IPv4 on-life support (or) The vision of way forward and tradeoffs in transition to IPv6 mechanisms space

Transcription

1 IPv4 on-life support (or) The vision of way forward and tradeoffs in transition to IPv6 mechanisms space Presenter: Jan Žorž Go6 Institute Slides put together by Ole Trøan, Cisco With help from: Randy Bush (Dr Vision) Dan Wing (Mr NAT) Mark Townsley (Mr Tunnel) Geoff Huston (Dr Doom)

2 About me (in a glance) Founder and CEO of Slovenian Go6 Institute Determined IPv6 advocate, mercenary and fundamentalist IPv6 consultant for many Slovenian operators and enterprises Working in Internet operations for 21 years 12 years ago touched IPv6 Active and contributing member of RIPE and IETF community Primary co-author of RIPE-501 IPv6 procurement doc Co-author of RFC 6346 (A+P approach to IPv4 depletion) Frequent IPv6 Flyer (Google IPv6 implementors conference, OECD meeting, RIPE, different government meetings, etc ) 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Cisco Confidential 2 2

3 Crafting the great vision for future Internet development panel discussion This discussion started in Slovenia, Ljubljana 6th Slo IPv6 summit Jan Žorž, panel chair Mark Townsley, dr. Tunnel Dan Wing, dr. Translation Randy Bush, dr. Vision

4 This discussion started in Slovenia, Ljubljana 6th Slo IPv6 summit

5 The inevitability of technological evolution?

6 The inevitability of technological evolution?

7 Not exactly according to plan

8 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Cisco Confidential 8

9 Who deploys IPv6 today? Enthusiasts working in corporations, friendly to new stuff Encouraged by government regulation / procurement requirements (RIPE-501 as incentive) Out of fear (let s be ready if this IPv6 thing happens ) New opportunities. If we are early into IPv6 we may have an advantage. Green field. Let s not bother with legacy stuff in a new network

10 Why Has the Transition to IPv6 Been so Slow?

11 Is it the Vendors?

12 Is it the lazy Operators, - as the IPv6 idealist claim?

13 Is it the lack of content?

14 Is it that Applications do not support IPv6?

15 Is the CPE?

16 Is it the End-user host stack?

17 Isn t the 430 transition mechanisms enough?

18 Transition depends on All of Those at the SAME TIME a recipe for failure

19 But we have one much larger problem

20

21 IPv6 in On The Wire INCOMPATIBLE with IPv4

22 How did this happen? Arrogance and lack of Operational Clue in the IETF

23 IPv4 and IPv6 are incompatible and there was no transition plan

24 The challenge often lies in managing the transition from one technology to another

25 To get from here to there requires an excursion through an environment of CGNs, CDNs, ALGs The and challenge often solutions lies to IPv4 similar middleware address exhaustion in managing the transition from one technology to another IPv6 CGNs IPv4 ALGs CDNs

26 But will this be merely a temporary phase of transition? IPv6 CGNs IPv4 ALGs CDNs Transition requires the network owner to undertake capital investment in network service infrastructure to support IPv4 address sharing/rationing.

27 The challenge often lies in managing the transition from one technology to another IPv6 CGNs IPv4 ALGs CDNs The risk in this transition phase is that the Internet heads off in a completely different direction!

28 The IPv4 Internet Was a Simple Place Where Packets Flowed Freely Between Us

29

30 But We Can Easily Destroy the Environment in the Next Year or Two

31 128 bits 32 bits CG N

32 There is One Serious Problem With CGNs

33 We are the Salmon

34 and When They Say Service Continuity What They Mean is They are NOT Transitioning to IPv6

35 IPv4 Life Support

36 Sometimes our intentions are good, but

37 Think About a World Where You Can Not Deploy New Protocols (e.g. Skype) Without Telecom s (or Apple s or Google s) Lawyers Approval

