An Internet IPv6 Transition Plan

Chad_Oleary1 · July 24, 2007, 2:01pm

I'm wondering if we should really be considering a "transition" plan
at this point? From what I can see, there will be many IPv4 only
networks around for many years to come. The technology doesn't have an
expiration date. Rather than focusing on "transitioning" every network
from v4 to v6, shouldn't this draft focus on how an "initial
implementation of v6" is going to interop with v4 as we know it today?

Personally, I see v6 as something that needed and desired by the
certain groups. However, when looking at the enterprise, for example,
better solutions are needed for things like multi-homing, last I
checked. IPv4 will get more expensive as time goes on, but some will
be willing to pay that price.

Perhaps the biggest challenge, IMO, in this much more dynamic network,
is DNS. How do I (or my new vendor) readdress every node at my site,
and actually know what device has what address? rtadvd doesn't do DNS
updates. DHCPv6 doesn't even hand out addresses. I've seen host-based
approaches, is that the answer? How does all this happen securely?
DNSSEC comes to mind, but that's a whole different story. Add, since a
host can have many preferred addresses, which to use? How do
deprecated addresses get withdrawn from DNS?

I think a more successful approach would be to address how we plan to
add v6 to the current network. Perhaps a transition plan is
appropriate for some networks. But, I don't think this is a one-size
fits all issue.

This is the part that I have issue with:

2.3.4 Service Providers area MAY continue to offer IPv4-based Internet
       connectivity to their customers. Organizations MAY continue to
       use IPv4-based Internet connectivity. Organizations MAY remove
       IPv4-based Internet connectivity from Internet-facing servers.

If I'm an IPv4 only site outside of this "perfect world", I just lost
connectivity to parts those that moved to IPv6. Not everyone will
follow this plan, and this will happen. For now, we need to learn how
to co-exist.

Thanks for your time,

Chad

Alain_Durand · July 24, 2007, 2:47pm

From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On
Behalf Of Chad Oleary
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:02 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: An Internet IPv6 Transition Plan

Personally, I see v6 as something that needed and desired by
the certain groups. However, when looking at the enterprise,
for example, better solutions are needed for things like
multi-homing, last I checked.

It is just the same multi-homing as v4. No better for sure.

Perhaps the biggest challenge, IMO, in this much more dynamic
network, is DNS. How do I (or my new vendor) readdress every
node at my site, and actually know what device has what
address? rtadvd doesn't do DNS updates. DHCPv6 doesn't even
hand out addresses.

This is not correct. DHCPv6 does hand out addresses. The status
of DHCPv6 implemenations has improved dramatically over what
it was 12-18 months ago.
See the article in the IETF journal about the DHCPv6 bake-off
we did at RIPE-NCC last March.

DNSSEC comes to mind, but that's a whole different story.
Add, since a host can have many preferred addresses, which to
use? How do deprecated addresses get withdrawn from DNS?

This is a very good point. Having multiple addresses per interface
introduce a lot a complexity that is not well understood today.
However, nothing forces you there. If you do not run ULA, but
run PA or PI space, you can very well manage only one v6 address
per interface.

- Alain.

Chad_Oleary1 · July 24, 2007, 3:50pm

Ok, thank you for the technical corrections.

However, what I'm trying to understand is why the motivation to
rapidly go from v4 to v6 only? What are the factors I'm missing in
operating v4/v6 combined for some time?

Chad

Chris_L_Morrow · July 24, 2007, 3:59pm

> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On
> Behalf Of Chad Oleary
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:02 AM
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: An Internet IPv6 Transition Plan
>
> Personally, I see v6 as something that needed and desired by
> the certain groups. However, when looking at the enterprise,
> for example, better solutions are needed for things like
> multi-homing, last I checked.

It is just the same multi-homing as v4. No better for sure.

yup, and see below for a bug-a-boo

> DNSSEC comes to mind, but that's a whole different story.
> Add, since a host can have many preferred addresses, which to
> use? How do deprecated addresses get withdrawn from DNS?

