Creating demand for IPv6, and saving the planet

> What about these two?
> ARIN IPv6 Wiki - ARIN's Vault

Michael,

As mentioned, 6to4 doesn't do what you seem to think it does.
Its not a solution to the problem of IPv6 endpoints trying to
talk to IPv4 endpoints.

I see that you did not change anything on that page. Specifically what
is wrong with the wording below?

I see that you did not change anything on that page. Specifically what
is wrong with the wording below?
---
This is a transition mechanism in which the user configures a 6to4
client in their PC or home gateway. The 6to4 client requests dynamic
tunnels

(not quite right; the client doesn't actually request anything)

from a 6to4 server which is found via the anycast address prefix
192.88.99.0/24 allocated in RFC 3068.

(most 6to4 implementations allow a relay router to be configured as an alternative to the RFC 3068 well-known relay router address. That address is exactly 192.88.99.1, incidentally; it's not something that needs to be found)

This tunnel then attaches the IPv4
host to the IPv6 network using the IPv6 address 2002:V4ADDR::/48. The
mechanism is documented in RFC 3056.

ISPs can improve connectivity for their customers who are currently
running IPv6 on their PCs by setting up a 6to4 relay. This avoids the
increased network latency caused by a trombone path to the IPv6
destination through a distant 6to4 relay.

(for an ISP's customers to find that relay it either needs to be explicitly configured in their client stacks, or it needs to be numbered 192.88.99.1 and the clients need to use the RFC 3068 address)

In addition, a content provider can also add IPv6 access to their
services by configuring 6to4 on their network

(... and configuring all the servers and related infrastructure responsible for those services to use IPv6, using a 6to4 prefix. Note that this is not particularly different from any other kind of IPv6 transit a content provider might decide to arrange.)

. Again, by shortening the
routing taken by one of the protocols,

(shortening the IPv4 path over which the tunnel is provisioned is clearer; I'm not sure in general what "shortening the routing" means)

you ensure that there is no
tromboning of the path and network latency is close to the minimum
possible.

I did not change anything on that page, either. For the record, that's because I have a screaming two-year-old trying to use me as a climbing wall right now.

Joe

I did not change anything on that page, either. For the
record, that's because I have a screaming two-year-old trying
to use me as a climbing wall right now.

My 10 month-old is soundly sleeping right now so I incorporated your
suggestions into the page.

--Michael Dillon

> As mentioned, 6to4 doesn't do what you seem to think it does.
> Its not a solution to the problem of IPv6 endpoints trying to
> talk to IPv4 endpoints.

I see that you did not change anything on that page. Specifically what
is wrong with the wording below?

Michael,

I could quibble about the description that it "requests dynamic
tunnels." Nothing is requested. Its comepletely stateless. There's no
setup or teardown. It just sends packets that get encapsulated and
decapsulated as they're received. But the description is not
unreasonable.

Where in the description you posted did you read anything that
suggests it allows IPv6 endpoints to communicate with IPv4 endpoints?

> Looks interesting. There's some version 0.4 user-space
> software for Linux which claims to do
You know, you could have added that to the page yourself. In any case, I
added a pointer to a Cisco product brief that mentions they have
upgraded NAT-PT to CEF in 12.4.

I generally wait until I've seen something actually work before
documenting how it works.

I haven't dug too deep into NAT-PT, but an obvious question comes to
mind: Why would an ISP deliver an IPv6-only connection plus NAT-PT
(and all the likely problems) with a surcharge for IPv4 instead of
delivering RFC1918 IPv4 + NAT with a surcharge for routable IPv4?
Without looking decades ahead to the waning days of IPv4 when its
desirable to minimize the IPv4 footprint in your network, I haven't
been able to come up with an answer. When I do, I'll take another look
at NAT-PT.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

Michael,

It would also be worth noting that 6to4 <-> 6to4 goes direct over IPv4 - not through 192.88.99.1 (or whatever other relay you've chosen).

It's truely stateless, and the concept of client/server is misleading - when a 6to4 router transmits an IPv6 packet over IPv4, all it's doing is looking at the next-hop to reach that v6 address, and taking bytes 3-6 from the IPv6 address and using that as the destination IPv4 address. In most cases, the next-hop for 2000::/3 is set to 2002:192.88:99.1::

So, content providers would be wise to route 2002::/16 at a 6to4 router they run in-house, so that at least the return path to the 'customer'/'client'/'end user of their content services' goes over a more-or-less identical path as it would if it were IPv4. The content provider can run this on any public IPv4 address, and packets aren't going to be coming back that way. (RFC1918 would work, but you might be blocked by bogon RPFs in some cases).

Teredo is really good in this sense - your client detects which relay Teredo packets come from, and caches that as the best relay to use to talk to that host. So, you get close-to-IPv4-path for both forward and reverse.
So, content providers should run Teredo relays also - their over-Teredo performance will be almost the same as their over-IPv4 performance.

