Mailing List Archive: NANOG: users

Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

glen.kent at gmail

Mar 14, 2008, 11:19 PM

Post #1 of 18 (2875 views)
Permalink

Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt

Hi,

I was just reading
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/b-1-information.html#IPV6, released
some time back in 2005, and it seems that the US Govt. had set the
target date of 30th June 2008 for all federal govt agencies to move
their network backbones to IPv6. This deadline is almost here. Are we
any close for this transition?

I have another related question:

Do all ISPs atleast support tunneling the IPv6 pkts to some end point?
For example, is there a way for an IPv6 enthusiast to send his IPv6
packet from his laptop to a remote IPv6 server in the current
circumstances if his ISP does not actively support native IPv6?

Cheers,
Glen

brian at meganet

Mar 14, 2008, 11:43 PM

Post #2 of 18 (2798 views)
Permalink

Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt [In reply to]

No, and no. Shouldn't be a surprise. ("all" is the dealbreaker, certain
agencies are on the ball, but most are barely experimenting).

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Glen Kent wrote:

:
:Hi,
:
:I was just reading
:http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/b-1-information.html#IPV6, released
:some time back in 2005, and it seems that the US Govt. had set the
:target date of 30th June 2008 for all federal govt agencies to move
:their network backbones to IPv6. This deadline is almost here. Are we
:any close for this transition?
:
:I have another related question:
:
:Do all ISPs atleast support tunneling the IPv6 pkts to some end point?
:For example, is there a way for an IPv6 enthusiast to send his IPv6
:packet from his laptop to a remote IPv6 server in the current
:circumstances if his ISP does not actively support native IPv6?
:
:Cheers,
:Glen
:

nanog at daork

Mar 15, 2008, 12:17 AM

Post #3 of 18 (2793 views)
Permalink

Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt [In reply to]

On 15/03/2008, at 7:19 PM, Glen Kent wrote:
> I have another related question:
>
> Do all ISPs atleast support tunneling the IPv6 pkts to some end point?
> For example, is there a way for an IPv6 enthusiast to send his IPv6
> packet from his laptop to a remote IPv6 server in the current
> circumstances if his ISP does not actively support native IPv6?

Yes - 6to4 and Teredo.

6to4[1] if your router (or some host with an unfiltered non-RFC1918
address) supports it.
Teredo[2] if you're behind NAT or some other filtering.

- These are enabled by default in Vista.
- Enable them in XP SP2 by typing 'netsh interface ipv6 install'.
- Apple Airport Extreme has 6to4 enabled by default if it is your NAT
router (stateful firewall, allowing new connections outgoing- only by
default)
- Cisco supports 6to4 and has for years.
- Linux and FreeBSD both support 6to4 (no OpenBSD, can't recall RE.
NetBSD).
- Teredo support in Linux and *BSD with 'miredo' software - it's in
APT and FreeBSD ports.

Azureus bittorrent client uses IPv6 for DHT. More DHT IPv6
bidirectional relationships than DHT IPv4 bidirectional relationships.
So, it's not just IPv6 "enthusiasts".
Numbers here:
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2007/msg00859.html
More up to date numbers when I get around to processing them [3].

Upcoming version of uTorrent will enable IPv6 (so, Teredo/6to4) on XP
SP2 as part of the install process - currently Azureus only uses it if
it's enabled already.

If you're providing content or network services on v6 and you don't
have both a Teredo and 6to4 relay, you should - there are more v6
users on those two than there are on native v6[1]. Talk to me and I'll
give you a pre-built FreeBSD image that does it, boot off compact
flash or hard drives. Soekris (~$350USD, incl. power supply and CF
card), or regular server/whatever PC.
Also, if you want config for 6to4 on Cisco, email me and I'll hook you
up so I'm not spamming the list with it, alternatively Google. It's
about 10 lines, and requires you to inject an anycast IPv4 /24 and an
IPv6 /16 in to your IGP(s).