This is a very good point. Having multiple addresses per interface
introduce a lot a complexity that is not well understood today.
However, nothing forces you there. If you do not run ULA, but
run PA or PI space, you can very well manage only one v6 address
per interface.

I think you mean 'PI' not 'PA or PI' because if you have PA and multihome
you'll have 2 addresses then have to play the 'which one is 'best' game...

Cutler_James_R · July 24, 2007, 5:15pm

Cost of operating v4/v6 combined for some time includes, among other things:

Help Desk calls resulting from confused customers wanting configuration help.
Memory for Routing Information for IPv4 plus IPv6.
Help Desk calls resulting from errors by confused engineers trying to work both protocols on too many devices.
Cost of documentation and training for Help Desk personnel.
Cost of “Linksys WRT54G-IP6” or equivalent because of increased memory and programming requirements.
Cost of software maintenance for network core router software – didn’t we just go through getting rid of DECnet, SNA, IPX/SPX, and AppleTalk because of this, among other reasons??
Marketing cost of being perceived as “obsolete”.
Opportunity cost due to more complex delivery configurations slowing down sales.
Cost of “IP Naming and Addressing Management” due to multiple protocol complexity – didn’t we just go through getting rid of DECnet, SNA, IPX/SPX, and AppleTalk because of this, among other reasons??

Of course, this is just a smattering. Note also that, although hardware costs for the router core are driven primarily by speed and port count, memory costs can be substantial.

michael.dillon · July 24, 2007, 8:34pm

However, what I'm trying to understand is why the motivation
to rapidly go from v4 to v6 only? What are the factors I'm
missing in operating v4/v6 combined for some time?

Growth.

Lack of IPv4 addresses will put the brakes on growth of the Internet
which will have a major impact on revenue growth. Before long stock
market analysts are going to be asking tough questions, and CEOs are
suddenly going to see the IPv6 light.

By offering pure IPv6 edge services, you can continue to grow the
network unhampered by IPv4 exhaustion. For instance, offering consumer
Internet connectivity using pure IPv6 from your edge
router/DSLAM/termserver to the customer. If the customer sends you IPv4
packets, you drop them because you only route IPv6 for them.

At the very least this will involve running some kind of proxy farm so
that IPv6-only customers can still access IPv4-only Internet services.
And it will also require fully functional IPv6 peering and transit
agreements so that the IPv6 traffic can get to and from the IPv6
Internet effectively. You will be running a mixed v4/v6 network for the
next 25 years, because IPv4 is not going away but if you refuse to add
commercial IPv6 capability to your network, then you are putting the
brakes on growth.

Pure and simple.

--Michael Dillon

P.S. I think this is the real IPv6 killer app, i.e. helping the CEO keep
market analysts happy and keeping the company alive through the IPv4
exhaustion crisis. A lot of telecoms companies will not survive this
crisis.

Barry_Shein1 · July 25, 2007, 6:25am

You posit that running out of bread (ipv4 address space) encourages
people to bake more bread.

Unfortunately it often makes them scream for bread lines (rationing,
central control, privilege.)

It'd be nice if there were a more positive reason to go ipv6 than
getting out of the bread lines, but the killer ipv6 app remains
elusive.

Stephen_Wilcox1 · July 25, 2007, 10:52am

What exactly will cease to grow tho? The 4 billion IPs that have always been around will continue to be. I think you overestimate the effects..

All the existing big businesses can operate with what they already have, Google and Yahoo are not going to face any sort of crisis for the foreseeable future. And as I've been saying for a while and Randy put in his presentation, supply and demand will simply cause the cost of having public IPs to go up from zero to something tiny - enough to see IPs being put back into the pool to those who really need them.

