13 Comments

Summary:

[qi:051] The time has finally come for the world to migrate to IPv6 from IPv4 -– or at least that was the message delivered by a collection of networking experts at the RIPE 55 conference late last month in Amsterdam. Out of this conference came a […]

[qi:051] The time has finally come for the world to migrate to IPv6 from IPv4 -– or at least that was the message delivered by a collection of networking experts at the RIPE 55 conference late last month in Amsterdam. Out of this conference came a hilarious and very geeky song about how this change to IPv6 will more than likely cause operations and routing issues for network operators throughout the Internet. Regardless, it appears that the addressing scheme for every device on the Internet may finally be set for a transition — and the networking issues that may ensue could be far-reaching.

Taking a step back, it is absolutely clear that IPv6 offers significant networking advances, such as the ability to provide more addresses for devices on the Internet (3.4×1038 addresses total as compared to IPv4’s 4.2 billion address), an easier way for devices to autoconfigure their own addresses, a built-in mechanism for multicast and data security using IPsec. All of the IPv6 features promise to make the Internet scale better, support new services and have tighter security.

And while that is a good thing for the Internet, what is not so good is the probable pain of transition. After 20 years of building, running and fixing issues on networks running IPv4, moving onto IPv6 for a network operator is like ending of a relationship – painful but inevitable, and with the promise of meeting someone even better right around the corner.

As a simple example, according to a RIPE 55 presentation on the global state of IPv6, the number of prefixes (networks or portions of networks) running the new protocol is close to 1,000. Compare that to the number of global IPv4 prefixes — upwards of 200,000 and counting (and to the networking experts out there, I am aware that the addressing allocations and mechanisms in IPv6 allow for greater aggregation, thus reducing the overall number of global prefixes). Even with the number of prefixes on IPv6 an order of magnitude less on IPv4, there are routing issues that network operators will need to deal with on a daily basis. Those routing problems lead to packets that travel in loops, disappear into routing black holes and are hard for experts to diagnose because of the lack of operations tools and experience. And that is without the widespread use of IPv6 multihoming, the ability for an organization to use two different network operators for connectivity and not commit to a monogamous relationship. Like dating two different people, splitting your packets between two network operators can cause problems as well.

Even vendors that have had IPv6 support in their products for years, such as Juniper (JNPR), still see significant issues on their firewalls and need to resolve them. In fairness, all networking vendors have bugs in nearly every networking protocol — including IPv4 — but the lack of operational experience by the network operators makes debugging these issues harder and more time-consuming. It is clear to everyone that IPv6 is still in its infancy when it comes to global scale and operations. That translates into slower web sites, more downtime and fewer Google (GOOG) ads delivered.

So what is a typical organization to do? If you’ve been focusing on your web 2.0 application and ignoring the network as technology that just works, the time has come to learn about networking and IPv6. If you’re going to have a significant web presence in the next few years, you will want to use more than one network operator for Internet connectivity and that will undoubtedly result in new operational issues as IPv6 networks interconnect, the prefix counts increase and more multihoming gets put to use.

There is a new girl in town, her name is IPv6 and she’s clearly better than your old flame. Yet, like all relationships, there will be some bumps along the way and it will take some time for you to get used to each other. I suspect that we’ll be hearing a few new songs from the networking geeks in the near future, perhaps this time with a tune that you can dance to.

  1. This is a very serious problem that should be adressed in the coming years. One of the main questions that was discussed at the RIPE meeting however was how to deal with the transition period. The debate is well framed by Geoff Huston http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/huston-ipv4.pdf

    The European incumbent telco organisation ETNO argued that we should do nothing, signalling that they have more than enough adresses and getting mechanisms in place to help others, will only improve competition something ETNO has always been firmly against. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/mcfadden-etno.pdf

    Remco van Mook argued that there should be a market mechanism within the existing framework of the assignment of IP-blocks. This would allow the legitimate and controlled transfer of IP-blocks from one party to the next and would severely discourage any attempts to bypass the current system, which would lead to chaos. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/vanmook-v4policy-change.pdf

    Peter Lothberg also held a great presentation on a different subject namely, How to get 40Gbit/s to your mother: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/lothberg-40-gb-to-my-mother.pdf

    Share
  2. [...] Wow, this very well maybe the dorkiest thing I’ve ever posted. For more detailed information, check out the post on GigaOM. [...]

    Share
  3. Nope, disagree. IPv6 is a solution to a problem that largely doesn’t exist any more. It did when the WG got together, but it just isn’t an issue any more with NAT (+ NAT traversal techniques becoming mature).

    Basically, there’s no economic or functional benefit for any of the big players to switch. So they won’t.

    Share
  4. Einar Vollset, you mentioned there’s no any benefit but as I know, still BIG players including Defense & Government or Network operators continue to do their efforts. So I’m wondering that maturing NAT techniques are enough for all those things what IPv6 promised? (for mobile devices or home networking or etc) Can you show me anything backing your point of view?

    Share
  5. Did you know that you’re listed as one of the “Top Posts” on WordPress? That’s awesome…congrats!

    Share
  6. There is a well known benefit for Mergers and Acquisitions. As an enterprise network operator, my management just bought a company that has the same RFC 1918 address space as me (say, for example we all use 10.x.x.x addresses).

    What are the costs of re-addressing one of those networks?

    IPv6 could solve this.

    Thanks.

    Share
  7. Einar Vollset – The problem is that even with NAT, we’re rapidly running out of available IPv4 for additional Internet growth. See Geoff Huston’s excellent analysis (updated daily) at:
    < http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html&gt;

    /John

    Share
  8. The questions is “how could ISPs
    encouraged to migrate to ipv6.

    Here is thats another idea what i found
    a few days before

    http://www.ipv6porn.com

    Share
  9. [...] IPv6 does offer advantages over IPv4, the transition to this new Internet addressing scheme is not without controversy and contention in the Internet community. There are more than a few technical issues that need solving before we [...]

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post