Thanks,

--
Nathan Ward

[1] RFC3056
[2] RFC4380, see also http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457011.aspx
[3] I made this up. But seriously, prove me wrong. Current numbers
(well, I got bored of waiting, processing 800MB of PCAP takes a while)
are that I've had 1,402,634 unique host addresses talk to one of my
test host over IPv6/6to4 - and that's just people running a recent
version of Azureus with a public unfiltered IPv4 address, and have
6to4 enabled.
Imagine what the numbers are like for Teredo users (ie. no requirement
for public unfiltered IPv4 address, works through NAT).
Imagine what the numbers are for people not running Azureus.
Yeah, you get the idea.
I really should get around to writing this stuff up properly.. If
there's anyone out there who wants to roll some code to pull some
stats out of PCAP files so I don't have to process this stuff with cut
sed awk uniq etc. please contact me. Oh also if anyone knows Java and
can hack some changes in to Azureus for me that'd be useful - it only
seems to want to listen on one IPv6 address, I want it to listen on.. 3.

John at internetassociatesllc

Mar 15, 2008, 1:54 AM

Post #4 of 18 (2798 views)
Permalink

RE: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt [In reply to]

My understanding of the mandate is that they (the Department and Agencies) demonstrate passing IPv6 traffic on their backbone from one system out to their backbone and back to another system.

A number of agencies, if I remember the number of about 30 have IPv6 allocations. IRS has demonstrated mandate compliance and several others are in line to also show mandate compliance.

Both the Federal CIO Council and the Small CIO council are working with a number of their members to not only obtain compliance with the mandate but examine their processes to see how IPv6 can give them a better method of providing their services to each other and the public.

John (ISDN) Lee

________________________________

From: owner-nanog[at]merit.edu on behalf of Glen Kent
Sent: Sat 3/15/2008 2:19 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt

Hi,

I was just reading
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/b-1-information.html#IPV6, released
some time back in 2005, and it seems that the US Govt. had set the
target date of 30th June 2008 for all federal govt agencies to move
their network backbones to IPv6. This deadline is almost here. Are we
any close for this transition?

I have another related question:

Do all ISPs atleast support tunneling the IPv6 pkts to some end point?
For example, is there a way for an IPv6 enthusiast to send his IPv6
packet from his laptop to a remote IPv6 server in the current
circumstances if his ISP does not actively support native IPv6?

Cheers,
Glen

michael.dillon at bt

Mar 17, 2008, 3:07 AM

Post #5 of 18 (2782 views)
Permalink

RE: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt [In reply to]

> If you're providing content or network services on v6 and you
> don't have both a Teredo and 6to4 relay, you should - there
> are more v6 users on those two than there are on native
> v6[1]. Talk to me and I'll give you a pre-built FreeBSD image
> that does it, boot off compact flash or hard drives. Soekris
> (~$350USD, incl. power supply and CF card), or regular
> server/whatever PC.

Pardon me for interfering with your lucrative business here,
but anyone contemplating running a Teredo relay and 6to4 relay
should first understand the capacity issues before buying a
little embedded box to stick in their network.

The ARIN IPv6 wiki has this page
<http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/First_Steps_for_ISPs>
which not only gives you a number of options for setting up 6to4 and
Teredo relays, it also points you to documents which describe
what these things do so that you can understand how to size them
and how to manage them. And the ARIN wiki tries to be vendor
agnostic as well.

--Michael Dillon

jabley at ca

Mar 17, 2008, 5:25 AM

Post #6 of 18 (2789 views)
Permalink

Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt [In reply to]

On 17-Mar-2008, at 06:07, <michael.dillon[at]bt.com>
<michael.dillon[at]bt.com> wrote:

>> If you're providing content or network services on v6 and you
>> don't have both a Teredo and 6to4 relay, you should - there
>> are more v6 users on those two than there are on native
>> v6[1]. Talk to me and I'll give you a pre-built FreeBSD image
>> that does it, boot off compact flash or hard drives. Soekris
>> (~$350USD, incl. power supply and CF card), or regular
>> server/whatever PC.
>
> Pardon me for interfering with your lucrative business here,
> but anyone contemplating running a Teredo relay and 6to4 relay
> should first understand the capacity issues before buying a
> little embedded box to stick in their network.

Do you imagine that Soekris are giving Nathan kick-backs for
mentioning the price of their boxes on NANOG? :-)

I'm sure for many small networks a Soekris box would do fine. For the
record, FreeBSD also runs on more capable hardware.

Joe

gaurab at lahai

Mar 17, 2008, 9:04 AM

Post #7 of 18 (2801 views)
Permalink

Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Joe Abley wrote:

| I'm sure for many small networks a Soekris box would do fine. For the
| record, FreeBSD also runs on more capable hardware.