38 End-to-End principles of the stupid core and smart edge

39 Tunnels and translators Jan taking role of Dr. Tunnel

40 Two types of transition IPv6 service (to end users) mechanism 6rd, L2TP, (IPv6 in IP, GRE, ISATAP, Teredo, Tunnel brokers) IPv4 exhaustion (IP address sharing) A+P: Mapping of Address and port (Shared IPv4 address over IPv6) CGN / SD-NAT DS-lite Interoperate : IPv6 to IPv4 connectivity NAT64, TRT, Application proxies

41 Is it because we only have 430 transition mechanisms?

42 What goes in should come Tunnels act like the layer below that out.. which they are carrying Often not perfectly, but good enough for a specific purpose IP tunnels act like Data Link Layers

43 They provide us a Layer of All problems in Indirection computer science can be solved by another level of indirection except for the problem of too many levels of indirection - David Wheeler

44 They have a wide variety of uses

45 IP address sharing (NAT placement) Private IPv4 IPv6 Private IPv4 IPv6 IPv6 IPv6 IPv4 IPv4 Private IPv4 IPv6 Subscribers Providers Internet

46 IP address sharing gone bad Source: Shin Miyakawa, NTT Communications

47 IPv4 Address Sharing Technologies Obtain IPv4 Addresses (RIR, address broker) IPv4 IPv4 Address Run-Out IPv6 CGN, NAT44, SD-NAT IPv4 Address Sharing native 6rd 6rd + CGN Dual Stac k Lite MAP (4rd/ divi)

48 2. Connect IPvX to IPvY IPv4 IPv6 NAT64 IPv4-only hosts IPv6-only hosts NAT Purpose 2: connect IPv6 to IPv4

49 Connecting IPvX hosts to IPvY NAT64 is not perfect hosts IPv6 and IPv4 are not compatible Fragmentation (IPv4: network fragments, IPv6: hosts fragment) minimum MTU (IPv4: 576, IPv6: 1280) IPv4 options versus IPv6 extensions Like NAT44: NAT64 can also bring Application Layer Gateway (ALG) issues Complicates troubleshooting and abuse handling

50 Smart Edge & Stupid Core Traditional Voice has stupid edge devices, phone instruments, and a very smart expensive core The Internet has a smart edge, computers with operating systems, applications,, and a simple stupid core, which just does packet forwarding Adding an entirely new Internet service is just a matter of distributing an application to a few consenting desktops (until NATs) Compare that to adding a service to Voice

51 Conclusions

52 IPv6 Transition: Tunnel or Translate? translate worst tunnel native routing best

53 Dual Stack Transition Leap IPv4-Only Network NAT Dual Stack Network IPv4-Only Network IPv6-Only PE PE NAT CE CE IPv4-Only Users Dual-Stack Users IPv6-Only Users

54 Transition Steps Instead of Leaps IPv4-Only Network NAT IPv4-Only Network Dual Stack Network Dual Stack Network Dual Stack Network I IPv4 Only Dual Stack Network 6 4 IPv6 Only IPv6-Only PE PE NAT CE CE CE CE IPv4-Only Users Dual-Stack Users Dual-Stack Users Dual-Stack Users IPv6-Only Users

55 While: IP address sharing is necessary to keep business running Necessary to keep end users happy (long tail IPv4) It is never ideal

56 Principle #1 Choose mechanisms, that are actual progress towards IPv6 (there are transition and regression mechanisms)

57 Principle #2 Prefer mechanisms, which are simple, stateless, use IPv6 not IPv4

58 Principle #3 Keep state at the edge, not in the core

59 Principle #4 Use mechanisms, which preserve e2e and the other basic principles as much as possible

60 Ljubljana declaration : Do as little translation as possible, tunnel (4over6) where really needed, try to go native. Routing works, end2end works. For IPv6 only clients that needs to access IPv4 content in a long term, NAT64 is useful, but discouraged as IPv6 enabler in front of web servers. For *DSL/FTTH access networks stateless A+P (4RD) is encouraged. Stop inventing new transition mechanisms, focus on the mentioned above and go towards IPv6.

61 Q&A?