Global Crossing says it has deployed native IPv6. Also, TeliaSonera
has picked Lucent to help it prepare for IPv6 service.
http://www.techweb.com/wire/172300284
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
The full GC PR is at;
http://www.globalcrossing.com/xml/news/2005/october/10.xml
(Full Disclosure; I'm an SNE with HEAnet).
Hi all,
Take the opportunity to make a non commercial add 
Every day there are more and more news related to IPv6. I compile all them
at http://www.ipv6tf.org.
I also emails every Monday a summary, not sure if it will be good to send it
also to this list ?
Alternatively, you can register at the site and will get it, together with
access to other sections.
Regards,
Jordi
Umm..
"IPv6 [...] delivered over our global, MPLS-based backbone."
It's not clear whether they're doing 6PE over their v4/MPLS backbone, running v6 in parallel to v4/MPLS or running v6/MPLS (I don't think vendors support this).
At least one of these doesn't (IMHO) qualify as "native IPv6 [backbone]".
good news. but ....
if you look at the recent ipv4 burn rate of ripe and apnic
especially, we run out of v4 space in about three years. this
should not be surprising, as it matches what frank was saying
a decade ago at ale.
so having dual stack backbones is very important. but ...
four years from now, when marissa can't get v4 space from an
rir/lir and so gets v6 space, she will not be able to use 99%
of the internet because no significant number of v4 end hosts
will have bothered to be v6 enabled because there was no
perceived market for it.
there will likely be a dangerous period between v4 exhaustion
and significant v6 presence where v6-only folk will be in a
very bad place.
geoff's predictions for a very lively market in v4 space will
seriously come into play.
randy
They are delivering native v6 sessions (both customer handoff and backbone
links) via their Juniper core. I don't know what they're doing with the
GSRs, or even how many of them they have left, but I di know that all of
the Juniper-based v6 is native. The "MPLS-based backbone" stuff is just
standard marketing fluff.
geoff's predictions for a very lively market in v4 space will
seriously come into play.
Maybe its time to have a serious talk about IPv4 commodity trading schemes.
Anyone interested in this enough to have a BOF at ARIN/NANOG?
This could extend the lifetime of the IPv4 space significantly by promoting
efficient use through economic incentives, provide positive economic
incentives to move to v6 when needed, and eliminate the grey market.
Proper controls could be put into place to prevent de-aggregation through
utilization of the RIRs as clearing houses.
I think more likely is the scenario where Marissa would get NATed
IPv4 address (NAT server at the ISP end) and one or more direct IPv6 addresses. The question would then be if Marissa is likely to use
the kind of applications where the direct address would become very important to her, but so far from what I know of DSL users, most are
just fine behind their home NAT firewalls and only few need direct addresses. But of those "few" many are those doing P2P sharing
especially with BitTorent and this application requires open port
on the user end, so in fact P2P and BT may prove to be the cornerstone
to getting wider use of IPv6 after we ran out of v4 space...
I, for one, would be very interesting in such a system. Distribution of commodities is almost universally done best by capital markets. Unfortunately I won't be at the next NANOG.
>
> geoff's predictions for a very lively market in v4 space will
> seriously come into play.Maybe its time to have a serious talk about IPv4 commodity trading schemes.
Anyone interested in this enough to have a BOF at ARIN/NANOG?This could extend the lifetime of the IPv4 space significantly by promoting
efficient use through economic incentives, provide positive economic
incentives to move to v6 when needed, and eliminate the grey market.Proper controls could be put into place to prevent de-aggregation through
utilization of the RIRs as clearing houses.
First of all, I'm still waiting to be convinced that there is actually an
IP shortage at all. From the latest routing table analysis dump to nanog:
Percentage of available address space announced: 38.6
Percentage of allocated address space announced: 58.1
Percentage of available address space allocated: 66.4
From where I sit, the perceived shortage is due to non-existant
reclamation of unused resources, and financial incentives to create an
artificial shortage. As much as I like to see capitalism solve problems, I
don't think that opening up a market in selling legacy allocations is
going to make things better.