Can attest to that. I have picked up Nathan's handywork and used it on
other hardware. some work is needed, but nevertheless quite useful for
small networks. the soekris boxes are of good value nevertheless for
something like this.

thanks
~ -gaurab
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH3paBSo7fU26F3X0RAi2iAKC86xc9nqiK7CQDIgE5Jxmaf6xKhACg6oXg
d9Ky9Rd4+kA0uH5ecLlIGVQ=
=O5IL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

nanog at daork

Mar 17, 2008, 5:34 PM

Post #8 of 18 (2787 views)
Permalink

Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt [In reply to]

On 17/03/2008, at 11:07 PM, <michael.dillon[at]bt.com> <michael.dillon[at]bt.com
> wrote:
>> If you're providing content or network services on v6 and you
>> don't have both a Teredo and 6to4 relay, you should - there
>> are more v6 users on those two than there are on native
>> v6[1]. Talk to me and I'll give you a pre-built FreeBSD image
>> that does it, boot off compact flash or hard drives. Soekris
>> (~$350USD, incl. power supply and CF card), or regular
>> server/whatever PC.
>
> Pardon me for interfering with your lucrative business here,
> but anyone contemplating running a Teredo relay and 6to4 relay
> should first understand the capacity issues before buying a
> little embedded box to stick in their network.
>
> The ARIN IPv6 wiki has this page
> <http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/First_Steps_for_ISPs>
> which not only gives you a number of options for setting up 6to4 and
> Teredo relays, it also points you to documents which describe
> what these things do so that you can understand how to size them
> and how to manage them. And the ARIN wiki tries to be vendor
> agnostic as well.

Hi Michael,

Giving away code and hardware is quite the opposite of lucrative, let
me assure you.

I'm not selling anything. Code is freely available. When I've got some
decent instructions for it I'll post links to NANOG if you like.
To be fair, it's really nothing more than FreeBSD with a couple of
patches, and Miredo packaged up in a nice-to-deal-with bundle, that
means you can plug it in today and make it work with 2 or 3 lines of
config, instead of spending the next 3 years "engineering a solution"
that the various parts of "the business" agree with - that is,
assuming they give their engineers time to even think about IPv6, let
alone engineer for it. Key word: pragmatic.

It moves about 20Mbit/s on a Soekris box, probably more. If you're
doing more 6to4 and Teredo traffic than that, then well done. How fast
can you do it on a Cisco (or, whatever) box? Someone lend me some
hardware for a week and I'd be more than happy to test and publish
numbers on that.

Soekris was an example of hardware, as that's what I've developed on.
As I mentioned, it works on regular PC hardware as well - it's just an
i386 FreeBSD thing.

I've actually given this Soekris hardware away to several ISPs here in
New Zealand, sponsored by InternetNZ. That's also related to another
project - when I've got that all written up properly I'll let you
know. Geoff Huston wrote about it on his ISP column a month or so back.

The reason I do this, is so people at ISPs are deploying these things,
instead of not because it might not scale at some point in the future.
If it doesn't suit their needs in terms of scale, I'm more than happy
to tell them other ways to do it - and have done. Note my comment
something along the lines of "ask me if you want cisco configs", and
as I mentioned, this code will run on any i386 box you throw it at.
I've also got several slide packs with this stuff in it, if people
want those. I believe they're reachable via the NZNOG website
somewhere (nznog.org, I think).

Ps. Yes, vendors should do Teredo relay and 6to4 in hardware. If
you're a vendor and do, tell me, and I'll encourage people to give you
lots of money.
Pps. I'll reply to those of you who asked me for 6to4 Cisco configs
and code later today (it's 1.30pm here), I'm just heading off to fix
some stuff first. That wiki thing Michael posted links to has the
cisco stuff.

Thanks,

--
Nathan Ward

andy at xecu

Mar 17, 2008, 7:34 PM

Post #9 of 18 (2780 views)
Permalink

Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt [In reply to]

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Nathan Ward wrote:

> I'm not selling anything. Code is freely available. When I've got some decent
> instructions for it I'll post links to NANOG if you like.
> To be fair, it's really nothing more than FreeBSD with a couple of patches,
> and Miredo packaged up in a nice-to-deal-with bundle, that means you can plug
> it in today and make it work with 2 or 3 lines of config, instead of spending
> the next 3 years "engineering a solution" that the various parts of "the
> business" agree with - that is, assuming they give their engineers time to
> even think about IPv6, let alone engineer for it. Key word: pragmatic.