Steve

John_Curran4 · July 25, 2007, 11:14am

Steve -

   Putting them back into circulation doesn't work unless
   its done in very large chucks to major ISPs. If this isn't
   the model followed, then we will see a lot more routes
   for the equivalent number of new customers. People
   complaining about the ability to carry both IPv6 and
   IPv4 routing need to think carefully about how long
   we'll actually last if the ISP's are injecting thousands
   of unaggregatable routes from recovered address space
   each day.

   Additionally, the run rate for IPv4 usage approximates
   10 /8 equivalents per year and increasing. Even given
   great legacy recovery, you've only gained a few more
   years and then still have to face the problem.

/John

michael.dillon · July 25, 2007, 11:21am

> Lack of IPv4 addresses will put the brakes on growth of the
Internet
> which will have a major impact on revenue growth. Before long stock
> market analysts are going to be asking tough questions, and
CEOs are
> suddenly going to see the IPv6 light.

What exactly will cease to grow tho? The 4 billion IPs that
have always been around will continue to be. I think you
overestimate the effects..

I think you misunderstand the dictionary definition of growth. Yes, the
IPv4 addresses, and much of the network infrastructure using them, will
continue to be. But growth is about expansion, adding more, increasing
the size and scope of the network. Few businesses are satisfied with
collecting the same monthly recurring revenue from the same customer
base. They either want to grow the customer base or grow the monthly
revenue per customer. In the Internet business the main engine of
revenue growth is growing the customer base by growing the network and
adding more customers.

All the existing big businesses can operate with what they
already have, Google and Yahoo are not going to face any sort
of crisis for the foreseeable future.

I disagree. In reality, the customer base of a business is never static.
If the company does not grow their base, they certainly will see that
base shrink through attrition, churn, etc. Customers will die, move to
another town/country, and switch suppliers for some reason or other. In
order to keep from fading away, a company has to grow its base, and if
there are hard geographic limits to growth because of IPv4 exhaustion,
that makes it complex (and therefore expensive) to maintain a steady
state.

And as I've been saying
for a while and Randy put in his presentation, supply and
demand will simply cause the cost of having public IPs to go
up from zero to something tiny - enough to see IPs being put
back into the pool to those who really need them.

And when your Internet supplier tells you that there will be a $10 per
month increase in fees to cover the increase cost of IPv4 addresses,
will you be happy? Will you start shopping for an IPv6 Internet
supplier? When IPv6 Internet access is cheaper due to IPv4 address
costs, then ISPs face a wholesale loss of their customer base. Of
course, most business managers are smart enough to see this coming and
resist paying for IPv4 addresses in the first place.

Let's face it, the majority of ISP and telecom executives in place
today, have spent their careers navigating through a period of growth
and abundant resources. They don't know how to manage through scarcity
and constraints and shortages. Many of them realize this and will steer
their businesses to avoid scarcity and constraints and shortages. That
means that most of them will see IPv6 as an opportunity to see who can
race the fastest and build market share before the competition does.
They know how to do this, and the investment bankers also understand
this model of business. When the IPv4 shortage begins to bite, then you
will see enormous amounts of money and effort put into IPv6 conversions
(and new IPv6 startups who intend to unseat Google, Yahoo, etc.).

There's another killer application of IPv6.

--Michael Dillon

Stephen_Wilcox1 · July 25, 2007, 11:30am

Hi John,
I fully agree on that.. but I am disagreeing as to the timescales.

There is some opinion that when IANA hands out the last of its IP blocks things will change overnight, and I dont see any reason for that to be the case. I think there are a lot of IPs currently allocated to ISPs but as yet unassigned to customers, and I think there will be a lot of policy changes to make more efficient use of the space that is already out there - I specifically think that will come from ISPs reusing IPs and setting costs that ensure they continually have IPs available to customers willing to pay for them.

I think the combined effect of these things means
- we will not be running into a wall at any time
- availability of IPs will slowly decrease over time (as cost slowly increases)
- adoption of NAT and v6 will be an ongoing trend with no sudden increase

This means no end of the world as we know it, and no overnight adoption of new technology.. just business as usual in an evolving environment.

Steve

John_Curran4 · July 25, 2007, 11:50am

Hi John,
I fully agree on that.. but I am disagreeing as to the timescales.

There is some opinion that when IANA hands out the last of its IP blocks things will change overnight, and I dont see any reason for that to be the case. I think there are a lot of IPs currently allocated to ISPs but as yet unassigned to customers, and I think there will be a lot of policy changes to make more efficient use of the space that is already out there - I specifically think that will come from ISPs reusing IPs and setting costs that ensure they continually have IPs available to customers willing to pay for them.

In the ARIN region, we've got major ISP's coming back
every 6 months with high utilization rates seeking their
next block to allow customer growth. While I'm certain
that some internal recovery is possible, there's a realistic
limit of how long any ISP can make their air supply last.

I think the combined effect of these things means
- we will not be running into a wall at any time
- availability of IPs will slowly decrease over time (as cost slowly increases)
- adoption of NAT and v6 will be an ongoing trend with no sudden increase

Unless the policy changes you suggest somehow dramatically
change the current usage rate, we're going to have a very
serious rate of change when the IANA/RIR pool hits zero.
That sort of defines "hitting a wall", by my definition.

Please propose the magical policy changes asap... we need to
get them through the public process and adopted in record time
to have any affect on the usage rate.

This means no end of the world as we know it, and no overnight adoption of new technology.. just business as usual in an evolving environment.

Note: I'm not advocating an "overnight" technology deployment;
just advising those folks who presently rely on continuous availability
of new address blocks from the RIR's that we're going to see a change.

At present, there's a few years for these folks to switch to IPv6 for
their growth. It requires cooperation from the Internet, in that we
all need to recognize that there will be IPv6 customers out there soon,
and even if you don't plan on having those, please make your public
facing servers IPv6 reachable in the next few years.

/John

Adrian_Chadd · July 25, 2007, 11:52am

I'm not sure what your definition of "really tiny" is, but out here
IPs are a dollar or two each a year from APNIC. I'm sure ARIN's IP
charges aren't $0.00.

Adrian

Stephen_Wilcox1 · July 25, 2007, 11:55am

RIPE is a couple thousands Euros to be an LIR which gets you all the IPs you need..

$1/yr is like 8c/month - well into the realm of being sunk into the cost when you provide a hosting service or DSL line. Its close enough to zero to be lost in the overheads of any business operation.

Now, if you suddenly charge $2.50/mo to have a public IP or $15/mo for a /28 it does become a consideration to the customer as to if they _REALLY_ need it

Steve

David_Conrad3 · July 25, 2007, 12:02pm

John,

All the existing big businesses can operate with what they already have, Google and Yahoo are not going to face any sort of crisis for the foreseeable future. And as I've been saying for a while and Randy put in his presentation, supply and demand will simply cause the cost of having public IPs to go up from zero to something tiny - enough to see IPs being put back into the pool to those who really need them.

   Putting them back into circulation doesn't work unless
   its done in very large chucks to major ISPs. If this isn't
   the model followed, then we will see a lot more routes
   for the equivalent number of new customers. People
   complaining about the ability to carry both IPv6 and
   IPv4 routing need to think carefully about how long
   we'll actually last if the ISP's are injecting thousands
   of unaggregatable routes from recovered address space
   each day.

Been there, done that, got several t-shirts. Longer prefixes _will_ hit the routing system. ISPs will react by (re-)implementing prefix length filters. Many people will whine.

   Additionally, the run rate for IPv4 usage approximates
   10 /8 equivalents per year and increasing. Even given
   great legacy recovery, you've only gained a few more
   years and then still have to face the problem.

This assumes consumption patterns remain the same which is, I believe, naive. In a world where you have to pay non-trivial amounts for address space utilization, people will only use the address space they actually need and you'll see even more proliferation of NAT for client-only services.

