Subject: [shim6] IPv6 multihoming

From: Vlad Ion <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:55:42 +0200

Hi,

For a year now whenever it comes to IPv6 telco implementations I keep facing
2 problems so I was hoping you can guide me towards find a group that deals
with these issues or discussion solutions. The 2 problems are related to
IPv6 multi-homing and access to the internet in IPv6 format for a quick
transitions from v4 to v6. Also I need some guidance as to what needs to be
done for a draft document proposal to be created about the proposed
solutions mentioned bellow and who needs to be involved in this process.

As far as multi-homing goes in IPv6 the solution discussion generated by
using provider-independent address space like mentioned in
draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-10 seems too complicated to implement efficiently
and generates a lot of unnecessary work. Because IPv6 will never really be
adopted by ISPs, telco and enterprises until it offers a feasible
multi-homing solution my proposal is that some solutions are redefined such
as provider independent address space and the 6to4 standard.

I propose that the 6to4 ip conversion space from ipv4 addresses to
2002::ipv6 space will be redefined as provider independent address space.
This way whoever wants to implement ipv6 with multi-homing can simply
redefine their existing IPv4 addresses in IPv6 6to4 format and have
multi-homing in ipv6. Everyone already uses ipv4 multi-homing with success
so I see no point in defining a new addressing system for v6 when everyone
can simply use the same v4 address space for multi-homing but converted in
6to4 format.

Also, another issue faced by whoever uses IPv6 is that access to the
internet in v6 format is limited so a proposal has to be made to the RIRs to
offer incentives such as free IPv6 space for anyone who implements 6to4
relay routers and advertises their existing v4 space in v6 format along with
the newly received free v6 space.

I believe that as long as ietf gets involved and a rfc is written on these 2
proposals starting with the redefining of  the provider independent address
space and its inclusion in the 6to4 format things will be a lot more compact
and give some additional momentum to the IPv6 migration process.

Best regards and I hope to hear from you soon,
Vlad Ion

Siemens PSE
IP backbone design engineer

---

From: Mohacsi Janos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:48:05 +0100 (CET)

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Vlad Ion wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> For a year now whenever it comes to IPv6 telco implementations I keep facing 2 problems so I was hoping you can
> guide me towards find a group that deals with these issues or discussion solutions. The 2 problems are related to
> IPv6 multi-homing and access to the internet in IPv6 format for a quick transitions from v4 to v6. Also I need some
> guidance as to what needs to be done for a draft document proposal to be created about the proposed solutions
> mentioned bellow and who needs to be involved in this process.
> 
> As far as multi-homing goes in IPv6 the solution discussion generated by using provider-independent address space
> like mentioned in draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-10 seems too complicated to implement efficiently and generates a lot of
> unnecessary work. Because IPv6 will never really be adopted by ISPs, telco and enterprises until it offers a
> feasible multi-homing solution my proposal is that some solutions are redefined such as provider independent address
> space and the 6to4 standard.
> 
> I propose that the 6to4 ip conversion space from ipv4 addresses to 2002::ipv6 space will be redefined as provider
> independent address space. This way whoever wants to implement ipv6 with multi-homing can simply redefine their
> existing IPv4 addresses in IPv6 6to4 format and have multi-homing in ipv6. Everyone already uses ipv4 multi-homing
> with success so I see no point in defining a new addressing system for v6 when everyone can simply use the same v4
> address space for multi-homing but converted in 6to4 format.

I believe this more a policy and RIR business to treat 2002:pi_ipv4 as PI 
IPV6. May I have some questions:

1. Do you want to treat differently 2002:pi_ipv4 and 2002:pa_ipv4? 
2. How do you recognise that a particular IPv4 address PI or PA?

3. How do you prevent everybody to use their IPv4 address as PI IPv6 
address?

4. What will happen if everybody will use their single /32 IPv4 address as 
IPv6 PI address space?  Everybody should accept /48 in IPv6 routing?

5. Who will operate 6to4 relays? Every Tier1? Every ISP? Every PI 
customer? Everybody?

> 
> Also, another issue faced by whoever uses IPv6 is that access to the internet in v6 format is limited so a proposal
> has to be made to the RIRs to offer incentives such as free IPv6 space for anyone who implements 6to4 relay routers
> and advertises their existing v4 space in v6 format along with the newly received free v6 space.

6to4 is very good solution for interconnect IPv6 islands, but 
fundamentally relying on existing IPv4 infrastructure. In long term the 
IPv4 usage should be decreased as IPv6 fully adopted.

> 
> I believe that as long as ietf gets involved and a rfc is written on these 2 proposals starting with the redefining
> of  the provider independent address space and its inclusion in the 6to4 format things will be a lot more compact

Best Regards,
 		Janos Mohacsi

---

From: Vlad Ion <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:37:59 +0200

Hi Janos,

Its simple:

1&2. Make the whole 2002:: class provider independent, not provider
aggregable so it will be dedicated for transition and multi-homing purposes
only
.
3. Just allow everybody to use their IPv4 address as PI IPv6 address. I see
no problem with that. It even makes it a lot easier for everyone to
transition their existing space to IPv6.

4. Everybody should accept /48 in IPv6 routing just because there's a clear
need to have multi-homing and you can't get around it. A simple procedure to
reduce, in time, the size of the /48 classes that are announced is for
people to slowly give back their v4 space to the RIRs as v6 expansion gains
momentum and slowly dedicate v4 and their 2002:: counterparts to
multi-homing only.

5. All ISPs and carriers that take the possible RIR offer to take free IPv6
space in exchange to announcing their v4 space in v6 format should deploy
6to4 relays. Relays should also be deployed by anyone wanting to make use of
v6 multi-homing.

I agree, 6to4 is a good solution, but the problem remains with the slow
deployment rate of IPv6. The problems IPv6 has with multihoming were the key
factor in all the deployment projects I saw that gave up eventually on IPv6
be it in telco or enterprise scenarios.

One fact remains clear as daylight: a unified solution has to be picked that
solves the multi-homing issue and a strategy has to be adopted to provide
access to the existing v4 internet in v6 form before we run out of v4 space
and more and more 2-layer deploayments of NAT will be introduced such as
carrier-grade NAT

Best regards,
Vlad Ion.

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Mohacsi Janos <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> For a year now whenever it comes to IPv6 telco implementations I keep
>> facing 2 problems so I was hoping you can
>> transitions from v4 to v6. Also I need some
>> using provider-independent address space
>> like mentioned in draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-10 seems too complicated to
>> implement efficiently and generates a lot of
>> feasible multi-homing solution my proposal is that some solutions are
>> redefined such as provider independent address
>> 2002::ipv6 space will be redefined as provider
> 1. Do you want to treat differently 2002:pi_ipv4 and 2002:pa_ipv4? 2. How
> do you recognise that a particular IPv4 address PI or PA?
>
> 5. Who will operate 6to4 relays? Every Tier1? Every ISP? Every PI customer?
> Everybody?
>
>
>
>
>> internet in v6 format is limited so a proposal
> 6to4 is very good solution for interconnect IPv6 islands, but fundamentally
> relying on existing IPv4 infrastructure. In long term the IPv4 usage should
> be decreased as IPv6 fully adopted.
>
>
>

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:06:42 +0100 (CET)

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Vlad Ion wrote:

> 3. Just allow everybody to use their IPv4 address as PI IPv6 address. I 
> see no problem with that. It even makes it a lot easier for everyone to 

We do *not* want 300k (or more) routes in IPv6 DFZ. This is a really bad 
idea.

> momentum and slowly dedicate v4 and their 2002:: counterparts to

This will drive DFZ route growth even more.

> deployment rate of IPv6. The problems IPv6 has with multihoming were the 
> key factor in all the deployment projects I saw that gave up eventually 
> on IPv6 be it in telco or enterprise scenarios.

6RD is a better solution and doesn't drive IPv6 DFZ route growth.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]

---

From: Vlad Ion <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:06:41 +0200

Mikael,

I mean, is starting in v6 with the same number routes as in v4 more of an
issue than not switching to IPv6 fast enough and having to deal with a
constant internet user base while people deploy more and more a 2layer NAT
solution?

I'm asking because the internet deals ok with the existing number of v4
routes and having all new designated classes to ISPs subjected to the PA
rule will only reduce the total number of routes or keep it the same if you
include new multihoming customers.

Best regards,
Vlad

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>wrote:

>  Mikael,
>> Is it really such a bad thing to start off in IPv6 with the same number of
>> routes as in IPv4 and slowly decrease it as providers implement IPv6 from PA
>> classes and people announcing small blocks of IPv4? After all, the number of
>> blocks announced by people doing multihoming will remain the same in ipv6
>> after a complete transition no matter what PI address space is used.
>>
>> 6rd is the natural next step in 6to4 development for ISP acceptance but it
>> will not make enterprises and telco providers use IPv6 because it lacks a
>> proper multi-homing support and using solutions like nat-pt generate a too
>> large delay for delay sensitive services such as voice while using the
>> existing v4 space translated to v6 format would provide an additional level
>> of ease.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Vlad Ion
>
>
> YES!
>
>
> --

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:39:06 +0100 (CET)

> constant internet user base while people deploy more and more a 2layer NAT

Yes, exploding the IPv6 DFZ routing table from the few thousands to 
hundreds of thousands in 1-2 years would hamper IPv6 deployment because it 
increases the cost of the control plane signifcantly.

> include new multihoming customers.

You're talking about doubling the number of routes from the current value, 
if I understood you correctly, one route for IPv4 and one reciprocal route 
for IPv6. I'd rather assign all ISPs a /24 IPv6 space for 6RD than your 
proposed solution.

---

From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:20:03 -0500

On Jan 25, 2010, at 7:06 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> 3. Just allow everybody to use their IPv4 address as PI IPv6 address. I see no problem with that. It even makes it a lot easier for everyone to transition their existing space to IPv6.
> 
> We do *not* want 300k (or more) routes in IPv6 DFZ. This is a really bad idea.

We "want" whatever makes this work.

Thought I agree having everyone create multiple allocations based on their current v4 addresses seems a bit silly.  A single v6 allocation should be all most organizations need.

> This will drive DFZ route growth even more.

Not doing it will ensure v6 adoption is even slower and more fractured than it is today.

Either you allow the people paying for service to multi-home, or they will not use v6.  Or, more likely, someone else will allow them to do it. There is no Sprint of IPv6, you cannot institute acl112 and hope people buy from you because your equipment is too old to support today's requirements.  You just won't get any customers because you cannot talk to the whole Internet.

The Internet is a business, we /must/ do what the people paying for the service want or there will be no Internet.  I tell my friends the v6 'Net is like swiss cheese, only v6 is holes, not the cheese.  Trying to keep organizations from multihoming by filtering prefixes is going to ensure even the holes can't talk to each other.

Of course, there has to be some filtering.  We can discuss if /48 is the right boundary.  But I highly recommend you stop thinking of "what will work best in my network design?" and start thinking "what will people use, what will people pay for?".  If we had thought that way from the beginning, v6 wouldn't be in the sorry not-quite-ready-for-alpha-testing-yet state that it is today.

And do not even begin to fool yourself that v6 is ready for prime time.  The protocol might work for some things, but if people will not or cannot use it for production traffic, it is useless.  History is littered with protocols which are well thought out and never used.  How much traffic is on the Internet is v6 today?  The answer is 0% - to several decimal places.  Fighting against what people -require- to run their business will ensure the number of decimal places does not shrink.

>> I agree, 6to4 is a good solution, but the problem remains with the slow deployment rate of IPv6. The problems IPv6 has with multihoming were the key factor in all the deployment projects I saw that gave up eventually on IPv6 be it in telco or enterprise scenarios.
> 

Good luck with that.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

---

From: Vlad Ion <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:44:47 +0200

Andy thanks for the heads up. I didn't know it was that easy to obtain a /48
as PI space from RIPE.

The issue that Patrick mentioned about the internet in v6 looking more like
the holes in swiss cheese still remains. I proposed the conversion of the
existing space in 6to4 form as a simple means of providing direct access to
the existing v4 internet hosts from any v6 island while moving the
translation from the new v6 user.island to those still using v4 space that
will start to announce it in v6 form as well. I think that this is a huge
step towards encouraging more organizations to switch their networks to pure
v6.

I do agree that organizations with scattered v4 blocks should announce a
larger v6 block instead of several small ones and that's why I think the
RIRs should provide all organizations currently having v4 space with free v6
blocks so they'll see financial point from the free addresses in providing
their new and existing customers with v6 addresses as well.

I really appreciate this discussion especially from that educational and
advocacy point of view you mentioned because it is pretty hard to find the
necessary information on v6 at the moment and have it clearly available
especially to the sales people that take the major decisions in any
deployment project.

Best regards,
Vlad

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Andy Davidson <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On 25/01/2010 08:55, Vlad Ion wrote:
> > 2002::ipv6 space will be redefined as provider independent address
> > space. This way whoever wants to implement ipv6 with multi-homing can
> > simply redefine their existing IPv4 addresses in IPv6 6to4 format and
> > have multi-homing in ipv6.
>
> Sorry, this scares me.
>
> It is not difficult to get IPv6 PI from the RIRs I have experience with.
>
> For example, in Europe, obtaining a single /48 IPv6 PI is a quick
> process.  Obtaining it in this way means that unused v4 is not recycled
> as spoofable v6, and that organisations with tens of v4 unjoined
> prefixes need not announced tens of unjoined v6 prefixes when they migrate.
>
> I commend you for thinking about ways to encourage networks to adopt v6,
> but I think that education and advocacy is more future-proof than
> migrating the v4 swap to v6.
>
> Andy
>
>

---

From: Vlad Ion <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:36:06 +0200

That would not provide multihoming as much as provide direct access to the
whole internet in v6 format to anyone deciding to switch to v6 which would
be a major incentive for a lot of end-users and enterprise clients instead
of dealing with the few existing islands of v6 and running translation to
reach the v4 internet. Also I doubt that its a valid statement to say that
an organization receiving a /48 will still need to announce its smaller v4
blocks once it starts migrating the end customers to the /48 v6 range. I
know several organization currently announcing a bunch of /24s and /22s in
v4 which could easily be replaced by a single /48 in v6.

BR,
Vlad

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> On 2010-01-26 04:54, Andy Davidson wrote:
> Well yes. Let's try a thought experiment that doesn't break 6to4:
>
> Proclaim that everyone who has a valid global IPv4 prefix owns
> the PI IPv6 prefix 4444:V4ADDR::/48.
>
> Then we have automatically imported all 318333 IPv4 prefixes
> (according to routeviews) into IPv6.
>
> I'm not quite sure how this would provide multihoming.
>
>    Brian
>
>

---

From: Vlad Ion <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:20:53 +0200

Hi Ethern,

The idea of having people who own v4 space to announce it in v6 form and
perform the local translation between those 2 was to encourage and provide
an additional incentive to whoever deploys a v6 island because they'll have
direct access to the full internet in v6 form without needing to deploy
something like 6to4 to access the v6 internet and a nat-pt to access the v4
internet.

BR,
Vlad

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Ethern M., Lin <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Vlad,
>
> This issue is assuming that everyone can get the public IPv4 IP,
> right? But how can you guarantee that everyone can get the public IPv4
> IP without any problem? If not, I don't think your idea work although
> I am admire your spirit to push IPv6 and solve the multi-homing issue
> in IPv6.
>
> cheers,
> Ethern
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Vlad Ion <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> facing

---

From: Vlad Ion <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:29:33 +0200

Hi Gert,

The idea was that people should only need to switch v6 on have have it run
and not need to deploy 6to4, for example to access the v6 internet and in
addition to that something like nat-pt to access the v4 internet. My
thinking was that if you can access the v4 internet in v6 form, translated
by those that own each address block or at least most prefixes, it would be
a lot more stimulating for everyone else to switch on your v6 address which
you would simply obtain by converting your existing v4 to a 2002:: just as
an example, or ask for a PI/PA space and have it run with minimum effort.

BR,
Vlad

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Gert Doering <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:36:06AM +0200, Vlad Ion wrote:
> I'm very interested in learning how this new way of looking at 2002::
> address space is going to magically turn on IPv6 configuration in all
> the web servers, firewalls, and load balancers out there?
>
> The problem today is not "acquire IPv6 address space" but "encourage
> people to actually turn it *on* on their servers and networking gear".
>
> Gert Doering
> --
> Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  144438
>
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>

---

From: Gert Doering <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:52:57 +0100

Hi,

Gert Doering

---

From: "Ethern M., Lin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:06:39 +0800

Hi Vlad,

cheers,
Ethern