Perhaps you could integrate your work with a project like pfsense?

From what I've seen, that's the best "open source CPE" solution, and
doesn't yet have real IPv6 support (but has just about everything else).
That would be a huge benefit to the community and potentially open up some
business opportunities for you.

Andy

---
Andy Dills
Xecunet, Inc.
www.xecu.net
301-682-9972
---

adrian at creative

Mar 17, 2008, 7:55 PM

Post #10 of 18 (2784 views)
Permalink

Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt [In reply to]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2008, Andy Dills wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Nathan Ward wrote:
>
> > I'm not selling anything. Code is freely available. When I've got some decent
> > instructions for it I'll post links to NANOG if you like.
> > To be fair, it's really nothing more than FreeBSD with a couple of patches,
> > and Miredo packaged up in a nice-to-deal-with bundle, that means you can plug
> > it in today and make it work with 2 or 3 lines of config, instead of spending
> > the next 3 years "engineering a solution" that the various parts of "the
> > business" agree with - that is, assuming they give their engineers time to
> > even think about IPv6, let alone engineer for it. Key word: pragmatic.
>
> Perhaps you could integrate your work with a project like pfsense?
>
> >From what I've seen, that's the best "open source CPE" solution, and
> doesn't yet have real IPv6 support (but has just about everything else).
> That would be a huge benefit to the community and potentially open up some
> business opportunities for you.

I believe whoever shows off a functional NAT-PT device at the next NANOG
might get some praise. I heard it was a bit of a disaster.

Adrian

randy at psg

Mar 17, 2008, 8:05 PM

Post #11 of 18 (2793 views)
Permalink

Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt [In reply to]

> I believe whoever shows off a functional NAT-PT device at the next NANOG
> might get some praise. I heard it was a bit of a disaster.

by the time the show got to apnic/apricot the week after nanog, we had
the cisco implementation of nat-pt and totd working and it worked well.

randy

ljb at merit

Mar 17, 2008, 8:21 PM

Post #12 of 18 (2782 views)
Permalink

Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt [In reply to]

Randy Bush wrote:
>> I believe whoever shows off a functional NAT-PT device at the next NANOG
>> might get some praise. I heard it was a bit of a disaster.
>>
>
> by the time the show got to apnic/apricot the week after nanog, we had
> the cisco implementation of nat-pt and totd working and it worked well.
>
> randy
>
And the NAT-PT implementation at NANOG (naptd) did seem
to work once some configuration issues were ironed out. Unfortunately,
this was not resolved until the very end of the meeting.

randy at psg

Mar 17, 2008, 8:25 PM

Post #13 of 18 (2791 views)
Permalink

Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt [In reply to]

> And the NAT-PT implementation at NANOG (naptd) did seem
> to work once some configuration issues were ironed out. Unfortunately,
> this was not resolved until the very end of the meeting.

your made heroic efforts with the linux nat-pt, and finally got it. but
do you think it will scale well?

i suspect that all the nat-pt implementations are old and not well
maintained. this needs to be fixed.

randy

nanog at daork

Mar 17, 2008, 8:52 PM

Post #14 of 18 (2777 views)
Permalink

Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt [In reply to]

On 18/03/2008, at 3:34 PM, Andy Dills wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Nathan Ward wrote:
>> I'm not selling anything. Code is freely available. When I've got
>> some decent
>> instructions for it I'll post links to NANOG if you like.
>> To be fair, it's really nothing more than FreeBSD with a couple of
>> patches,
>> and Miredo packaged up in a nice-to-deal-with bundle, that means
>> you can plug
>> it in today and make it work with 2 or 3 lines of config, instead
>> of spending
>> the next 3 years "engineering a solution" that the various parts of
>> "the
>> business" agree with - that is, assuming they give their engineers
>> time to
>> even think about IPv6, let alone engineer for it. Key word:
>> pragmatic.
>
> Perhaps you could integrate your work with a project like pfsense?
>
> From what I've seen, that's the best "open source CPE" solution, and
> doesn't yet have real IPv6 support (but has just about everything
> else).
> That would be a huge benefit to the community and potentially open
> up some
> business opportunities for you.

It'd be good if the pfsense guys would do some IPv6 stuff, yes. I
however, am not really interested in building CPEs, nor am I
interested in building CPEs commercially.