Rgds,
-drc

John_Curran4 · July 25, 2007, 12:13pm

I believe that we'll see extensive use of NAT for client-only
services (just look at many broadband residential services
today), but that won't help business customers who want
a block for the DMZ servers. They'll pay, but the question
is whether they can afford the actual global cost of routing
table entry, or whether it will even be accountable. ISP's
can figure out the cost of "obtaining" IPv4 blocks, but the
imputed cost of injecting these random blocks into the DFZ
routing table is harder to measure and inflicted on everyone
else.

/John

Stephen_Wilcox1 · July 25, 2007, 12:15pm

>Hi John,
> I fully agree on that.. but I am disagreeing as to the timescales.
>
>There is some opinion that when IANA hands out the last of its IP blocks things will change overnight, and I dont see any reason for that to be the case. I think there are a lot of IPs currently allocated to ISPs but as yet unassigned to customers, and I think there will be a lot of policy changes to make more efficient use of the space that is already out there - I specifically think that will come from ISPs reusing IPs and setting costs that ensure they continually have IPs available to customers willing to pay for them.

In the ARIN region, we've got major ISP's coming back
every 6 months with high utilization rates seeking their
next block to allow customer growth. While I'm certain
that some internal recovery is possible, there's a realistic
limit of how long any ISP can make their air supply last.

>I think the combined effect of these things means
>- we will not be running into a wall at any time
>- availability of IPs will slowly decrease over time (as cost slowly increases)
>- adoption of NAT and v6 will be an ongoing trend with no sudden increase

Unless the policy changes you suggest somehow dramatically
change the current usage rate, we're going to have a very
serious rate of change when the IANA/RIR pool hits zero.
That sort of defines "hitting a wall", by my definition.

Well, you already say you have major ISPs submitting requests every 6 months, and I guess that is your high water mark so everyone else should be longer (at lease here under RIPE you are supposed to be allocated space for 2 yrs at a time).

So, we have IANA out of space at eof 2009.. that will then take the RIRs 12 to 24 mo to allocate that out before there is any impact on ISPs.

Once that occurs we still have your 6mo-2yr+ period that ISPs have in their allocated and unused pool to be giving to customers.

Add all that together and you have 18mo-4yrs of 'greyness', no overnight wall.

And I'm saying each of the events plus that grey period will cause evolution in the market place to occur such that there are no walls or catastraphies from a continuity or economical point of view.

Please propose the magical policy changes asap... we need to
get them through the public process and adopted in record time
to have any affect on the usage rate.

Well, thats a different story. Inflating the price of IPs would have been a good thing but I think that horse has already bolted now.

>This means no end of the world as we know it, and no overnight adoption of new technology.. just business as usual in an evolving environment.

Note: I'm not advocating an "overnight" technology deployment;
just advising those folks who presently rely on continuous availability
of new address blocks from the RIR's that we're going to see a change.

Indeed they will, but it wont happen to everyone at the same time (as they all have months or years of IPs left) and they have plenty of time to figure out how to adapt their products and business models.

At present, there's a few years for these folks to switch to IPv6 for
their growth. It requires cooperation from the Internet, in that we
all need to recognize that there will be IPv6 customers out there soon,
and even if you don't plan on having those, please make your public
facing servers IPv6 reachable in the next few years.

I'm not sure there is time for v6 to be ready before companies find different ways to manage this. There are many things that need to happen to enable v6 and I dont think any of them are happening in a big way. Whether the large CDNs deploy v6, if v6 can be purchased in volume as transit are likely to be the major factors..

Steve

John_Curran4 · July 25, 2007, 12:18pm

Steve -

Are you unable to make your public facing servers IPv6-reachable?

