Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

ITM-1011 Coexistence and Transition: Implementing IPv4 and IPv6.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "ITM-1011 Coexistence and Transition: Implementing IPv4 and IPv6."— Presentation transcript:

1 ITM-1011 Coexistence and Transition: Implementing IPv4 and IPv6

2 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 2 Agenda  Why IPv6? Main drivers & benefits to evolve/migrate from IPv4 to IPv6  Industry status IPv6 penetration and deployment today  Challenges/issues IPv4 to IPv6 migration  Industry best practices & lessons learned

3 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 3 Near vs. Long term perspective  Perspective: In the long term, all networks want the relative simplicity and limited cost of a single networking protocol In the short term, the world isn’t going to switch simultaneously  Two definitions: “Migration”: Turning the new on and turning the old off “Deployment”: Turning the new on  I tend to think that: In the near term, the question is how to deploy and use IPv6 in new network offerings and interoperate with existing IPv4 capabilities In the long term, once a critical percentage of users have IPv6 enabled, continuing to run IPv4 becomes a business decision. When we turn IPv4 off, we have migrated.

4 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 4 Why IPv6?

5 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 5 Why did the IETF design IPv6?  Running out of IPv4 addresses Except it was 1992 and statistically we expected to run out in 1993-1994  Response to the issue: RFC 1550: IP: Next Generation (IPng) White Paper Solicitation Four responses, resulting in IPv6 – RFCs 1883, 1884, 1885, 1886 Also, description of GSE and the NIMROD Routing Architecture CIDR deployed by RIRs and incorporated into routing protocols – RFCs 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, early 1990’s Also OSPFv2, IS-IS, BGP, and RIPv2 RFC 1918 private addresses, and implementation of Network Address Translation

6 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 6 And the result was…  CIDR Ubiquitous right away  Network Address Translation Quickly became common, and allowed large private address spaces We (marketing) decided later that this was a “security” solution. Not clear why, apart from sales of NATs.  IPv4 lived ~15 years longer than it would have with Classful Allocation  IPv6 Initially developed, deployed in testbed and research networks, and implemented in Linux, BSD, and Apple products. Cisco beta code the most common IPv6 Router. Lack of Cisco production code, support in GSR engines 0-2 and products outside routing/switching, and Microsoft implementation delayed usefulness.

7 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 7 Where Is the Broadband Internet Today? The Europe/America/East Asia/ANZ Fiber Corridor Map copyright 2008 TeleGeography Today

8 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 8 Power, and by Extension, Money, Throughout the World NASA “Earth at Night,” August 2006 Today

9 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 9 IPv4 Address space throughout the world today

10 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 10 The issue of address depletion  The ISP problem: The Internet that is deployed will continue to run But it will be harder for ISPs and edge networks to deploy new services and add new customers  The user problem: ISPs will be forced to provide current services using shared IPv4 address space and offer IPv6 for user-managed services At some point, services that consumers want to get to will require them to use IPv6 as a result

11 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 11

12 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 12 Industry Status

13 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 13

14 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 14

15 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 15

16 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 16 ISP comments in IETF and RIRs  Over the past two years, we have seen a 180 degree change in ISP viewpoints in NANOG, RIPE, APNIC, and the IETF Oct 26, 2007: The Day the Routers Died “I guess we‘ll have to look at IPv6”The Day the Routers Died August 2008: CTO of major ISP “we have to switch to IPv6 by 2012, but we‘re worried about content” 2009: CERNET, Comcast, and Free standardizing tools for IPv6 deployment 2009, 2010: Google IPv6 Implementor‘s Conferences IETF meetings in 2010: “We are deploying, and these are our problems”  IETF-79 (November 2010, Beijing) Numerous ISPs making impassioned pleas for support in their transition plans Example: China Telecom, “IPv6-only within two years” with IPv4 overlay Example: Telstra, “Dual Stack, planning to use Carrier Grade NAT for IPv4” Example: numerous DSL networks using 6rd like Free.fr is

17 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 17 Who is implementing/adopting IPv6?  Originally, the research networks and communities Internet II, Renater, CERNET2, TWAREN, AARNET, … Commercial Networks in Japan: NTT, IIJ, KDDI, …  Large companies, major ISPs, and content providers Facebook, Google, … Comcast, Free.fr, Verizon, AT&T, …  Governments  Starting to hear of ISPs losing customers over lack of IPv6 offerings in RFI/RFP responses, which suggests that auditors are driving enterprise customers to require IPv6 service even if they don’t buy it today.

18 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 18 Prepare Plan Operate Implement Design Optimize ipv6.google.com IPv6 enabled web sites (growing list at sixy.ch) http://[2001:440:fff9:100:202:b3ff:fea4:a44e] http://[2001:252:0:1::2008:6] http://[2a01:48:1:0:2e0:81ff:fe05:4658] http://[2001:838:1:1:210:dcff:fe20:7c7c] http://[2001:218:2001:3005::8a] http://[2a01:e0c:1:1599::1] http://[2001:9b0:1:104:230:48ff:fe56:31ae] http://[2001:4f8:fff6::21] http://[2001:470:0:64::2] http://[2a01:a8:0:5::26] http://[2a02:250::6] Yosemite http://[2001:470:d:2ed::1] http://[2001:b48:12:1::2] http://[2001:2040:2000::6] Helsingborg Dagblad Sandviken Kommun http://[2001:b48:10::3] http://[2001:470:1:3a::13] http://[2001:da8:200:200::4:28] http://[2405:5000:1:2::99] http://[2607:f0d0:1000:11:1::2] http://[2001:49f0:1000::3] http://[2001:4830:20e0:1::5] http://[2620:0:ef0:13::20] http://[2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3] http://[2607:f4e8:12:fffe:230:48ff:fe96:f99e] http://[2406:0:6a:4::167] http://[2001:558:1004:9:69:252:76:96] http://[2402:6000:200:100::4] http://[2607:f0d0:3001:62:1::53] http://[2607:f238:2::51] http://[2001:470:0:e6::4a52:2717] http://[2001:470:1:1d::d8da:84ea] http://[2001:44b8:8020:f501:250:56ff:feb3:6633]

19 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 19 Mobile Telephones and Networks  Telephones: iPhone IOS 4.0, Android IPv6 is on, can run IPv6-only, can’t turn IPv6 off from UI Samsung, Nokia support IPv6 Windows Mobile has supported IPv6 on the WiFi interface since 2005 Motorola doesn’t yet  Networks China Mobile has convened two 3GPP workshops on IPv6- only networks 3GPP later versions target IPv6-only networks Data derived from public statements

20 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 20 Challenges: IPv4->IPv6 Migration

21 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 21

22 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 22 What are the current issues?  Urgency Most companies see IPv6 as “in the indefinite future” Have missed the fact of IPv4 address exhaustion  Business Case While company’s business partners do not require IPv6, they generally do not see the need Unless – they offer services that depend on address availability.  Education IPv6 ≠ IPv4, and absent business case many have not taken the time to figure out the differences  Vendor Support Issues with Load managers, residential CPEs, legacy equipment  Application Support Application and Content Providers have the same business case issues Innovator’s Dilemma

23 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 23 The view from IPv6 Operations WG, presented to a joint workshop IETF+3GPP

24 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 24 Recommended Approach to Deployment: RFC 4213 Dual-Stack Deployment  Solution: Hosts today are IPv4+IPv6: Windows Vista, Macintosh, Linux, BSD Make the network IPv4+IPv6. When forced to deploy IPv6-only networks, they will be able to talk with other hosts.  But… We have run out of time for this to be smooth IPv4+IPv6 Hosts IPv4+IPv6 Network IPv6-only Hosts or Network

25 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 25 First goal: coexistence and transition 1.The point is to get people to turn IPv6 on in their networks While they leave IPv4 on, that is coexistence When they turn IPv4 off, that is a transition The question is not about IPv4. It is about IPv6. 2.Rule of solution suitability If a solution make it desirable for IPv4 to remain on and IPv6 off for an extended period of time, IPv6 has not been turned on. In this case, see rule 1.

26 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 26 Second goal: deploy IPv6  Transition technologies fall into two major categories: Those that facilitate IPv6 deployment in a way that when they are no longer necessary we have deployed IPv6 Those that change IPv6 “temporarily” in some way, making host changes that will survive the transition  The latter kinds of technologies do not deploy IPv6 They deploy IPv6 with subtle changes that we live with for much longer than we intended

27 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 27 Third Goal: enable communication  This may seem silly, but it is pretty basic  Something that doesn’t enable applications to communicate fails to deliver

28 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 28 Fourth goal: reliability, maintainability, serviceability  Operators have to be able to turn it on, diagnose problems, and deliver predictable service to their customers This is both enterprise and service provider

