1 / 13

APAN-JP NOC Report on IPv6

APAN-JP NOC Report on IPv6. 2005.8.23 Kazunori Konishi APAN-JP NOC. History. 1998.2: IPv6 activity started with Hitachi’s IPv6 router NR60, lead by WIDE project: IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel WIDE’s pTLA: 3ffe:500::/24 BGP4+ IPv6 links: ESnet, SingAREN, APAN-KR, vBNS

yeo-diaz
Download Presentation

APAN-JP NOC Report on IPv6

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. APAN-JP NOC Report on IPv6 2005.8.23 Kazunori Konishi APAN-JP NOC IPv6 Task Force

  2. History • 1998.2: IPv6 activity started with Hitachi’s IPv6 router NR60, lead by WIDE project: • IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel • WIDE’s pTLA: 3ffe:500::/24 • BGP4+ • IPv6 links: ESnet, SingAREN, APAN-KR, vBNS • 2000.5: WIDE’s sNLA1: 2001:200:900::/40 　　　→ local connections via WIDE’s NSPIXP2 • 2001.1: APAN-JP’s pTLA: 3ffe:8140::/28 → start to increase IPv6 connections. • 2002.5: IPv4/IPv6 Dual Stack connections to TW • 2002.7: Dual Stack connections to 6TAP/TransPAC. IPv6 Task Force

  3. Current Traffic Volume 6TAP little traffic! NSPIXP6 IPv6 Task Force

  4. IPv6 BGP logical MAP @ Tokyo XP CERNET(CN) CSTNET(CN) ASCC(TW) TransPAC2(US) Ipv6 Users (JP) CERNET(CN) CSTNET(CN) ASCC(TW) JGN Chicago(US) Ipv6 Users (JP) tpr4(Pro8812) tpr5(T640) RR#2 RR#1 tppr (cisco 7206) DIXIE-GW (Hitachi GR) apii-juniper(M10) tpr3 (M20) tpr2 (M20) Koganei-M20 KOREN(KR) JP IPv6 Users JP IPv6 Users Nspixp6 (commodity) nspixp6 (commodity) ASTI(PH) Hawaii(US) Cluster ID: 0.0.0.2 AUP free only for IPv6 iBGP eBGP Jin Tanaka IPv6 Task Force

  5. IPv6 BGP Exchange Export policy IF IPV6_FULL_ROUTE_EXCHANGE (Community value : 7660:4) ACCEPT then REJECT Import policy Community Add: IPV6_FULL_ROUTE_EXCHANGE (Community value : 7660:4) • IPv6 routing using AS-path length with BGP community • The number of IPv6 full routes that APAN-JP has is about 800 routes. • But, the number of IPv6 full routes receiving is different from JP(about 600) and the US(about 800). • Because there is a difference in the the way of IPv6 route summarize. Sharing BGP community Value 7660:4 Peers: Abilene, APAN member networks, and JP networks including commercial ISPs via NSPIXP6 Jin Tanaka IPv6 Task Force

  6. Who can drive IPv6 deployment? • Japanese governments’ e-Japan project is promoting the deployment of IPv6 from 2001; annual budget is more than 50M USD?? But real traffic volume is still low. • US White House has set the deadline of June 2008 for all agencies’ infrastructure (network backbones) to adopt IPv6, and for agency networks to interface with this infrastructure. 　 → at least Dual Stack. Government initiatives are very effective for the development in the initial stage, but … IPv6 Task Force

  7. Features of IPv6 • Huge address space: 128 bits • Security: IPsec • Plug & Play: without DHCP server • etc. But IPv6 doesn’t have any dramatic features, except the huge address space. Question: Can R&E networks make full use of the huge address space? My answer: No, except China. We should remember that IPv4 deployment was lead by Microsoft Windows. JP IT headquarter will allocate IPv6 international activities in Asia. IPv6 Task Force

  8. Who can make full use of the huge address space? • Both 3GPP and 3GPP2 will adopt IPv6. • Electrical appliance will adopt IPv6. • Game machines • Home security system • etc. IPv6 Task Force

  9. Transition Time into IPv6 • Transition Time: The cost of IPv6 system will be almost equal with the one of the equivalent IPv4 system • When: in several year • Duration: a few years. Cost is the most critical factor for driving the transition. IPv6 Task Force

  10. Transition Share of IPv4 Transition period should be as short as possible. Cost is the critical factor for the transition! equal Cost of IPv4 versus IPv6 Flag Day Year 2005 2015 IPv6 Task Force

  11. Personal View • “Flag Day” should be discussed and planned. • Transition should be completed as short as possible, for the network quality as well as the economy. • The stakeholders of the transition are the commercial sectors, rather than the R&E networks. • R&E network folks can support the transition, but can’t play the leading role at the transition phase. IPv6 Task Force

  12. Role of R&E Networks R&E network folks will contribute a lot for the advanced network technologies, rather than the transition: • Development of advanced network technologies • Prototyping of advanced system • High performance end to end system • Network security tools IPv6 Task Force

  13. Forgive me if I am wrong. IPv6 Task Force

More Related