Thanks,

--
Nathan Ward

michael.dillon at bt

Mar 18, 2008, 4:33 AM

Post #15 of 18 (2789 views)
Permalink

RE: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt [In reply to]

> Giving away code and hardware is quite the opposite of
> lucrative, let me assure you.

Right. I looked at your message and it does not parse
very clearly. Given that it is odd for people to offer
to give away boxes, let alone quote a price for the
box that they are giving away, I thought you were
advertising something for sale.

> It moves about 20Mbit/s on a Soekris box, probably more. If
> you're doing more 6to4 and Teredo traffic than that, then
> well done. How fast can you do it on a Cisco (or, whatever)
> box? Someone lend me some hardware for a week and I'd be more
> than happy to test and publish numbers on that.

It would be good for people to do some performance testing of
all the various bits and pieces. And publish all that test info
on the ARIN wiki. Perhaps you could test the hardware that
you have and document the test environment so that people
with Juniper, Cisco, etc. can do the same tests and post
their numbers. If people are interested in alternatives to
Soekris, then http://www.linuxdevices.com has pointers
to tons of embedded systems which are quite capable of running
FreeBSD as well as Linux.

> I've actually given this Soekris hardware away to several
> ISPs here in New Zealand, sponsored by InternetNZ.

One wonders if there is any organization in the USA that
might sponsor similar giveaways to ISPs. Just how much importance
does the Federal government attach to IPv6 transition?
Has anyone talked to their Congressional reps about tax
relief for the special one-time costs of enabling IPv6?

> I've also got several slide packs with this stuff in it, if
> people want those. I believe they're reachable via the NZNOG
> website somewhere (nznog.org, I think).

They can now also find it by looking at the wiki page
<http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/IPv6_Presentations_and_Documents>
with your name on it. It was a full-day tutorial on all
aspects of IPv6 deployment.

--Michael Dillon

rs at seastrom

Mar 18, 2008, 5:49 AM

Post #16 of 18 (2784 views)
Permalink

Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt [In reply to]

Nathan Ward <nanog[at]daork.net> writes:

>> Perhaps you could integrate your work with a project like pfsense?
>>
>> From what I've seen, that's the best "open source CPE" solution, and
>> doesn't yet have real IPv6 support (but has just about everything
>> else).
>> That would be a huge benefit to the community and potentially open
>> up some
>> business opportunities for you.
>
>
> It'd be good if the pfsense guys would do some IPv6 stuff, yes. I
> however, am not really interested in building CPEs, nor am I
> interested in building CPEs commercially.

My understanding is that there is some IPv6 support in HEAD, but not
in RELENG_1. Someone who has the time and inclination should join the
development team; they do not seem averse to the notion of having v6
support in there, but like so many other endeavors, effort is
commensurate with demand, yadda yadda yadda...

---rob

ljb at merit

Mar 18, 2008, 8:43 AM

Post #17 of 18 (2781 views)
Permalink

Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt [In reply to]

Randy Bush wrote:
>> And the NAT-PT implementation at NANOG (naptd) did seem
>> to work once some configuration issues were ironed out. Unfortunately,
>> this was not resolved until the very end of the meeting.
>>
>
> your made heroic efforts with the linux nat-pt, and finally got it. but
> do you think it will scale well?
>
For the size of a NANOG meeting, it seemed to be
sufficient. I don't think I'd recommend trying to put
thousands of users behind it though.

> i suspect that all the nat-pt implementations are old and not well
> maintained. this needs to be fixed.
>
>
Still trying to understand deployment scenarios for nat-pt.
I could see a case for very controlled environments with
uniform clients (with robust v6 support). Outside of that,
native-v6 + v4-nat (as outlined in Michael Sinatra's
lightning talk) and Alain Durand's v4v6v4 seem more
likely deployment candidates. That said, nat-pt is very useful
for exercising native v6 support in clients and their applications.

-Larry

randy at psg

Mar 18, 2008, 5:40 PM

Post #18 of 18 (2798 views)
Permalink

Re: Transition Planning for IPv6 as mandated by the US Govt [In reply to]

> Still trying to understand deployment scenarios for nat-pt.

enterprise

> native-v6 + v4-nat (as outlined in Michael Sinatra's lightning talk)

i am not unhappy with ms's preso except that enterprise keeps whining
about 1918 conflicts

> and Alain Durand's v4v6v4 seem more likely deployment candidates

useful for big (broadband) provider where edge is consumer

randy

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com