Internet2 IPv6 Update

1. Internet2 IPv6 Update Dale Finkelson Internet2 IPv6 WG chair dmf@unl.edu

2. Ongoing and Recent Activities • IPv6 Workshops • IPv6 only times at meetings • IPv6 Challenge • Other Initiatives

3. Workshops • We have recently updated the workshops. • The updates are aimed at keeping the information up-to-date. • More focus on campus issues and a bit less on wide area routing. • We continue to receive requests to hold workshops around the country. • We held 4 in 2008 and anticipate at least that number in 2009. • Since they began we have done over 30 workshops.

4. IPv6 at Joint Techs • At the last two Joint Techs meeting we have made IPv6 only SSID’s available on the wireless networks. • At the last JT’s we also disables the IPv4 SSID’s for 1 ½ hours one day. • We used IVI for translation. • We used DHCPv6 for host configuration • Had a drawing based on registering at an IPv6 only website. • Well over half of the attendee’s took the time to get registered.

5. IPv6 at Joint Techs • These experiments have proven very useful. • Many participants learned it is not very hard to get connected. • Useful experience with DHCPv6 client availability and configuration • Mac’s were more of an issue then PC’s • Valuable experience with IVI. • We are not compiling information about sites that were reported to not work while using IVI.

6. IPv6 at Joint Techs • We plan on continuing these tests and expanding them in subsequent Joint Techs. • Next summer we hope for example to make the video streams accessible over IPv6.

7. The IPv6 Challenge • Among Internet2 members (initially) • generate awareness and interest in IPv6, and • drive implementation of IPv6 in • public-facing websites • public-facing mailers • DNS systems. • Record and make public progress in real deployment.

8. Target Audience • Initially, Internet2 members: • CEOs • CIOs, and • VPs for Research

9. Metrics • An organization will be deemed to have met the IPv6 Challenge if it has enabled a: • v6-reachable public web page • v6-reachable mail server (sending and receiving) • v6 DNS

10. Benefits • Recognition: • on the IPv6 Challenge website • at various Internet2 meetings • in challenge updates to the Internet2 community throughout the year • use of a “IPv6 Challenge” logo for use on an organization’s own website • in conjunction with media outreach to promote the Website: IPv6Challenge.org (not yet live)

11. Why are we issuing that challenge? • As a working group we think v6 should be promoted. • The world is changing around us and we need to keep pace. • The IPv4 structure will not be able to support the needs of IP networking into the rest of this century.

12. What does the end game need to look like (3-5 yrs)? • Dual Stack campus networks • V4 is not going to disappear • Public vs Private nets? • Some of the internal networks we provision need to be public some private. • There will remain v4 only networks • Possible V6 only pockets • Residence halls perhaps • Sensor nets • Other large scale deployments • Think handheld • Phone implementations • Not routed space

13. Current Status of IPv6 • http://globalnoc.iu.edu/public/uploads/tH/A_/tHA_Mhtfhiu1EWlhNWJ-Vw/Internet2-IPv6.jpg • http://globalnoc.iu.edu/public/uploads/QV/GW/QVGWR5VHudmrsRcDoO-3gw/Internet2-IPv6.pdf

14. Other Initiatives • We have started talking about broadening the conversation: • What are the consequences of losing the end-to-end paradigm? • Can the research community accept these? • What are the real impediments now to a meaningful deployment of IPv6 at 100 Internet 2 member universities?

15. What are the impediments? • What at this point hinders the growth of IPv6 within our community? • Is it financial considerations? • Time constraints? • Equipment limitations? • Need to take responsibility ourselves • Lack of information? • All of the above?

16. What are the impediments? • Whatever the answers are within the IPv6 working group we think it is critical we try to provide a meaningful answer.

17. How do we overcome them? • As Administrators of campus networks we all need to recognize the value of these infrastructures to our organizations and accept the challenge of future proofing our campuses so that they can continue to function well into the 21st Century.

18. How do we overcome them? • We need to forge partnerships with the elements of the Internet that have successfully addressed some or all of these challenges. • How does do we build IPv6 only networks and have them function? • What can we learn from your experiences? • How do we go about getting that information?

19. Joint Projects • The Internet2 IPv6 working group is certainly interested in promoting some joint projects between Internet 2 and the APAN community. • Perhaps testing more extensively some translation tools. • Where do they need to be placed? • How well do they perform? • Do they affect any application performance ?

20. Joint Projects • One need is for Data Sources to encourage the use of IPv6. • Are there mirrors or other types of information sources that we could jointly work to establish? • Is there expertise in APAN community at campus level IPv6 implementation? Such experts could participate in our V6 workshop activity

21. Joint Projects • Are there known deficiencies in some management or monitoring tools that we could develop joint projects to address? • These might be in place or something that is desired.

22. Conclusion • There is a growing recognition that IPv6 must be deployed. It will not be deployed the same way in every country or region. Local conditions will vary. It is clear however that all these implementations must interoperate to allow the continual exchange of data. Our communities should work together to make this happen.

23. Internet2 Network v6 routing issues With help from Chris Robb <chrobb@internet2.edu>

24. What’s the issue? • General routing issues: • US R&E routes leak to commercial peers • Commercial routes leak to US & other R&E Networks • Too many transit networks leaking R&E routes to commercial peers

28. What happened? • The issues were always there • Internet2 moved v6 commercial peering to its Commercial Peering Service • CPS is a service only for Internet2’s downstream connectors • Internet2 does not provide these routes to its peers • When this move took place, commercial routes being passed to us by peers filled void (because R&E networks are preferred) • Lots of people noticed (our domestic connectors and peers) and complained about suboptimal routing to v6 networks

29. What was done? • Chris Robb and Jin Tanaka discussed regarding APAN and Internet2 peering • Chris suggested: • APAN block all Internet2 advertisements from its direct commercial peers. • APAN block all of its direct commercial peers from Internet2 • We collaborate on working with APAN R&E peer networks to help them identify and cease route leakage to their direct commercial peerings

30. Discussion on #3 • What are your thoughts? • Is this possible for your network? • Is it time to be more exact about how we pass v6 routes around? • What issues have we not thought about?

31. Information, contacts • Internet2 IPv6 working group • http://ipv6.internet2.edu • Dale Finkelson: dmf@unl.edu • Chris Robb: chrobb@internet2.edu