Transcript IPv6 BoF

IPv6
Tim Chown
University of Southampton & UKERNA
[email protected]
TF-NGN Meeting, Rome
6th February 2003
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
GÉANT IPv6 migration
m6bone status
A new multicast gateway
6NET update
IETF IPv6 update
Alcatel and IPv6 (late addition to agenda )
Hitachi IPv6 router (GR2000)
INFN-GARR IPv6 transition
Discussion: future work & reporting
m6bone status
• IPv6 multicast overlay network
– http://www.m6bone.net/
• No native multicast infrastructure yet
– Most links IPv6 multicast in IPv6 unicast
– Many of those running via 6NET network
– Some links tunnelled over IPv6
• Growing experience with tools
– Routers: *BSD, Cisco, 6WIND
– Applications: vic, rat, + audio/video streaming
• m6bone used for a 6NET meeting
m6bone beacon
• Currently run by:
– Hiof (Norway), UoS, SURFnet,
UNINETT, PSNC, UCL (UK)
• Shows:
– Loss, delay, jitter
– Client versions
• See: http://beaconserver.m6bone.pl
m6bone/multicast next steps
• Work with 6NET
– Establish “m6net” over 6NET
– Native multicast when Cisco GSR ready
– Use of BGP in place of RIPng
• Standards issues
–
–
–
–
Multiple RPs for PIM-SM
Advertising PIM-SM RP address?
MLD (and MLDv2) snooping?
Reflectors and gateways (see Stig’s talk)
• Run trials of PIM-SSM
– Possibly also consider the xcast architecture
• Get more sites joining the m6bone community…
– New sites in Mexico and Asia
– Just need available (BSD/Cisco) router
IETF IPv6 status
• Last meeting in Atlanta, November
• Next meeting in San Francisco, March
• Major changes:
– v6ops WG created
– ngtrans WG being closed
– 6bone being expired
• Some focus on transition scenarios
• Major standards achievements
– DHCPv6 and MIPv6 approaching Draft Standard
– But IPv6 multihoming WG (multi6) still stalled
IETF notes…
•
•
•
•
ipv6mh WG had unofficial meetings
IPv6 flow label still “unused”
send WG: secure neighbour discovery
V6ops transitions scenarios:
– unmanaged, enterprise, ISP, cellular
• Site-local usage
– Problem of ambiguity and leakage
– But need addressing for disconnected networks
• ENUM services can run with IPv6
– UoS is in UK ENUM pilot with IPv6 and VOCAL
IPv6 “missing pieces”
• (see 6NET deliverable D2.5.1) – includes:
• Network robustness
– Routing stability, preferring vv/v6, multihoming
• Network management/services
– DNS, SNMP, service discovery, multicast, prefix
delegation
• Application issues
– Porting, site-locals, flow label, software (e.g. SQL), IPv6
Privacy Extensions (RFC3041) implications
• Security issues
– IPSec use, firewall requirements, transition security
GTPv6 network
• Used in the past for inter-NREN tests
• 6bone object “GTPV6”
• ASN 8933
– Continued allocation from RIPE NCC for tests
• 6bone pTLA 3ffe:8030::/28
– Previously each NREN received a /34 allocation
– 6bone now being deprecated
• GR2000 now running GTPv6 core
– Located at Southampton (not ideal)
– Runs BGP4+ to UK IPv6 pilot service
– Janos investigating route table dump and similar tools
Hitachi GR2000
• Based on BSD
– Originally a software-based router
– New model has hardware acceleration
• Configure via Unix commands
– Can just text-edit configuration files
• Various formats from 2H to 20H
– Model being used on GTPv6 is a 6H
• 8 x Fast Ethernet, 1 x GigE, 1 x E1
• GR2000’s are being used on Euro6IX
– Project deploying telco-focused exchange points
– Various router platforms being used
GR2000 configuration
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
default {
ethernet_type 100m_full_duplex;
};
routerid 152.78.189.26;
static {
default gateway 152.78.65.254;
};
line iam ethernet 4/0;
ip iam {
152.78.64.51/23;
2001:630:d0:111::3;
};
router {
remote_access 152.78.65.53;
local_address 3ffe:8030::1;
remote_access 2001:738:0:401:202:3fff:fe3b:41fa;
remote_access 152.78.64.50;
remote_access 2001:630:d0:111:202:b3ff:feab:a950;
remote_access 2001:738:0:402:209:6bff:fe8c:886b;
};
GR2000 config (ctd)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
autonomoussystem6 8933;
bgp4+ yes {
group type external peeras 786 {
peer 3ffe:8030::2;
};
};
tunnel ukerna {
152.78.64.51 remote 193.63.175.6;
};
ip ukerna {
3ffe:8030::1 destination_ip_address 3ffe:8030::2;
};
export proto bgp4+ {
proto aggregate;
};
aggregate 3ffe:8030::/28 {
proto direct;
proto static;
};
GR2000 config (ctd)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
pim6 yes {
sparse {
candidate-rp yes {
group {
ff0f::/16;
};
};
candidate-bsr yes;
};
};
•
•
(BSD and GR2000 have BSR function, IOS – I believe- does not)
(There is no ssh access for the GR2000 – there is for the
6WINDGate routers for example)
Possible GTPv6 tests
• New multicast experiments
– GR2000 supports PIM-SM and –SSM
– BGP route exchanges (instead of RIPng)
• Interoperability
– Anyone welcome to peer (but not advised as primary
route or connectivity)
– Has BGP4+, RIPng, OSPF, but not IS-IS
• Connection with Juniper M5 at Renater
– Create GTPv6 “backbone”
• Multihoming
– Using GTPv6 path and “production” path
Future work?
• GTPv6 experiments
• Working with 6NET
• Testing different hardware
– i.e. other than Juniper and Cisco
– e.g. Hitachi, BSD, Zebra, Alcatel,…
• GÉANT migration
– Assisting DANTE to work with NRENs
• IPv6 “missing pieces”
– See http://www.6net.org/publications/ (D2.5.1)
• Reporting?
– Future GÉANT deliverables?
RIPE NCC TTM Server
• A popular test traffic measurement device, built
for IPv4 use
– BSD box maintained by RIPE-NCC, costs ~3,000 Euros
– See: www.ripe.net/ttm
• Recently ported to include IPv6
– Porting after discussions with 6NET
• Porting included:-
– Test probes, web access, reporting tools
– BSD kernel upgraded for IPv6 support
• IPv6 available now to new TTM users
– Running since 23rd Jan 2003 at Southampton (tt76) and
at HEAnet (tt35), Univ. of Vienna (tt73), plus RIPE NCC.
Using the TTM server
• Very useful for assessing routing, performance
and availability of links, and changes in routing
–
–
–
–
Packet delay and number of hops, delay variation
Packet loss (and GPS/NTP clock sync)
Histories of path traceroute outputs
Highlights changes in outputs (good or bad changes)
–
–
–
–
TTM servers exist in US and Japan
Aim for IPv6 TTM servers in Abilene, Euro6IX, WIDE?
Run Abilene tools here (with e2epi & PERT cooperation?)
Would be interesting to compare IPv4 vs IPv6 properties
• Important for getting IPv6 international routing
to IPv4-like production quality for routine day-today use of IPv6 applications