29 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 29 Two broad scenarios IPv6 applications IPv6 IPv4 applications IPv4  Three possible approaches Dual stack – ships in the night X-Y-X by translation X-Y-X by encapsulation/tunneling IPv4 applications IPv6  Two possible approaches: Stateful translation Similar to IPv4/IPv4 NAT Stateless translation IPv4 address in IPv6 prefix SIIT-like translation NAT-PT deprecated due to scaling issues IPv6 IPv4IPv6 IPv4 IPv6IPv4IPv4+IPv6

30 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 30 X-Y-X scenarios: Comparison to goals X-Y-X by translation ✔ Gets IPv6 deployed ✔ Deploys IPv6 unchanged ? Enables communication? ? Reliability, Serviceability, Maintainability?  Issue: translation implies gateway applications for some applications, Issues similar to IPv4/IPv4 NAT X-Y-X by encapsulation ✔ Gets IPv6 deployed ✔ Deploys IPv6 unchanged ✔ Enables communication ✔ Reliability, Serviceability, Maintainability  Issue: standard tunneling/VPN problems in terms of message length We have solutions for that IPv6 IPv4IPv6 IPv4

31 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 31 Obvious encapsulation solutions Service Provider Solutions  IPv6/IPv4 Tunnels 6rd: See Mark Townsley’s workshop Static Tunnels such as SIXXS deploys  IPv4/IPv6 Tunnels 4rd or ds-lite Prototyping solutions  Several common prototyping solutions: 6to4, ISATAP, Teredo, …  My recommendation: don’t use them They are a reasonable way to prototype in trials Numerous issues Randomness of routing through tunnels Security issues ✔ ✔ ? Risky to make bread-and-butter depend on brand new network…

32 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 32 Dynamic IPv6/IPv4 tunneling L3 Edge (IPv4) 6rd Border Relays IPv4 IPv6 + IPv4 Network CE IPv6 packet IPv6 packets  IPv6 service in the home is essentially identical to native IPv6 service  IPv6 Packets Follow IPv4 routing  6rd Border Relay traversed only when exiting or entering a 6rd Domain  6rd Border Relays are fully stateless, no limit on “number of subscribers” supported  Border Relays may be placed in multiple locations, addressed via anycast. Access Node SP IPv4 Network 6rd IPv6

33 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 33 Translation scenarios  Objectives: Scalable => stateless if possible Reliable, Maintainable, Serviceable => simple to understand and manage  Would like to be able to initiate sessions: From IPv4-only clients/peers to IPv6-only servers/peers From IPv6-only clients/peers to IPv4-only servers/peers  Would like to be able to run in edge network and service provider network environments

34 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 34 Issues in existing translation  NAT-PT: Interaction between DNS and NAT components reduces scalability  SIIT: Use of a well-known prefix limits routability IPv6 community really likes well-known prefix, but service providers implementing it use a routable prefix  Traditional IPv4/IPv4 style NAT (NAT64): Ephemeral state in Carrier-grade NAT Initiates sessions IPv6->IPv4 but not IPv4->IPv6

35 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 35 Solution: three components DNS ALG IPv4 or IPv6 Internet IPv4 or IPv6 Network  DNS64: IPv4 host asks for A records, gets A records IPv6 host asks for AAAA records, may get translated A record No fiddling with NAT tables  Translator Stateless mode based on CERNET/CERNET2 IVI Modified SIIT algorithm Uses Service Provider Prefix Permits session initiation IPv4 IPv4- mapped-IPv6 Stateful mode (NAT64) similar to IPv4/IPv4 NAT Permits session initiation IPv6-native -> IPv4 hosts Does not permit session initiation IPv4-> IPv6-native

36 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 36 Oh my goodness!  What about initiating sessions IPv4-> generic IPv6 address?  Sky falling: whatever shall we do?

37 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 37 For further reading…  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-ipv6-transition- guidelines http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-ipv6-transition- guidelines "Guidelines for Using IPv6 Transition Mechanisms", Jari Arkko, Fred Baker, 27-Dec-2010 (soon to be an RFC)

38 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 38 So what…

39 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 39 RFC 1958 Architectural Principles of the Internet. B. Carpenter, Ed.. June 1996. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1958.txt “The current exponential growth of the network seems to show that connectivity is its own reward, and is more valuable than any individual application such as mail or the world-wide web.”

40 © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.Cisco Public Presentation_ID 40 So what…?  Cisco viewpoint: John Chambers has set a policy for Cisco products to support IPv6 and be useful in IPv6 networks We have some issues we’re sorting out, but this is a front- burner issue for us  Your take-away should be: Networks, both transit and edge, are changing It’s time to get good education and a transition plan in place

41


Download ppt "ITM-1011 Coexistence and Transition: Implementing IPv4 and IPv6."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google