrote: > Never mind > > it is the VLAN number. But which RFC define this? I've never seen an IPv6 RFC specify to put the VLAN number in the link-local address. Thus this must be an (odd) choice made by some implementation. Perhaps the implementation somehow requires that all the link-local addresses for all its (sub)interfaces be unique, even though the RFCs assume that the implementation should be able to deal with multiple interfaces with same same link-local address. Erik > Thanks all > > Dave > > - Original Message > From: snort bsd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: nanog@merit.edu; juniper-nsp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, 28 January, 2008 3:05:59 PM > Subject: IPv6 questions > > > Hi All: > > With link-local IPv6 address, the converting from MAC-48 to EDU-64 > address format (FF FE stuffing). How does the VLAN tags affect the > conversion? > > With the rule of FF FE stuffing, I can see clearly work on the ptp > interfaces. But on those Ethernet based VLANs, it doesn't seem to > follow that pattern: > > Current address: 00:90:69:4a:b9:5d, Hardware address: > 00:90:69:4a:b9:5d > > well, i assume the link-local should be fe80::290:69ff:fe4a:b95d/64. > actually, it shows: > > Destination: fe80::/64, Local: fe80::290:6903:94a:b95d > > how does the router get this 03 09 instead of ff fe? > > Thanks all > > > > > > > > > Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 > Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail > > > > > > > > Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 > Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail > > Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail
RE: IPv6 questions
And unless you are on only certain particular devices (e.g. L3 switches) then the end device won't necessarily have any relevant clue what VLAN it's on. I have never seen/heard of an RFC for it either and would certainly wonder "WHY?". :) Scott -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Nordmark Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 1:44 PM To: snort bsd Cc: nanog@merit.edu; juniper-nsp Subject: Re: IPv6 questions snort bsd wrote: > Never mind > > it is the VLAN number. But which RFC define this? I've never seen an IPv6 RFC specify to put the VLAN number in the link-local address. Thus this must be an (odd) choice made by some implementation. Perhaps the implementation somehow requires that all the link-local addresses for all its (sub)interfaces be unique, even though the RFCs assume that the implementation should be able to deal with multiple interfaces with same same link-local address. Erik > Thanks all > > Dave > > - Original Message > From: snort bsd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: nanog@merit.edu; juniper-nsp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, 28 January, 2008 3:05:59 PM > Subject: IPv6 questions > > > Hi All: > > With link-local IPv6 address, the converting from MAC-48 to EDU-64 > address format (FF FE stuffing). How does the VLAN tags affect the > conversion? > > With the rule of FF FE stuffing, I can see clearly work on the ptp > interfaces. But on those Ethernet based VLANs, it doesn't seem to > follow that pattern: > > Current address: 00:90:69:4a:b9:5d, Hardware address: > 00:90:69:4a:b9:5d > > well, i assume the link-local should be fe80::290:69ff:fe4a:b95d/64. > actually, it shows: > > Destination: fe80::/64, Local: fe80::290:6903:94a:b95d > > how does the router get this 03 09 instead of ff fe? > > Thanks all > > > > > > > > > Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 > Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail > > > > > > > > Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 > Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail > >
Re: IPv6 questions
snort bsd wrote: Never mind it is the VLAN number. But which RFC define this? I've never seen an IPv6 RFC specify to put the VLAN number in the link-local address. Thus this must be an (odd) choice made by some implementation. Perhaps the implementation somehow requires that all the link-local addresses for all its (sub)interfaces be unique, even though the RFCs assume that the implementation should be able to deal with multiple interfaces with same same link-local address. Erik Thanks all Dave - Original Message From: snort bsd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: nanog@merit.edu; juniper-nsp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, 28 January, 2008 3:05:59 PM Subject: IPv6 questions Hi All: With link-local IPv6 address, the converting from MAC-48 to EDU-64 address format (FF FE stuffing). How does the VLAN tags affect the conversion? With the rule of FF FE stuffing, I can see clearly work on the ptp interfaces. But on those Ethernet based VLANs, it doesn't seem to follow that pattern: Current address: 00:90:69:4a:b9:5d, Hardware address: 00:90:69:4a:b9:5d well, i assume the link-local should be fe80::290:69ff:fe4a:b95d/64. actually, it shows: Destination: fe80::/64, Local: fe80::290:6903:94a:b95d how does the router get this 03 09 instead of ff fe? Thanks all Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail
