Subject: 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: Andy Davidson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:54:57 +0000

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: 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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:34:36 +1300

>> have multi-homing in ipv6.

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 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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:46:44 +1300

Vlad, this is totally off-topic for shim6 so there is
no value in cross-posting.

The problem with IPv6 deployment is nothing to do with getting
address space. It's to do with the reluctance of ISPs, site
managers, and their various vendors to spend resources on this.
This is changing now that IPv4 address exhaustion is imminent
and they are beginning to see a financial argument.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 2010-01-26 11:36, Vlad Ion wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> shim6 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6

---

From: Andy Davidson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:29:07 +0000

On 25/01/2010 19:44, Vlad Ion wrote:
> RIRs should provide all organizations currently having v4 space with
> free v6 blocks

Hi,

I disagree that "anyone with IPv4 should be automatically assigned IPv6"
because this will encourage deaggregation.  Further, assigning space to
people who don't know what to do with it (and perhaps do not need
address resources any more at all) leaves us in a worse situation than
today.

Besides, this is an addressing policy question and is best taken up with
the community based around the RIR in your region, where great thinkers
on this particular topic will absolutely want to discuss this suggestion
with you !

Andy

---

From: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:12:31 +1100

(To v6ops only).

I think that there are three distinct issues:

1. Source address selection for outbound communications,

2. Path specification and robustness for inbound communications (which subsumes
destination address selection and routing specification)

3. Source address and path independent communications.

For each of these:

1: is well described in RFC5220

3: is being handled by SHIM6 and similar approaches, but aren't strictly required for
multihoming (but are interesting nevertheless).

2: can be handled either by specification of the routing path or destination address.

The current APNIC(pick a NIC) etc rules which allow provider independent IPv6
address allocations to existing IPv4 MH customers seem sensible enough for the early
adopters who already have the BGP policy nous to manage the routing.

Proliferation of Provider Independent addressing is problematic though, in that there's
the potential for unrestricted growth in the routing table (this was problematic before
when memory was expensive and helped motivate the IPv6 architecture, but we have
a potentially much larger Internet in the future, and we do not know how things will develop). 
I prefer that the ultimate solution doesn't require every multihomed PAN to have a PI
prefix (for example).

I am interested in exploring other mechanisms, like DNS based specification of service
addresses (with failover and load balancing policies).  This provides multiple destination
addresses, but leaves backbone routing largely to the core ISPs, but leaves the specification
of how services are reachable to the content provider (where arguably it belongs).

An initial experimental approach which attempts this is shown in: 

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-daley-dnsext-host-srv-00.txt

Sorry to tootle my own trumpet, but hey ;)

Greg

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:55:42 +0200
Subject: IPv6 multihoming
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]

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.

Siemens PSE
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
View photos of singles in your area! Browse profiles for FREE
http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/150855801/direct/01/

---

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

Hi,

> whole internet in v6 format to anyone deciding to switch to v6 which would

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: 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

---

From: Andy Davidson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:14:40 +0000

On 26/01/2010 17:29, Vlad Ion wrote:
> The idea was that people should only need to switch v6 on

Hi,

This really is easy enough already.

The problem is that people are not turning it on, not that access to
numbers is difficult.

Andy

---

From: Vlad Ion <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:58:58 +0200

Hi,

Unfortunately it is not as easy as just turning it on like in the case of
IPv4 where you set your ip and that's it - you have access to the internet.
If you set v6 instead of v4 on a server you get access to people in the v6
and 6to4 by having a 6to4 relay but then you need nat-pt for v4
connectivity. or I may be mistaking but that was the case with the servers I
set v6 on till now.

BR,
Vlad

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:35:24 +1300

Vlad,

I suggest that you study the current work in SOFTWIRE, BEHAVE, the RRG, and
LISP. These are not new problems, and as several people have said, getting
an IPv6 prefix (whether PI or PA) is the least of our problems.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: Konrad Rosenbaum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:39:13 +0100

Hi,

On Tuesday 26 January 2010, Vlad Ion wrote:
> IPv4 where you set your ip and that's it - you have access to the
> internet. If you set v6 instead of v4 on a server you get access to
> people in the v6 and 6to4 by having a 6to4 relay but then you need nat-pt
> for v4
> connectivity. or I may be mistaking but that was the case with the
> servers I set v6 on till now.

grantedly I come from a SOHO (customer side) background, but I don't really 
see where the difficulty is.

What I normally do with networks that I switch to v6 is this:

0a) Leave IPv4 the hell alone! It works. Don't fix it. Don't even think 
about taking it away from the admins! They would eat you for lunch (or 
sooner).

0b) Don't plan for production use immediately. Plan for a transition phase 
of at least 6 months. This gives you time to explore your options.

1) switch v6 on (configure routers, there are easy HOWTOs)

2) add v6 to DNS and some other services (over time)

3) relax, your main job is done, most hosts will switch it on magically.

The actual work time for this is very little. And you'll have a working 
dual-stack environment afterwards. Now you can start to transition 
applications one by one over a longer period of time.

There are a couple of other things you can think about while the test and 
transition phases are still running - like unportable applications, address 
stability or renumbering after a provider switch, DHCP-PD, a final v6-only 
network in 2015 or maybe 2020, etc.

There is really no need to disrupt the network or the global addressing 
architecture just because someone wants to replicate the old v4 work 
instructions on a v6 network - there is time enough to explore and create 
new instructions while the network already works in test mode.

	Konrad