/John

Stephen_Wilcox1 · July 25, 2007, 12:26pm

> > Lack of IPv4 addresses will put the brakes on growth of the
> Internet
> > which will have a major impact on revenue growth. Before long stock
> > market analysts are going to be asking tough questions, and
> CEOs are
> > suddenly going to see the IPv6 light.
>
> What exactly will cease to grow tho? The 4 billion IPs that
> have always been around will continue to be. I think you
> overestimate the effects..

I think you misunderstand the dictionary definition of growth. Yes, the
IPv4 addresses, and much of the network infrastructure using them, will
continue to be. But growth is about expansion, adding more, increasing
the size and scope of the network. Few businesses are satisfied with
collecting the same monthly recurring revenue from the same customer
base. They either want to grow the customer base or grow the monthly
revenue per customer. In the Internet business the main engine of
revenue growth is growing the customer base by growing the network and
adding more customers.

I dont think paypal's growth is tied to how many IPs they have... I think it relates to how many hits www.paypal.com receives and what their products look like. IP availability is unlikely to ever have more than the briefest mention in the boardroom and probably only in response to a news article quoting the end of the internet being imminent.

> And as I've been saying
> for a while and Randy put in his presentation, supply and
> demand will simply cause the cost of having public IPs to go
> up from zero to something tiny - enough to see IPs being put
> back into the pool to those who really need them.

And when your Internet supplier tells you that there will be a $10 per
month increase in fees to cover the increase cost of IPv4 addresses,
will you be happy? Will you start shopping for an IPv6 Internet
supplier? When IPv6 Internet access is cheaper due to IPv4 address
costs, then ISPs face a wholesale loss of their customer base. Of
course, most business managers are smart enough to see this coming and
resist paying for IPv4 addresses in the first place.

I'll sell you v6 today for 1/4 of the price of v4. Providing you understand theres not a lot out there.

I agree on your cost comparison, but consider what investment and costs are needed to be able to get to that point.

this model of business. When the IPv4 shortage begins to bite, then you
will see enormous amounts of money and effort put into IPv6 conversions
(and new IPv6 startups who intend to unseat Google, Yahoo, etc.).

You will just see redeployment of existing budgets.. why would you pay more to see the same webpage be delivered just because of some techno mumbo jumbo

Any investor would be crazy to invest in a v6 competitor to Google.. enter a mature market using a new technology that 99% of the planet cant get to? The only folks getting into v6 are the ones controlling the v4 market with enough spare R&D cash currently.

Steve

Stephen_Wilcox1 · July 25, 2007, 12:41pm

Well, I wear a few hats these days but.. I think the short answer is yes, I'm unable.

Most stuff I am involved in is modern enough that the servers have a v6 stack so that could be enabled. But the apps themselves are not all v6 so they would either need to be upgraded or fixed.

We would of course need to configure these and ensure all dependncies are v6 capable, particularly if we're sending address info back to customers we dont want to switch them in and out of v4/v6.

Then the network gear tends to be v6 enabled in the core and not at the edges where older gear has been redeployed. And a lot of the gear that claims to be v6 doesnt handle hardware switching properly so that needs investigating and would be an issue. Then we'd need to make sure all security and policies are uniform and working equally across v6.

Assuming we sort it tho then we need to bring up v6 transit, more v6 peers and drop any v4 tunnels as they cant be expected to handle production load.

I guess theres abstraction to fix too - my CMS, monitoring, allocation, much of which is automated and all of which relies on storing address info would all need to be rewritten to allow v6 addresses on hosts, interfaces, customers etc

So fix all that and yes we could have v6 servers, but you also said reachable and according to my BGPv6 table theres very little reachable out there right now - about 700 prefixes when compared to 25000 v4 ASNs that should each be visible.

So you can break this into two elements - stuff I control and stuff I dont. For the stuff I control I think the summary is that I'd need to build an ISP from scratch essentially (if not in terms of capex purchases then certainly in terms of design and implementation). And the stuff I dont control, well.. I cant do much about that.

Steve