NANOG36-NOTES 2006.02.12 talk 5 IPv6 --fear and GOSIP in Dallas

Apparently the video feed is of very good quality this time around–many
thanks to Brokaw for the good bandwidth to the hotel!

Last set of notes before lunch.


2006.02.12 NANOG IPv6 transition panel
panel member briefs at

IPv6: time for transition, or just more GOSIP?

GOSIP was initiative to use OSI networking throughout
the government.

5 participants
Joe Houle ATT
Jared Mauch NTT America
Wes George, Sprint
Jason Schiller, UUNet/Verizon
Fred Wettling, Bechtel

Tried to get government people, since they went v6,
but they’re not forthcoming with details; you know
how government people are. :smiley:

Daniel Golding, The burton group

Joe Houle, ATT is up first. Emerging service for
ATT for L2/L3, IP private networking, v6, etc.
fall under his baliwick. He’d count himself as
pragmaticlly pro; IPv6, why now? He does believe
we’re running out of IPv4 addresses. NATs and
non-unique addresses make offering quality services
difficult. Convergence doesn’t work well over
NAT’d addresses.
why governments? US government doesn’t want the
have-have-not split to continue; the v6’ers may be
the “have” side and we don’t want to be on the
have-not side.

NTT America (AKA 2914)
Native dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 since fall 2003
Cisco 7200, 7500, “76k”
Juniper M series, T-series

Wes George, Rob Rackell hat, couldn’t be here
due to weather. Pro v6, looking at it with skepticism.
Sprint close to center of v6 world.
200pps on v6 network.
Internet doesn’t use v6 for real yet
this is not the movie as the ISO fun; this time the
government is paying!
IPv6 is something that US carriers can make money on
in the VPN space
It is not valuable as an internet transport yet
spend less time marketing about how cool it is, and go
fix the issues!!
multihoming, micromobility, SHIMv6 is a host solution.

This time around, the government is paying. They don’t
know exactly what they want, but they know they want it.
hoping carriers will figure it out and tell them.

Jason Schiller, UUnet/Verizon.
public v6 roadmap.
AS284 US/AS12702 EMEA/AS18061 AsPAC) for v6 only
Over network utilizeing GRE
Phase 2
6PE solution in AS701
dual stack v4/v6 on edge
mail, DNS support
later phase 2a
upgrade exising non-6PE capable edge routers
2007, phase 2b
native v6 in the core (maybe)

Problem is, no money yet in v6, so can’t roll out
aggressively at all.
But if no money, why put it in the core? Well, to
be ready in case it DOES take off in the future.

Fred Wettling, Bechtel–large enterprise, also with
v6 business council.
Bechtel Telecoms (A & C for big carriers like Sprint, ATT,
Interested in non-traditional transport of IP services.
shift in plant automation networks from proprietary
to IP; so want to be ahead of the curve on it.
Bechtel’s internal test started last year, will be
deployed out to 40,000 by this year; a bit of the
chicken and egg issue, go back to 1995, IE v1 vs
today; things will progress, things will take off,
the goal is to be ahead of the curve.

Daniel Golding, host for the panel.

Question 1:
Why IPv6, why now? Why are you implementing v6, other
than it’s cool? Is it address exhaustion, new capability,
Gov’t RFP requirements, vendors pushing new hardware?

Jared notes they rolled it out in 2003 due to global
pressures; they wanted to keep a unified network model
worldwide, and as a subsidiary of a japanese company,
and the largest player in that space, combined with
government mandates, really pushed them in that space
It is a technical cool thing, it’s good to be a
market leader. Jared notes that they’ve been running
dual stack v4/v6, it just works.

ATT VoIP has been a driver, just doesn’t work over NAT,
so what other solutions are there? Really, address
exhaustion, non-unique addresses propagating throughout
space is just putting roadblock after roadblock in front
of convergence.
Dan asks why do we need NAT–we’re not OUT of v4 addresses
yet; Joe notes that people are really using NAT as a
security mechanism right now, more so than really worrying
about conserving address space. Yes, it’s bogus, but
it’s what people have been sold on right now, so it
gets widely used.
Jared pitches in and notes that the push for encapsulation
of everything encapsulated over port 80 is getting more and
more widespread. People are attempting to use “firewalls”
and “NATS” to give themselves the notion of security,
even though most infection rates now are coming from
other vectors (spyware, infected email, etc), rather
than outside probing.
Dan notes we don’t need to do NAT, they can go to
their upstream, to ARIN. But ARIN frowns on using
public space for private use?