There should be no reason that 6to4 can't do the same thing, I suppose.

Thus spake "Daniel Senie" <dts@senie.com>

A number of people have bemoaned the lack of any IPv6-only killer-content that would drive a demand for IPv6. I've thought about this, and about the government's push to make IPv6 a reality. What occurred to me is there is a satellite sitting in storage that would provide such content:

  Deep Space Climate Observatory - Wikipedia

Al Gore pushed for this satellite, Triana, to provide those on earth with a view of the planet among its scientific goals. The
Republicans referred to it as an "overpriced screen saver," though
the effect even of just the camera component on people's lives
and how they treat the planet could be considerable.

By combining the launch of Triana with feeding the still images and video from servers only connected to native IPv6 bandwidth, the government would provide both a strong incentive for end users to want to move to IPv6, and a way to get the people of this planet to stop from time to time and ponder the future of the earth.

Here's a simple question that applies to every "killer app" that's been proposed for IPv6: if you're going to the trouble of making a killer app and giving/selling it to the public, why wouldn't you include support for IPv4?

Virtually every "unique" feature of IPv6, except the number of bits in the address, has been back-ported to IPv4. There is simply no other advantage left, and thus no room for apps that "require" IPv6.

S

Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

Thus spake "Daniel Senie" <dts@senie.com>

A number of people have bemoaned the lack of any IPv6-only killer-content that would drive a demand for IPv6. I've thought about this, and about the government's push to make IPv6 a reality. What occurred to me is there is a satellite sitting in storage that would provide such content:

  Deep Space Climate Observatory - Wikipedia

Al Gore pushed for this satellite, Triana, to provide those on earth with a view of the planet among its scientific goals. The
Republicans referred to it as an "overpriced screen saver," though
the effect even of just the camera component on people's lives
and how they treat the planet could be considerable.

By combining the launch of Triana with feeding the still images and video from servers only connected to native IPv6 bandwidth, the government would provide both a strong incentive for end users to want to move to IPv6, and a way to get the people of this planet to stop from time to time and ponder the future of the earth.

Here's a simple question that applies to every "killer app" that's been proposed for IPv6: if you're going to the trouble of making a killer app and giving/selling it to the public, why wouldn't you include support for IPv4?

The US Government has stated an intention to have all equipment supplied to it be capable of IPv6, and networks to run IPv6. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/b-1-information.html#IPV6) That being the case, this would be an opportunity for the government to use something to push that goal along. Clearly there's nothing about a screen saver image from L1 that requires IPv6, but the government owns Triana, and the government wants to push IPv6 (OK, so the government also pushed OSI in the form of GOSIP, and we all know how well that worked out).

Virtually every "unique" feature of IPv6, except the number of bits in the address, has been back-ported to IPv4. There is simply no other advantage left, and thus no room for apps that "require" IPv6.

Agree all the way around. There's no technological reason to tie these items together. There is a political reason, as it fits with the agenda of the government to push IPv6 development and deployment.

How the government would prevent proxying of this content into IPv4, well, that's another matter. Perhaps the IPv6 evangelists will be able to convince Congress to outlaw that at the same time as they approve the launch of Triana and provide for the server farm to serve the images.

BTW, thanks for bringing this thread back to the question of creating demand for IPv6. There's plenty of anti-NAT activity on other threads. Some constructive discussion over ways to create incentives to deploy IPv6 is worthwhile. The most common argument for deployment of IPv6 is fear, as in "the sky is falling." Yeah, we all heard that, and have for a decade. Got it. Now, is there some POSITIVE reason to push IPv6? Fear is not a positive force.

Dan

Re Joe,

jabley@ca.afilias.info (Joe Abley) wrote:

>>6to4 (for content- or access-focussed networks) is surely a solution
>>to the problem of "I have no good way to acquire IPv6 transit";
>
>It solves another problem as well, like "I cannot go v6 to
>my servers because my load balancing and packet filtering
>black boxes don't do it yet".

I'm not sure how it solves that problem. 6to4 is not a translation
mechanism -- it's a tunnelling mechanism. 6to4 does not provide any
way for an IPv4-only host to talk to an IPv6-only host.

I was referring to a proxying service...see Michael's post for the details :wink:

Yours,
  Elmar.

BTW, thanks for bringing this thread back to the question of creating
demand for IPv6. There's plenty of anti-NAT activity on other
threads. Some constructive discussion over ways to create incentives
to deploy IPv6 is worthwhile. The most common argument for deployment
of IPv6 is fear, as in "the sky is falling." Yeah, we all heard that,
and have for a decade. Got it. Now, is there some POSITIVE reason to
push IPv6? Fear is not a positive force.

Ok, I'll bite and throw out a wacky idea I've been mulling over.

As the data at http://bgp.he.net/ipv6-progress-report.cgi shows for the
IPv6 and IPv4 nameserver tests, some of the time IPv6 connectivity is
*faster* than IPv4 connectivity (66 out of 264 test cases), because of
network topology differences due to different peering and transit
relationships between IPv4 and IPv6.