It is one thing to have a legacy allocation sitting around "just incase",
when the only value is reduced annoyance if you ever need to get more IP
space in the future. It is another thing to have the allocation actually
be worth something monitarily, and potentially worth a big something if
you can manage to hold onto it until there is a REAL shortage (maybe even
one that a legacy allocation owner can help create if they have any policy
control, wink wink nudge nudge). Capitalism can only sort things out when
there is a truely open market, which I don't think describes this
situation at all.
All I see is that in 3-4 years we will actually have to engage our
collective brains again and start getting new IP allocations from a
different source. It's not an exhaustion of IPv4 at all, it is just a next
step in the evolution of the Internet. Call it recycling if you will.
Investing a little bit of time and effort into figuring out the
reclamation process now would save us a lot of grief a few years down the
road. Why don't we start by going after the low hanging fruit, and
pressure some non-corporate entities like the US government to return some
of its legacy unused /8 allocations. I'm certain that someone with some
historical BGP data could put together an analysis of who has not used
their IP allocations at ALL within the last few years, still more low
hanging fruit which we can take care of now. Of course, the last time I
mentioned an unused /8 which should have been returned years ago on this
list, the party in question started announcing it in BGP the next day.
ras, all
of its legacy unused /8 allocations. I'm certain that someone with some
historical BGP data could put together an analysis of who has not used
their IP allocations at ALL within the last few years, still more low
hanging fruit which we can take care of now. Of course, the last time I
mentioned an unused /8 which should have been returned years ago on this
list, the party in question started announcing it in BGP the next day.
the problem here is this: there is no guarantee that prefixes that
are never seen in global tables are not used and deployed. for
example, the US DoD has quite a lot of address space (pre-rfc-1918)
deployed onto the SIPRNet, i believe. this is not routed to the
public internet, but is in use.
an argument could be made that one could ignore that space, since it
is never intended to route publicly, but intentions change and
address/prefix conflicts are bad.
by saying this i don't intend to disagree with the general premise:
there are tons of genuinely unused prefixes out there. the point is
just that i doubt that there is an automated way to determine exactly
which ones they are.
by saying this i don't intend to disagree with the general premise:
there are tons of genuinely unused prefixes out there. the point is
just that i doubt that there is an automated way to determine exactly
which ones they are.
depends on what you mean by automated. geoff's point, among other
things, is that we will see social automation in action when the
rirs/lirs can no longer allocate from an exhausted iana v4 pool.
also to be noted is that rir statistics on who has what space are
not in the best of shape, ripe's being particularly obfuscated.
randy
*raising an eyebrow*
Would you care to elaborate on that?
Best regards,
Daniel
Just guessing, but I think Randy is saying that not everybody is totally
up-to-date on making sure all the SWIP data is correct....
* Daniel Roesen:
Both BT and other P2P protocols are perfectly happy behind NAT. There are
a few that seem to prefer that they have a non-natted address, or use some
port forwarding.
Those applications will just need to be fixed if it becomes a common
practive of handing out NAT addresses to customers.
I think the bigger problem would be that of a larger company running out
of RFC 1918 space, for various reasons.
-Sean
I don't think so ... I recall Geoff Huston in the last APNIC indicated that
this kind of actions are only going to provide a few additional time.
I think the BoF should be more in the direction of "why not doing already
IPv6 (from the perspective of the ISPs) ?".
Delaying the inevitable don't seems the best approach to me, instead,
preparing everything ahead of time, reduce the cost, which in any case is
not significant.
Regards,
Jordi
As I know, BT and P2P (some apps), already are using IPv6
And in 6-12 months the new Vista will start replacing XP, with IPv6 enabled
by default. If you observe what is happening with XP and IPv6 NOT enabled by
default, you may guess what will happen and how many apps. developers will
take it seriously.
Regards,
Jordi
I know of no official BitTorrent supporting IPv6... unfortunately.
There were patches floating around, but to my understanding
incompatible, and problems with BT servers. Otherwise I'd run an
IPv6-only tracker for popular freely distributable software myself.
Best regards,
Daniel
I am told that some of the access providers are starting to deploy in the US, or at least that's what they tell us. Macs and Linux come with v6 enabled, and Longhorn will as well. So with any luck we will squeak through this one.