Bechtel notes they’re running into more and more
problems as they try to get companies to do joint
ventures, as every company uses 10.x space, and
they have to do NAT over NAT, it’s evil. He’s
also an IMOD (infrastructure modernization)
player, it’s a 4 billion dollar upgrade for the
military, and it has a specific subsection about
using v6 to avoid that problem.
Also, intercorporate and collaborative efforts
are exposing more and more info to the outside,
with DMZs, etc. We need to make sure security
is being correctly approached, NOT from using
IP addressing tricks, but rather correctly.

Jason notes v6 is also a “young”, “fresh” stack
which is nice. But Dan isn’t sure that’s a
benefit per se.

Joe would like to be able to use the flow label
header, get beyond diff-serv level to get application
aware network. Right now, just a bunch of bits,
but since it’s build into the header, it could
really provide some real value add.
Fred notes it’s like people asking 12 years ago
“what’s the value/benefit of the Internet?” There
will be things that will come out that we can’t
imagine yet once we start deploying it. Asking
“like what” is asking us to imagine what we haven’t
conceived of yet.
Fred notes that v6 will actually be simpler for
many of their company-to-company connectivity.

Toshiba, I300 TV, 3 ethernet jacks on it, it speaks
v6, now carriers that speak v6 don’t need redundant
services, it can all be handled through the one link.
Can’t do that easily on v4.

Dan notes multihoming for non-LIRs isn’t doable
under v6 at the moment, and that seems to be one
of the holdups. People at last NANOG didn’t like
the shim6 solution. But enterprise multihoming
is a customer requirement, people aren’t willing
to give that up. If only the big guys can get
v6 space, we won’t get widespread adoption.

Joe notes shim6 is the only thing in the works
to support multihoming. But Dan notes that the
big content players like Yahoo have rejected it,
since their servers don’t have resources to handle
1800+ addresses on each server.

Jared notes that even though we don’t want to keep
upgrading our routers, there’s no other sane path
that we can see.
But Joe notes there’s potential for explosion that
scares him. It could happen. Someone could
deaggregate the v4 space, though, and Jared notes
it could blow up our current routers already today.
So what about measuring fragmentation in v4 world
today, vs in the v6 world, and can we accept that?
Jared notes we’ll come to a consensus on it, the
way we did with CIDR and Sprint’s filters for v4
space for a long period of time. Verio was one
of the players holding that line for a long time.
Fred notes business council will chime in on PPML
soon. Bechtel has 40 different ISPs around the
world; their network changes on a regular basis;
trying to add and subtract address space each time
a carrier comes or goes will be a major headache.
Bechtel would like to work with carriers to advertise
their netblocks, and namespace, NOT add a headache
on re-addressing every time they switch providers.
Bechtel got their IPv6 space via ARIN. They build
turnkey solutions for owners, they operate as an
LIR from that aspect since they turn over address
space with the plants they build to their customers.

Jason speaks up about number of 24s in table, vs
number of 48s possible.
About 16 million /24s in v4 space.
137 billion /48 blocks in v6 space, so about
2 million times more /48s than /24s.
customers might go shorter than that to do traffic
So, what is Verizon’s answer? Couple of answers:
Tony Hain–multihoming in v6 just works, do it, let
the routers keep up.
Jason’s personal view is that we need another solution;
we can’t risk networks blowing up, but shim6 does seem
pretty broken.
Wes notes memory is pretty cheap, in general. But
specific memory, like TCAMs, are more expensive, as
are custom ASICs. It’s like building a network based

Wes George, Rob Rackell hat, couldn't be here
due to weather. Pro v6, looking at it with skepticism.
Sprint close to center of v6 world.
200pps on v6 network.

Uhm, excuse me, is something wrong with my calendar and we had Apr 1st

For example have a look at, the former IPv6 project
group of IPv6 at the german NREN. The graphs are frozen at the numbers
of Jan 6th since IPv6 is now managed by the same NOC IPv4 is, and they
don't update that page anymore. When looking at last months graphs for
their external connections C&W, Geant and DeCIX you get 3Mbps on
average, which makes 200pps already with largest packet size (average
is more like 300 bytes). Unfortunately there is no pps-graph available,
but I believe AS680 did more than 1kpps on average alone. Another nice
stat (no pps again, but you can do the math) is at .

Sprint is far, really far away from the center of the v6 world. Among
the large international carriers doing IPv6 I'd call C&W, NTT, GBLX and
Tiscali the center. Sprint appears in a number of AS paths just because
it is the link between the "decent" IPv6 networks and the swamp space
consisting of announced but unused prefixes and networks still doing the
old 6bone way. No wonder they see no traffic. Apart from I can't remember seeing interesting content behind
Sprint at any time.

Internet doesn't use v6 for real yet

From their limited perspective this might be true.