So you could write a download accelerator for your browser that checked
IPv6 vs IPv4 connectivity and used whichever was faster.

With only 3 percent of neworks running IPv6 this idea is a little early,
still it would be a hilarious browser plug-in. You could imagine it might
even have a little "IPv6 accelerator" icon that shows up in your status
bar when you've switched on the nitro.

(hehehe, shaving off that extra few ms of latency, yo!)

Mike.

+----------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -----------------+

The evil bastard in me wonders if developers may focus on speeding up IPv6
processing latency vs IPv4 for things like games on desktops, and let the
gamers drive the IPv6 adoption.

If you're evil you could envision silicon that did ipv4 vs ipv6 packet
identification (via ethertype for NICs?) and then "handle" ipv6 packets
with less latency.

Ok, thats enough humour for this afternoon.

Adrian

Just as a odd data point, I see this for the only IPv6 test-bed I have
available now, including tunnels.

Home DSL (UK) -> EU tunnel broker -> IPv6 cloud -> US tunnel broker ->
hosted server (California) is consistently 10-20ms lower than home -> IPv4
upstream -> IPv4 cloud -> server.

Regards,
Tim.

I haven't dug too deep into NAT-PT, but an obvious question comes to
mind: Why would an ISP deliver an IPv6-only connection plus
NAT-PT (and all the likely problems) with a surcharge for
IPv4 instead of delivering RFC1918 IPv4 + NAT with a
surcharge for routable IPv4?

Why is it an either/or situation? Given the fact that PC's have
supported IPv6 for quite a while now, an IPv6 Internet access service is
workable, *IF* an ISP can support something that allows the IPv6 user to
get to the IPv4 Internet. That is a transition product that will reduce
the requirement for IPv4 addresses at the same time as it enables the
ISP to market themselves as "Ready for the Future" or whatever.

Obviously, the ISP can offer the same old IPv4 service with potentially,
double NAT but then they are just making do until some future point in
time when they have to deal with IPv6. At that point in time, they may
need to offer the NAT-PT solution which means they need to learn about
it, do some trials, etc.

I'm not suggesting that people should rush out and make dumb business
decisions to offer IPv6 services today. I *AM* suggesting that people
need to start educating themselves on the intricacies of IPv6, trialing
IPv6 in a lab environment, and planning how they will introduce IPv6
services WHEN IT MAKES BUSINESS SENSE TO DO SO.

IPv4 exhaustion is close enough that people can't afford to keep their
heads in the sand any longer.

--Michael Dillon

<crazy rambling>
This last sentence (fragment) with NAT-PT above it made me ponder a bit.
NAT-PT and whatever other solutions we're considering are all aiming to give transparent access to hosts on the IPv4 network from hosts on the IPv6 network (or vice-versa). It probably doesn't have to be so transparent - why couldn't there be some kind of NATv4-over-v6 hack that let it happen?
Would GRE (over v6) with DHCP, and NAT on the concentrator work? Maybe L2TP (over v6) or something?

OSes don't support this now (as I just pulled it out of thin air), but there's no reason they couldn't be made to, or something like it. Upside down Teredo + NAT.

Sure it means we have to have NATs in the way - but as many people have suggested, NAT is an existing issue for most applications, and they work around it just fine. The advantage of doing this as opposed to handing customers' CPEs RFC1918 addresses is, they can do end-to-end over v6 if they want to.
</crazy rambling>

One does wonder if doing IPv6 and RFC1918 IPv4 at the same time might be easier. Do the IPv6 PPP things let you run IPv6 and IPv4 at the same time?
(Maybe not RFC1918, maybe take a single non-RFC1918 /24 and assign those addresses to customers, and then re-use that /24 many many times, each behind a different non-RFC1918 address. To avoid address conflicts with people who NAT their address, etc.)

The difference between the two things above is that the former is single NAT, the latter is double. The former is much more complicated, though.

Is anyone at Level3 who is familiar with IPv6, or anyone who is a Level3 IPv6 customer lurking here? We are a Level3 BGP customer and our contacts are giving us a deer-in-the-headlights stare when we want to bring up our /32, claiming that they don't do IPv6 at all. Not native, not tunneled, zip, nada.

Yet, I see lots of AS3356 in the ipv6 routing tables, and there's this from three years ago...

http://nanog.org/mtg-0510/bamford.html

We've recently brought up IPv6 with Level3. It's done as an IPv6IP tunnel to
their nearest IPv6 router. I may be able to dig out the form you need...

Simon

Level 3 provides best effort IPv6 support with no SLA to current
Internet customers. As mentioned IPv6 is currently being provided
via tunnels to the customer's existing router.

There is a simple service agreement addendum and form to fill
out for relevant config bits.

Sorry you get such a response from people that should know. *sigh*

regards
-Craig (Level 3 architecture)

* Jay Hennigan was thought to have said: