Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
The only ADSL one listed Billion 7402R2 doesn't _actually_ do IPv6 yet, but it might if they release software for it! Which would be nice as we sell them to customers and would love to magically turn on IPv6 to them one day. The only IPv6 ADSL router I'm aware of, that I can buy in Australia, is the Cisco 857/877 series (which work quite nicely I have to say :-) (Some earlier Cisco 800 series ADSL routers will work, but aren't currently available). A friend of mine who works for a company that owns another company that sells consumer CPE said Well, this is a volume business. Why release a feature that isn't being demanded much yet, when we could do it later and sell you ANOTHER CPE to replace the one you just bought?. Bah. And people wonder why I'm cynical. MMC Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote: Looks like there's some kind of wiki here, too: http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Broadband_CPE Frank -- Matthew Moyle-Croft - Internode/Agile - Networks Level 5, 150 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.on.net Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366 Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909 The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones - John Maynard Keynes
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote: A friend of mine who works for a company that owns another company that sells consumer CPE said Well, this is a volume business. Why release a feature that isn't being demanded much yet, when we could do it later and sell you ANOTHER CPE to replace the one you just bought?. While it doesn't quality as out-of-the-box v6 support, a Linksys WRT54G with a replacement image like Sveasoft Talisman does claim to support it. I haven't tested it yet on a guinea pig WRT54G, but I'll get around to that at some point soon :) jms
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Justin M. Streiner wrote: On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote: A friend of mine who works for a company that owns another company that sells consumer CPE said Well, this is a volume business. Why release a feature that isn't being demanded much yet, when we could do it later and sell you ANOTHER CPE to replace the one you just bought?. While it doesn't quality as out-of-the-box v6 support, a Linksys WRT54G with a replacement image like Sveasoft Talisman does claim to support it. Yeah - not quite the issue - I've got a Cisco 877 at home and am running dual stack natively at home. But I'm not a typical customer. But really, we need to start seeing some CPE, even in beta form, so we can start working through how a transition to IPv6 might work. (eg. customer local networks, SIP for VOIP, stateful firewalls (given the anti-NAT-brigade have made it the only solution - don't get me started about how low end CPE stateful firewalls suck). Customers tend to keep their CPE for a few years. That means customers buying now will still have it in 2010. MMC I haven't tested it yet on a guinea pig WRT54G, but I'll get around to that at some point soon :) jms -- Matthew Moyle-Croft - Internode/Agile - Networks Level 5, 150 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.on.net Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366 Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909 The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones - John Maynard Keynes
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote: The only ADSL one listed Billion 7402R2 doesn't _actually_ do IPv6 yet, but it might if they release software for it! Which would be nice as we sell them to customers and would love to magically turn on IPv6 to them one day. The only IPv6 ADSL router I'm aware of, that I can buy in Australia, is the Cisco 857/877 series (which work quite nicely I have to say :-) (Some earlier Cisco 800 series ADSL routers will work, but aren't currently available). Actually Cisco 850 series does not support IPv6, only 870 series. We tested earlier cisco models also: 830 series has ipv6 support. My colleague tested NetScreen routers: apart for the smallest devices they have IPv6 support. However I think these devices are not consumer equipments. I would call SO (Small Office) devices. The HO (home office) devices are the ~ 50-100 USD devices - you rarely see official ipv6 support. Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 A friend of mine who works for a company that owns another company that sells consumer CPE said Well, this is a volume business. Why release a feature that isn't being demanded much yet, when we could do it later and sell you ANOTHER CPE to replace the one you just bought?. Bah. And people wonder why I'm cynical. MMC Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote: Looks like there's some kind of wiki here, too: http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Broadband_CPE Frank -- Matthew Moyle-Croft - Internode/Agile - Networks Level 5, 150 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.on.net Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366 Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909 The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones - John Maynard Keynes
cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote: In a message written on Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:24PM -0500, Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote: Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've heard this posited -- I had a hard believing that, but he claims it with some authority. Anyone hear anything like this? My own opinion is that we'll see dual-stack for at least a decade or two to come. ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost. Running dual stack increases cost. While I'm not sure about the 5 year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to disable IPv4 support as soon as the market will let them as a cost saving measure. Runing for decades dual stacked does not make a lot of economic sense for all involved. So, can you elaborate why you think the cost of running dual stack is higher than the cost of spending timemoney on beind on the bleeding edge to do v6-only yet supporting v4 for your existing and future customers still wedded to the older IP protocol? -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Mark Newton wrote: Those of us who use ADSL or (heaven forbid) Cable are kinda out of luck. I haven't yet found ADSL2+ CPE that does IPv6 over PPPoE or PPPoA out of the box. Any cablelebs certified docsis 3.0 CM or CMTS supports ipv6. Your cable provider will have to upgrade their CMTS (line card swap) before you can leverage it directly on the cable in a consumer environment. DSL aggregation routers are challenge where again equipment lifecycle plays in to whether you're in a position to deploy. (Billion in Taiwan has a device which they've stamped an IPv6 Ready sticker onto, but the IPv6 version of the software hasn't left the confines of their lab yet) As far as I've been able to determine, IPv6 SOHO CPE is largely vaporware right now. And lets not even get started on residential grade CPE, that doesn't even appear to be on most vendors' radar _at all_. If anything useful is going to happen in this space, my guess is that it'll be with custom Linux firmware running on a LinkSys blob with no vendor support. - mark -- Mark Newton Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (W) Network Engineer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (H) Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 Network Man - Anagram of Mark Newton Mobile: +61-416-202-223
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote: The only ADSL one listed Billion 7402R2 doesn't _actually_ do IPv6 yet, but it might if they release software for it! Which would be nice as we sell them to customers and would love to magically turn on IPv6 to them one day. Hi MMC, You might want to contribute to http://au.billion.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10042 and suggest to them that Internode wants this release for their customers. Mark.
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 03:26:48PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote: ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost. Running dual stack increases cost. While I'm not sure about the 5 year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to disable IPv4 support as soon as the market will let them as a cost saving measure. Runing for decades dual stacked does not make a lot of economic sense for all involved. So, can you elaborate why you think the cost of running dual stack is higher than the cost of spending timemoney on beind on the bleeding edge to do v6-only yet supporting v4 for your existing and future customers still wedded to the older IP protocol? I don't know why Leo thinks so, but even I can observe the extra recurring support cost of having to work through two stacks with every customer that dials in as being far greater than any technology costs in either single-stack scenario. The 'recurring' part is the real killer. -- Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul. Why settle for the lesser evil? https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/ -- David W. HankinsIf you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineeryou'll just have to do it again. Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins pgpolPyLiJUnU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, David W. Hankins wrote: I don't know why Leo thinks so, but even I can observe the extra recurring support cost of having to work through two stacks with every customer that dials in as being far greater than any technology costs in either single-stack scenario. The 'recurring' part is the real killer. If the customer would be v6-only, I agree. If the customer is v4-only, I would posit that it's in most cases impossibleto get the customers upgraded to v6. I would also argue (based on my understanding) that translating or tunneling v4-only clients over v6-only network would cause pretty much equal or greater complexities as dual-stack. If the customer is dual-stack, I would agree that v6-only is simpler, but that gets back to the point of, does the whole internet support v6 or is there alternative, reliable way to reach the rest? As a result you will need to deal with v4 connectivity issues as well. NB: we have had dual-stack backbone for about 6 years and are not seeing major pain. Sure, v6-only would be even easier in the longer term, but as far as I've seen, the major transition issues are at the edges, not in the core network. -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
In a message written on Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 03:26:48PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote: ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost. Running dual stack increases cost. While I'm not sure about the 5 year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to disable IPv4 support as soon as the market will let them as a cost saving measure. Runing for decades dual stacked does not make a lot of economic sense for all involved. So, can you elaborate why you think the cost of running dual stack is higher than the cost of spending timemoney on beind on the bleeding edge to do v6-only yet supporting v4 for your existing and future customers still wedded to the older IP protocol? You are mixing stages of adoption. The Internet will progress as follows: 1) Early adopters deploy IPv6 while continuing to make most of their money off IPv4. We're already well into this state. 2) Substantially all ( 90%?) of the Internet is dual stacked, or has other transition mechanisms in place. 3) IPv4 is removed from the network, leaving only IPv6. Your comment compares the cost of phase 1 to the cost of phase two, making the assumption that it's more expensive to be an early adopter than it is to run dual stack down the road. On that point, I agree. My point is once we're in phase #2 the bean counters will look around and start to ask can we reduce cost if we remove IPv4. The answer will be yes. Initially the answer will be but our customers will be upset, and it won't happen, but the bean counters are persistent, and will keep asking the question over and over. They will make sure phase 2 lasts no longer than it must. Which brings us into phase 3. While engineers may see it as simple clean up, large networks will see phase 3 has a huge money saving operation by that point in time. Once the first major (top 10?) network removes IPv4 support I expect all the rest to follow within 2 years, tops. Edge and nitche networks may support it longer, but it will drop from the Internet core quickly. The specific original comment was that we would run dual-stacked, that is in phase 2, for decades. I proport there are strong economic reasons why that is probably not ging to be the case. -- Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpDI8UStbi8R.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote: 1) Early adopters deploy IPv6 while continuing to make most of their money off IPv4. We're already well into this state. 2) Substantially all ( 90%?) of the Internet is dual stacked, or has other transition mechanisms in place. Who has the other transition mechanisms in place? What is the cost of deploying those transition mechanisms? At present it's not obvious how you can explain to the bean counters that deploying these are profitable. 3) IPv4 is removed from the network, leaving only IPv6. Your comment compares the cost of phase 1 to the cost of phase two, making the assumption that it's more expensive to be an early adopter than it is to run dual stack down the road. On that point, I agree. That's not all. I also tried to point out that in order to get to 2), you're facing a decade of slow transition or you have to deploy transition mechanisms which have substantial cost. A transition mechanism is also needed to move from 2) to 3). My point is that it seems somewhat premature to talk extensively of 2) - 3) transition because we haven't even figured out 1) - 2) yet. Getting to 2) is the challenge, from there it is straightforward. My point is once we're in phase #2 the bean counters will look around and start to ask can we reduce cost if we remove IPv4. I agree but you don't clearly address how exactly we're going to get to 2) in the first place -- that's a huge step. In order to move to stage 2), a LOT of deployment is needed and/or a lot of transition mechanisms (mainly translation in this context, I assume) need to be deployed which has significant cost involved. I agree that if 90% or 99% of net is dual-stack or using a working transition mechanisms (so the expectation is that almost everything would work with v6-only), the jump to 3) will be relatively quick for the reasons you say. We've been a decade in step 1). We'll likely continue to be another decade in step 1) before moving to 2) unless radical transition technology is developed and deployed in a significant scale (and someone figures out a business model how it helps in the short term). Once we get 2), the time it takes to move to 3) is probably almost an order of magnitude less than what it took to get to 2). The specific original comment was that we would run dual-stacked, that is in phase 2, for decades. I proport there are strong economic reasons why that is probably not ging to be the case. I may interpret your steps differently, but I see at least a decade more of work before we get to step 2) (i.e., before we get to 90% penetration). -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
In a message written on Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 05:18:16PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: Who has the other transition mechanisms in place? What is the cost of deploying those transition mechanisms? At present it's not obvious how you can explain to the bean counters that deploying these are profitable. It's very hard, so most people aren't deploying, yet. My point is that it seems somewhat premature to talk extensively of 2) - 3) transition because we haven't even figured out 1) - 2) yet. Getting to 2) is the challenge, from there it is straightforward. The driver for 1-2 is the end of the IPv4 free pool. It doesn't much matter if the cause is IPv4 simply not being available anymore, or if the result is some way of moving IPv4 addresses around for money; they both will get the bean counters attention real quick. In essense the cost of IPv4 is going to dramatically rise, one way or another. And that's only the first order effect of getting the addresses. Second order effects like hanling the routing table deaggregation haven't begun to be calculated. So basically the IPv4 free pool exhaustion will drive 1-2 rather rapidly. Once we're in state 2, simple economics will drive the 2-3 transtion rather rapidly. 20 years ago was 1988. The World Wide Web did not even exist. AOL (the first service branded under that name) wasn't launched until 1989. A T1 served an enter university campus. 9600 baud was a fast modem. In essense, the entire industry as we know it was built in the last 20 years. Now think hard about a prediction we'll still be running IPv4 in 20 years. A two decade transition period just does not fit this industry's history. -- Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpVCVnV6tYYq.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently. The core is IPv6/dual stack capable, even if it's not enabled everywhere, and a large chunk of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now. The US Govt. is under mandate to transition to v6 by the end of the year. The only bits that are missing right now are the routers and switches at the edge, and support from transit providers, and if they're going to keep supplying the Fed with gear and connectivity, at least one major player in those areas of the NA market is going to HAVE to make it happen. From there, I'd expect a slow but steady uptake across the rest of North America. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pekka Savola Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:18 AM To: Leo Bicknell Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?] On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote: 1) Early adopters deploy IPv6 while continuing to make most of their money off IPv4. We're already well into this state. 2) Substantially all ( 90%?) of the Internet is dual stacked, or has other transition mechanisms in place. Who has the other transition mechanisms in place? What is the cost of deploying those transition mechanisms? At present it's not obvious how you can explain to the bean counters that deploying these are profitable. 3) IPv4 is removed from the network, leaving only IPv6. Your comment compares the cost of phase 1 to the cost of phase two, making the assumption that it's more expensive to be an early adopter than it is to run dual stack down the road. On that point, I agree. That's not all. I also tried to point out that in order to get to 2), you're facing a decade of slow transition or you have to deploy transition mechanisms which have substantial cost. A transition mechanism is also needed to move from 2) to 3). My point is that it seems somewhat premature to talk extensively of 2) - 3) transition because we haven't even figured out 1) - 2) yet. Getting to 2) is the challenge, from there it is straightforward. My point is once we're in phase #2 the bean counters will look around and start to ask can we reduce cost if we remove IPv4. I agree but you don't clearly address how exactly we're going to get to 2) in the first place -- that's a huge step. In order to move to stage 2), a LOT of deployment is needed and/or a lot of transition mechanisms (mainly translation in this context, I assume) need to be deployed which has significant cost involved. I agree that if 90% or 99% of net is dual-stack or using a working transition mechanisms (so the expectation is that almost everything would work with v6-only), the jump to 3) will be relatively quick for the reasons you say. We've been a decade in step 1). We'll likely continue to be another decade in step 1) before moving to 2) unless radical transition technology is developed and deployed in a significant scale (and someone figures out a business model how it helps in the short term). Once we get 2), the time it takes to move to 3) is probably almost an order of magnitude less than what it took to get to 2). The specific original comment was that we would run dual-stacked, that is in phase 2, for decades. I proport there are strong economic reasons why that is probably not ging to be the case. I may interpret your steps differently, but I see at least a decade more of work before we get to step 2) (i.e., before we get to 90% penetration). -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
RE: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
I don't know why Leo thinks so, but even I can observe the extra recurring support cost of having to work through two stacks with every customer that dials in as being far greater than any technology costs in either single-stack scenario. The 'recurring' part is the real killer. This is why any ISP that has not moved their core network over to MPLS, really needs to take a serious look at doing so now. If you do this then you only really need to support IPv6 on your edge routers (MPLS PE) which are used to connect IPv6 customers. Those PEs will use 6PE to provide native IPv6 to your customers. Dual stack is not the only solution. Note that it is also possible to use something like GRE tunnels over IP4 to build an IPv6 overlay. Depending on the scale of your network (and your capital budget) this may also be an attractive way to ease into IPv6 without changing everything. There is a whole smorgasbord of choices to make. It's not an easy slam-dunk proposition and you can't just find someone to tell you how to handle your network situation. It's not like the early 1990's when you could get away with following the crowd. --Michael Dillon
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
--- On Thu, 3/13/08, Leo Bicknell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now think hard about a prediction we'll still be running IPv4 in 20 years. A two decade transition period just does not fit this industry's history. To be fair, I've encourntered an awful lot of SNA which is still out there, so you might be surprised how long things linger. But your point is well taken - once IPv4 stops being the primary internetworking protocol, it'll be reduced to special cases pretty quickly. David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
v4 exhaustion and v6 impact [Re: cost of dual-stack vs v6-only]
I changed the subject line. On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Leo Bicknell wrote: My point is that it seems somewhat premature to talk extensively of 2) - 3) transition because we haven't even figured out 1) - 2) yet. Getting to 2) is the challenge, from there it is straightforward. The driver for 1-2 is the end of the IPv4 free pool. It doesn't much matter if the cause is IPv4 simply not being available anymore, or if the result is some way of moving IPv4 addresses around for money; they both will get the bean counters attention real quick. In essense the cost of IPv4 is going to dramatically rise, one way or another. And that's only the first order effect of getting the addresses. Second order effects like hanling the routing table deaggregation haven't begun to be calculated. Many people seem to have waken up from the slumber lately with a realization that when IANA/RIR v4 pool runs out in a couple of years, v6 had better be ready for prime time! While the goal may be good, a reality check might be in order. AFAICS, the impact will be that residential and similar usage will be more heavily NATted. Enterprises need to pay higher cost per public v4 address. IPv4 multihoming practises will evolve (e.g., instead of multihoming with PI, you multihome with one provider's PA space; you use multiconnecting to one ISP instead of multihoming). Newcomers to market (whether ISPs or those sites which wish to start multihoming) are facing higher costs (the latter of which is also a good thing). Obviously DFZ deaggregation will increase but we still don't end up routing /32's globally. While price for a /20 or /16 of address space might go up pretty high, a /24 can still be obtained with a reasonable cost. Those ISPs with lots of spare or freeable v4 space will be best placed to profit from new customers and as a result v6 will remain an unattractive choice for end-users. IANA and RIRs running out of v4 space may allow making a better case to an ISP's management that their backbone should be made v6 capable (to support customers who want v6) but it doesn't provide the case for the ISP to deploy v6 to its residential users, and it doesn't provide a case for the enterprises to start v6 transition (because they need to support v4 anyway). It may also make a case for ISPs which don't have much spare IPv4 space and cannot free or obtain it to try to market v6 to their end-users. So v6 capabilities in the ISP backbones will improve but the end-users and sites still don't get v6 ubiquituously. This is a significant improvement from v6 perspective but is still not enough to get to 90% global v6 deployment. -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
Jamie, On Mar 13, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote: MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently. The fact that the kernel may support IPv6 does not mean that IPv6 is actually usable (as events at NANOG, APRICOT, and the IETF have shown). There are lots of bits and pieces that are necessary for mere mortals to actually use IPv6. The core is IPv6/dual stack capable, even if it's not enabled everywhere, I'm told by some folks who run core networks for a living that while the routers may sling IPv6 packets as fast or faster than IPv4, doing so with ACLs, filter lists, statistics, monitoring, etc., is lacking. What's worse, the vendors aren't spinning the ASICs (which I'm told have a 2 to 3 year lead time from design to being shipped) necessary to do everything core routers are expected to do for IPv6 yet. and a large chunk of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now. I keep hearing this, but could you indicate what parts of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now? I'm aware, for example, that NTT is using IPv6 for their FLETS service, but that is an internal transport service not connected to the Internet. I'm unaware (but would be very interested in hearing about) any service in Asia or Europe that is seeing significant IPv6 traffic. The US Govt. is under mandate to transition to v6 by the end of the year. I thought parts of the USG were under a mandate to be IPv6 capable (whatever that means) by this summer. If there is a mandate to be running IPv6 within the USG by the end of the year, people are going to have to get very, very busy very, very quickly. The only bits that are missing right now are the routers and switches at the edge, and support from transit providers, My understanding is that there are lots of bits and pieces that are missing in the infrastructure, but that's almost irrelevant. What is _really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in the chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request IPv6. Without customer requests for IPv6, it's hard to make the business case to deploy the infrastructure to support it. Without infrastructure to support IPv6, it's hard to make the business case to deploy content on top of IPv6. and if they're going to keep supplying the Fed with gear and connectivity, at least one major player in those areas of the NA market is going to HAVE to make it happen. Remember GOSIP? Regards, -drc
Re: Data Center Migration Resource
Wanted to thank all that replied. I am sending a few of you to my IT people for consideration. -Dennis
Re: v4 exhaustion and v6 impact [Re: cost of dual-stack vs v6-only]
While the goal may be good, a reality check might be in order. AFAICS, the impact will be that residential and similar usage will be more heavily NATted. Enterprises need to pay higher cost per public v4 address. IPv4 multihoming practises will evolve (e.g., instead of multihoming with PI, you multihome with one provider's PA space; you use multiconnecting to one ISP instead of multihoming). Newcomers to market (whether ISPs or those sites which wish to start multihoming) are facing higher costs (the latter of which is also a good thing). Obviously DFZ deaggregation will increase but we still don't end up routing /32's globally. I am confused by your statement. It appears you are saying that it is a good thing for sites that wish to multihome to face higher costs. If that is truly what you are saying, then, I must strenuously disagree. I think that increased cost for resilient networking is a very bad thing. While price for a /20 or /16 of address space might go up pretty high, a /24 can still be obtained with a reasonable cost. Those ISPs with lots of spare or freeable v4 space will be best placed to profit from new customers and as a result v6 will remain an unattractive choice for end-users. Only for some limited period of time. Even those freeable /24s will get used up fairly quickly. IANA and RIRs running out of v4 space may allow making a better case to an ISP's management that their backbone should be made v6 capable (to support customers who want v6) but it doesn't provide the case for the ISP to deploy v6 to its residential users, and it doesn't provide a case for the enterprises to start v6 transition (because they need to support v4 anyway). It may also make a case for ISPs which don't have much spare IPv4 space and cannot free or obtain it to try to market v6 to their end-users. The case for IPv6 end-user deployment will most likely occur when new IPv4 addresses for those customers become more costly than supporting a NAT-PT infrastructure with the appropriate DNS hackery and such. It would be nice (and cheaper in the long run) if ISPs were ahead of that curve in some way, but, the reality is that's probably going to be the driver. Eventually, enough NAT-PT eyeballs will drive IPv6 native content capabilities (although in ability to get IPv4 addresses for new content hosts may also serve as a driver there). In terms of enterprise, I think that will be the last group to convert. I don't think you will see much enterprise level migration until they are faced with their ISPs wanting to shut down IPv4 and raising the IPv4 transit costs accordingly. However, once we reach somewhat minimal critical mass in IPv6 content, and, NAT-PT solutions are more readily available and better understood, I think you'll see most new enterprise deployments being done with IPv6. So v6 capabilities in the ISP backbones will improve but the end- users and sites still don't get v6 ubiquituously. This is a significant improvement from v6 perspective but is still not enough to get to 90% global v6 deployment. I'm not sure why 90% is necessary or even desirable in the short term. What's magic about 90%? What I think is more interesting is arriving at the point where you can deploy a new site entirely with IPv6 without concerns about being disconnected from some (significant) portion of the internet (intarweb?). Once we're at that point, the rest can sort itself as the timeframe becomes merely an issue of economics. Prior to that point, the issues are of much greater potential impact beyond the mere financial. Owen
Re: v4 exhaustion and v6 impact [Re: cost of dual-stack vs v6-only]
On Mar 13, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
Obviously DFZ deaggregation will increase but we still don't end up
routing /32's globally.
No, that's what we have IPv6 for ('cause, you know, IPv6 /32s are
smaller than IPv4 /32s... or something...) :-)
Regards,
-drc
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
At 9:48 AM -0700 3/13/08, David Conrad wrote: What is _really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in the chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request IPv6. Without customer requests for IPv6, it's hard to make the business case to deploy the infrastructure to support it. If ISP's are waiting for new IPv6-only content to create customer demand to justify their business case for IPv6 enablement, then that's their choice. Reality will win in the end, and my $$ will be on the providers who justified their IPv6 enablement on being able to continue to grow. /John
Re: v4 exhaustion and v6 impact [Re: cost of dual-stack vs v6-only]
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Owen DeLong wrote: While the goal may be good, a reality check might be in order. AFAICS, the impact will be that residential and similar usage will be more heavily NATted. Enterprises need to pay higher cost per public v4 address. IPv4 multihoming practises will evolve (e.g., instead of multihoming with PI, you multihome with one provider's PA space; you use multiconnecting to one ISP instead of multihoming). Newcomers to market (whether ISPs or those sites which wish to start multihoming) are facing higher costs (the latter of which is also a good thing). Obviously DFZ deaggregation will increase but we still don't end up routing /32's globally. I am confused by your statement. It appears you are saying that it is a good thing for sites that wish to multihome to face higher costs. If that is truly what you are saying, then, I must strenuously disagree. I think that increased cost for resilient networking is a very bad thing. I understand your reasoning (we've been through this before so we'll just have to agree to disagree). If a site is unwilling to pay, e.g., 1$/yr for its multihoming, maybe it should stop polluting the global routing table and instead use other redundancy mechanisms. Today, it's too cheap to pollute global DFZ; increasing the cost motivates finding other mechanisms to obtain redundancy. While price for a /20 or /16 of address space might go up pretty high, a /24 can still be obtained with a reasonable cost. Those ISPs with lots of spare or freeable v4 space will be best placed to profit from new customers and as a result v6 will remain an unattractive choice for end-users. Only for some limited period of time. Even those freeable /24s will get used up fairly quickly. Even a single /8 will allow 64K allocations for multihoming perspective; that's more than we have today, and there is a lot more spare or freeable space to use. [...] However, once we reach somewhat minimal critical mass in IPv6 content, and, NAT-PT solutions are more readily available and better understood, I think you'll see most new enterprise deployments being done with IPv6. I agree with most of what you're saying but given that most enterprise admins are familiar with v4 and not with v6, if the enterprise is going to be completely behind a NAT or NAT-PT anyway, it may be difficult to find the benefit to deploy the enterprise network with v6 rather than with v4 private addresses. Easier company mergers is probably one of the highest on the list, futureproofing the network is probably not considered worth the expense. So v6 capabilities in the ISP backbones will improve but the end-users and sites still don't get v6 ubiquituously. This is a significant improvement from v6 perspective but is still not enough to get to 90% global v6 deployment. I'm not sure why 90% is necessary or even desirable in the short term. What's magic about 90%? Don't ask me for the magic number -- I just took what Leo offered. :-) What I think is more interesting is arriving at the point where you can deploy a new site entirely with IPv6 without concerns about being disconnected from some (significant) portion of the internet (intarweb?). I agree that's an interesting (earlier) scenario. To me what you require represents a situation where basically every ISP is offering v6 and it's widely considered to have similar SLAs as v4 today has, and it's used sufficiently widely and is reliable. To get there in practice, ISPs will need users which require this kind of SLAs and reliability. So, while 90% user and content penetration is is not needed to reach this goal, it will need to be significantly higher than, say, 5%. Who are going to be the first v6 end-sites and content provides? It's a thankless job to be on the bleeding edge and it may be difficult to define a business case for it. -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
and a large chunk of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now. I keep hearing this, but could you indicate what parts of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now? I'm aware, for example, that NTT is using IPv6 for their FLETS service, but that is an internal transport service not connected to the Internet. I'm unaware (but would be very interested in hearing about) any service in Asia or Europe that is seeing significant IPv6 traffic. you mean aside from the ipv6 forum mailing list? [ note that ipv6 forum members do not actually run ipv6, they just think other people should. ] the stats i am seeing, and they are not really great measurements, but they're what we have, are coming up on 1% ipv6 traffic. and this is pretty much the same asia, europe, and north america, with less down south. My understanding is that there are lots of bits and pieces that are missing in the infrastructure, but that's almost irrelevant. What is _really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in the chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request IPv6. Without customer requests for IPv6, it's hard to make the business case to deploy the infrastructure to support it. Without infrastructure to support IPv6, it's hard to make the business case to deploy content on top of IPv6. actally, drc, here is where you and i diverge. there will never be demand for ipv6 from the end user. they just want their mtv, and do not care if it comes on ipv4, ipv6, or donkey-back. it is we operators, and the enterprise base, which will feel the ipv4 squeeze and need to seek alternatives. and, imiho, ipv6 is the preferable alternative we have today. and it is we the operators who get to make it deployable so that the customers will not have to care how their mtv is delivered. and the chicks ain't free. randy
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
On 2008-03-13, David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is _really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in the chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request IPv6. There are already things like http://ipv6.google.com/, though content which is _only_ available over IPv6 is probably more likely to stimulate demand.
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Leo Bicknell wrote: In a message written on Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:24PM -0500, Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote: Furthermore, he stated that networking equipment companies like Cisco will be moving away from IPv4 in 5 years or so. This is the first time I've heard this posited -- I had a hard believing that, but he claims it with some authority. Anyone hear anything like this? My own opinion is that we'll see dual-stack for at least a decade or two to come. ISP's are very good at one thing, driving out unnecessary cost. Running dual stack increases cost. While I'm not sure about the 5 year part, I'm sure ISP's will move to disable IPv4 support as soon as the market will let them as a cost saving measure. Runing for decades dual stacked does not make a lot of economic sense for all involved. labels in the core, for a long while. This transition will be about as smooth as the US moving to the metric system. (e.g. everyone buys soda in two liter bottles, wine in 750ml bottles, but can't mentally buy liters of gasolineor 1.1826 liters of beer, aka 'forty'). Same could be said for the Auto Industry. Thank [some dead mathematician] that 3/4 lug nuts are also 19mm or we'd really be screwed :-) No flag day here (I would pay serious money to see that happen though, it would be a total riot from the get go). There is some interesting movement in the US in particular to put up 'enough' v6 window dressing to be compliant with US gov't contracts and so on which will match up with the OMB [unfunded] mandate to be IPv6 compatible by this june. As for the SOHO, not sure if anything other the next chip revision and firmware are needed. Besides, will they be NAT boxen with a dozen application layer gateway helpers like today? Or will they be actual firewalls. Hard to say which is more difficult or code complex. With the pace of silicon replacement in SOHO product lines, the next silicon spin could do the either stack or both for the same cost. best regards, andy
Re: Tools to measure TCP connection speed
Son of a biscuit, they took the commands out of my 7200's and 6500's. You used to be able to just type ttcp and follow some prompts, I'm not sure that Cisco ever really documented much of it though. I had found it through DOTU back in the day. Quoted from Cisco about this: Note: The ttcp command is a hidden, unsupported, privileged mode command. As such, its availability may vary from one Cisco IOS software release to another, such that it might not exist in some releases. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/471/ttcp.html -Wil On Mar 13, 2008, at 10:28 AM, Gabor Ivanszky wrote: Hi Wil, could you give me a pointer how ttcp could be used router to router? cheers, Gabor Wil Schultz wrote: A couple of tools I use from time to time are iperf and ttcp. I'll run iperf on some host and either run ttcp to it from a router or iperf to another host. You can also run ttcp router to router. -wil
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2008-03-13, David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is _really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in the chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request IPv6. There are already things like http://ipv6.google.com/, though content which is _only_ available over IPv6 is probably more likely to stimulate demand. But there's no $$ benefit for being either the chicken or the egg. The carriers (many still with oversized debt loads) don't see any advantage for deployment in a general sense. But they'll likely have an easier time than access providers. it's a 'no thanks, but I need more address space' for many of the access providers, given the orders of magnitude of ports, customers, customer care, billing systems and so on that may have to be updated to handle yet another layer in their networks. And content providers without an audience are just toying around. Maybe they'll have the easiest time. hard to say. It's almost like the volunteer line, where everyone else in line has to step back so that someone gets stuck being first doing the dirty work. Same for the end user. They don't care how a microwave oven works, they simply toss in a bag, press the popcorn button and expect results. regards, andy
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
Randy, actally, drc, here is where you and i diverge. there will never be demand for ipv6 from the end user. they just want their mtv, and do not care if it comes on ipv4, ipv6, or donkey-back. I agree. What I meant was that customers will demand content and since that content is available (largely exclusively) over IPv4, it will be difficult to make the business case to deploy IPv6. it is we operators, and the enterprise base, which will feel the ipv4 squeeze and need to seek alternatives. and, imiho, ipv6 is the preferable alternative we have today. I can see a case being made for converting an ISP's network to IPv6- only with edges (both customer facing as well as core facing, the latter being the tricky bit) that take v4 packets and tunnel them across the v6 infrastructure since the ISP would then be unconstrained on infrastructure growth and be able to use all their existing v4 holdings to connect customers. This also provides those customers that are dual stacked (and who haven't turned off v6 because that's what the ISP/software vendor/etc. call center told them to do) native v6 connectivity. However, more realistically, I fear we're more likely to see a world of multi-layer NAT because (a) the technology exists, (b) the ISP doesn't have to learn much (if anything) new, and (c) it fits nicely into a walled garden business model that permits the ISP to sell value added services (e.g., a mere additional $5/month if you'd like port X forwarded.). Blech. Regards, -drc
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
There are already things like http://ipv6.google.com/, True, since yesterday. However, while I applaud their efforts, Google is still primarily a search engine. How much of the content Google serves up is accessible via IPv6? I might suggest reviewing http://bgp.he.net/ipv6-progress-report.cgi ... Regards, -drc
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, David Conrad wrote: There are already things like http://ipv6.google.com/, True, since yesterday. However, while I applaud their efforts, Google is still primarily a search engine. How much of the content Google serves up is accessible via IPv6? I might suggest reviewing http://bgp.he.net/ipv6-progress-report.cgi... Google is still a search engine, but through many of the products they've grown in-house (GMail, etc...) and acquired (YouTube, etc...), they control a growing amount of content jms
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Mohacsi Janos wrote: On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote: Actually Cisco 850 series does not support IPv6, only 870 series. We tested earlier cisco models also: 830 series has ipv6 support. My colleague tested NetScreen routers: apart for the smallest devices they have IPv6 support. However I think these devices are not consumer equipments. I would call SO (Small Office) devices. The HO (home office) devices are the ~ 50-100 USD devices - you rarely see official ipv6 support. The IPv6 support on 87x Cisco is nothing to write home about. It's not supported on most physical interfaces that exist on the devices. But it does work over tunnel interfaces if you have something on your lan to tunnel to. Pete
RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
The IPv6 support on 87x Cisco is nothing to write home about. It's not supported on most physical interfaces that exist on the devices. But it does work over tunnel interfaces if you have something on your lan to tunnel to. Pete It's not that bad. You can attach a v6 address to the 802.11 interface and the FastEthernet interface, but you can't put one on a BVI which means you need two /64's if you want v6 on wireless and wired. Regards, Mike PGP.sig Description: PGP signature
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: It's not that bad. You can attach a v6 address to the 802.11 interface and the FastEthernet interface, but you can't put one on a BVI which means you need two /64's if you want v6 on wireless and wired. That workaround does not work on the models with the 4 port switch integrated. (running 12.4T) Pete
RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
-Original Message- From: Petri Helenius [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:49 PM To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost Cc: Mohacsi Janos; Matthew Moyle-Croft; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers? Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: It's not that bad. You can attach a v6 address to the 802.11 interface and the FastEthernet interface, but you can't put one on a BVI which means you need two /64's if you want v6 on wireless and wired. That workaround does not work on the models with the 4 port switch integrated. (running 12.4T) Pete Check out: http://www.andbobsyouruncle.net and my wiki post on a v6 config. I *think* this has the module you're talking about and is running flash:c870-advipservicesk9-mz.124-15.XY.bin. Cisco 871W (MPC8272) processor (revision 0x200) with 118784K/12288K bytes of memory. Processor board ID FHK1109132B MPC8272 CPU Rev: Part Number 0xC, Mask Number 0x10 5 FastEthernet interfaces 1 802.11 Radio 128K bytes of non-volatile configuration memory. 24576K bytes of processor board System flash (Intel Strataflash) Regards, Mike PGP.sig Description: PGP signature
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
I have an 877m (no wireless): Vlan1 has an ipv6 address and and ipv6 nd prefix. All the devices plugged into the ethernet ports find out about IPv6 just peachy. c870-advipservicesk9-mz.124-15.T1.bin (Caveat: I'm running native dual stack over PPPoE because I can make the LNS do what I want) MMC Petri Helenius wrote: Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: It's not that bad. You can attach a v6 address to the 802.11 interface and the FastEthernet interface, but you can't put one on a BVI which means you need two /64's if you want v6 on wireless and wired. That workaround does not work on the models with the 4 port switch integrated. (running 12.4T) Pete -- Matthew Moyle-Croft - Internode/Agile - Networks Level 5, 150 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.on.net Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366 Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909 The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones - John Maynard Keynes
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
FWIW, I had reason to go over to a local Fry's (www.frys.com) and they had 2 SOHO routers that claimed to have IPv6 support: Linksys RVS4000 for $119.99 Linksys WRVS4400 for $209.99 No idea how well they support IPv6... Regards, -drc
Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, I had reason to go over to a local Fry's (www.frys.com) and they had 2 SOHO routers that claimed to have IPv6 support: Linksys RVS4000 for $119.99 Linksys WRVS4400 for $209.99 No idea how well they support IPv6... Looked at the manual, the only thing I could find regarding IPv6 connectivity was an option IP Versions * IPv4 Only. This option utilizes IPv4 on the Internet and local network * Dual-Stack IP. This option utilizes IPv4 over the Internet and IPv4 and IPv6 on the local network. No support for native connectivity on the WAN side apparently and no user-defined tunnels, so my guess is 6to4. Odd that you can manually specify the LAN IPv6 address, but well. Latest firmware readme talks about 6to4-only as well. Apple Airport Extreme can do 6to4 and manual proto-41 at least, the only other commercial SOHO product I could find that (according to the data-sheet) supports IPv6 is the Buffalo WZR-AG300NH. No hit in the (very brief) manual or the knowledge base though, so no idea how far this support is going. Best bet is still a WRT54G with OpenWRT :-\ Bernhard
Re: cost of dual-stack vs cost of v6-only [Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers?]
From: David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:48:43 -0700 Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jamie, On Mar 13, 2008, at 8:42 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote: MS, Apple, Linux, *BSD are ALL dual stack out of the box currently. The fact that the kernel may support IPv6 does not mean that IPv6 is actually usable (as events at NANOG, APRICOT, and the IETF have shown). There are lots of bits and pieces that are necessary for mere mortals to actually use IPv6. The core is IPv6/dual stack capable, even if it's not enabled everywhere, I'm told by some folks who run core networks for a living that while the routers may sling IPv6 packets as fast or faster than IPv4, doing so with ACLs, filter lists, statistics, monitoring, etc., is lacking. What's worse, the vendors aren't spinning the ASICs (which I'm told have a 2 to 3 year lead time from design to being shipped) necessary to do everything core routers are expected to do for IPv6 yet. and a large chunk of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now. I keep hearing this, but could you indicate what parts of Asia and Europe are running IPv6 right now? I'm aware, for example, that NTT is using IPv6 for their FLETS service, but that is an internal transport service not connected to the Internet. I'm unaware (but would be very interested in hearing about) any service in Asia or Europe that is seeing significant IPv6 traffic. The US Govt. is under mandate to transition to v6 by the end of the year. I thought parts of the USG were under a mandate to be IPv6 capable (whatever that means) by this summer. If there is a mandate to be running IPv6 within the USG by the end of the year, people are going to have to get very, very busy very, very quickly. The only bits that are missing right now are the routers and switches at the edge, and support from transit providers, My understanding is that there are lots of bits and pieces that are missing in the infrastructure, but that's almost irrelevant. What is _really_ missing is content accessible over IPv6 as it results in the chicken-or-egg problem: without content, few customers will request IPv6. Without customer requests for IPv6, it's hard to make the business case to deploy the infrastructure to support it. Without infrastructure to support IPv6, it's hard to make the business case to deploy content on top of IPv6. and if they're going to keep supplying the Fed with gear and connectivity, at least one major player in those areas of the NA market is going to HAVE to make it happen. Remember GOSIP? Oh, boy, do I remember GOSIP. Deja vu, in too many ways. Just to clarify, the current mandates for US government IPv6 implementation is quite constrained. 1. For some time computer equipment/software had to be IPv6 capable. No definition of 'capable' and the usual weasel words so that it's not really hard to ge around, but it move IPv6 up the check-list quite a ways. 2. The implementation mandate is restricted to government 'backbone' networks. That really means that US Government network providers which connect government facilities need to be capable of running IPv6. Not end systems, LANS, or any networks within a single facility. This means DREN, DISA, DOJ, DOI, DOE, etc. networks need to support IPv6, but networks at a laboratory or military base don't and no end systems or servers need to do IPv6. It is possible that an infrstructure support service like DNS, at least for addresses in the external nets, will need IPv6 support, but not facility servers. It is likely (nearly certain) that the requirements for IPv6 will expand to cover facility networks and end systems, but it is not clear that they will actually require IPv6 user, just capability, though this is also considered as likely. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 pgptermTVHS5p.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Joel: Besides the CM and CMTS itself, can the CPE attached to the CM use IPv6 if the CMTS has the right code to handle IPv6-based DHCP relay? To be clear, even if the CMTS doesn't have DOCSIS 3.0 support? Standing from a distance, I don't see why IPv6 on the routing piece of the CMTS has to require a DOCSIS 3.0 blade and/or CM. Regards, Frank -Original Message- From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 8:48 AM To: Mark Newton Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: IPv6 on SOHO routers? Mark Newton wrote: Those of us who use ADSL or (heaven forbid) Cable are kinda out of luck. I haven't yet found ADSL2+ CPE that does IPv6 over PPPoE or PPPoA out of the box. Any cablelebs certified docsis 3.0 CM or CMTS supports ipv6. Your cable provider will have to upgrade their CMTS (line card swap) before you can leverage it directly on the cable in a consumer environment. DSL aggregation routers are challenge where again equipment lifecycle plays in to whether you're in a position to deploy. (Billion in Taiwan has a device which they've stamped an IPv6 Ready sticker onto, but the IPv6 version of the software hasn't left the confines of their lab yet) As far as I've been able to determine, IPv6 SOHO CPE is largely vaporware right now. And lets not even get started on residential grade CPE, that doesn't even appear to be on most vendors' radar _at all_. If anything useful is going to happen in this space, my guess is that it'll be with custom Linux firmware running on a LinkSys blob with no vendor support. - mark -- Mark Newton Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (W) Network Engineer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (H) Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 Network Man - Anagram of Mark Newton Mobile: +61-416-202-223
