Deploying IPv6 Across the Internet2 Infrastructure Rick Summerhill Associate Director, Backbone Network Infrastructure, Internet2 North American IPv6 Global Summit San Diego, CA 24 June 2003 This is a general overview presentation about Internet2. Internet2 is a consortium, led by US universities, which is recreating the partnership among academia, industry and government that fostered today’s Internet in its infancy.

Outline General Internet2 Infrastructure IPv6 Deployment Internet2 Goals Abilene Partners Abilene Backbone Connectors Peers Focus IPv6 Deployment Goals History Backbone Measurement Support 9/21/2018

Internet2 Goals Create a leading edge network capability for the national research community Enable revolutionary Internet applications Ensure the rapid transfer of new network services and applications to the broader Internet community. Partnerships are the foundation of how the Internet developed and they are also a part of the foundation of Internet2. 9/21/2018

Partners Internet2 Cisco Systems Indiana University Juniper Networks Nortel Networks Qwest Communications North Carolina, Ohio, San Diego ITECs Partnerships are the foundation of how the Internet developed and they are also a part of the foundation of Internet2. 9/21/2018

Abilene Backbone Topology Abilene backbone – OC-192c over unprotected DWDM waves with SONET framing In final stages of an upgrade to OC-192c Often easier to deploy advanced services on a backbone network than at the edges Multicast IPv6 Topology 9/21/2018

Abilene Backbone (Late Summer 2003) 9/21/2018

Abilene Backbone (Early Summer 2003) 9/21/2018

Abilene scale (April 2003) 48 direct connections (OC-3c  10-Gbps) 2 10-Gbps connections (both 10-Gigabit Ethernet) 6 OC-48c 1 Gigabit Ethernet 23 connections at OC-12c (622 Mbps) or higher 221 participants – universities and labs All 50 states, District of Columbia, & Puerto Rico Recently: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Expanded access 85 sponsored participants 28 state education networks 9/21/2018

Abilene Federal/Research Peering (Late Spring 2003) 09 January 2002 Last updated: 17 January 2003 Abilene Federal/Research Peering (Late Spring 2003) 9/21/2018

Abilene International Peering (Late Spring 2003) 09 January 2002 Abilene International Peering (Late Spring 2003) 9/21/2018

Internet2 Infrastructure The Full Internet2 infrastructure is diverse and complex Backbone is relatively simple Management provided by Indiana Global NOC Testing by Internet2 Test and Evaluation Centers (ITECs) Connectors often exhibit a complicated hierarchy Some research institutions connected directly Some are connected through regional networks, state networks, and some have complex campus networks Land Grant institutions often have county extension offices Diversity/Complexity increases as one gets closer to the edges of the network Influences the way IPv6 is implemented Consider the classic IPv6 addressing/routing plan, with potentially multiple connections, in this diverse infrastructure 9/21/2018

Internet2 Infrastructure Simple to Complex Hierarchies within the Internet2 Infrastructures DNS and multi-homing issues within these types of hierarchies 9/21/2018

Abilene Focus Areas - 2003 Advanced Services IPv6 and Multicast (and IPv6 Multicast) All the following include both IPv4 and IPv6 – the common bearer service for Abilene is both IPv4 and IPv6 Facilitating end-to-end performance Supporting network research – Abilene Observatory Experimenting with MPLS/VPN on backbone Supporting large MTUs Security and the REN-ISAC 9/21/2018

Internet2 IPv6 Goals Support and encourage development of advanced applications using IPv6 Create a national infrastructure to support IPv6 Implement IPv6 on Abilene Backbone Encourage deployment of IPv6 throughout the Internet2 infrastructure Support end-2-end transparency for IPv6 advanced applications Important issue for high performance applications High performance applications often have trouble with NATs Provide a more robust infrastructure to provide security Educating the Internet2 IPv6 user base Support interconnectivity and transit during the initial stages of IPv6 deployment 9/21/2018

Abilene IPv6 History Substantial input from the Internet2 IPv6 working group Initial Tunnel Approach At the beginning stages, code was not available for backbone routers Cisco donated four 7200 routers for a tunnel deployment, originally located in gigapops Tunnels across the IPv4 backbone, and to IPv4 connectors Gigapops used tunneled connections to this “tunnel backbone”, and connected universities also using tunnels Routing – BGP and RIP-NG (later ISIS) Relatively simple process – tunnel interfaces with v6 addresses 9/21/2018

Abilene IPv6 History 9/21/2018

Abilene IPv6 History Transition to native dual stack backbone Found we couldn’t do high-bandwidth applications across the tunnel backbone. DVTS video application from Japan to DC stressed tunnel approach Major concern was the effect of IPv6 on IPv4 performance IPv6 configured on backbone routers – originally Cisco GSRs, now Juniper T-640s Tunnel backbone and dual stack backbone connected together – Internal BGP and IS-IS. Connectors transitioned to native dual stack mode Tunnel backbone gradually replaced and reduced – now down to one router to support legacy tunnel connectors. Router is located at Indiana NOC. 9/21/2018

Abilene IPv6 Backbone Currently a native IPv6 Dual Stack implementation Fully deployed on all Abilene Routers Routing is BGP and ISIS (for both IPv4 and IPv6) Peering and connectivity does not fall under the Abilene CoU Is there interest in Abilene IPv6 connectivity? Legacy tunnel connections still supported on single router at Indianapolis Successful Tests: 8 Gbps across backbone IPv6 only and mixed IPv6/IPv4 9/21/2018

Abilene IPv6 Backbone Addressing Plan Currently have /32, originally was a /35 Allocate a /40 to a gigapop or a /48 to a university Some gigapops have 12 member universities and had to allocate their /40 to those universities plus state networks Universities immediately felt constrained by this Recall that some universities have locations in potentially 200 counties within a state (i.e. Land Grant Institutions) WiscREN and Pittsburgh gigapops have obtained their own space Some universities attempting to obtain space – could satisfy current ARIN guidelines 9/21/2018

Abilene IPv6 Backbone Current IPv6 Connectors Current IPv6 Peers Front Range Gigapop Great Plains Network Indiana Gigapop Intermountain Gigapop MAGPI MREN Merit Mid-Atlantic Crossroads NYSERNet North Texas Gigapop Northern Crossroads Northern Lights OneNet Oregon Gigapop Pittsburgh Gigapop SDSC/UCSD University of Memphis WiscREN Current IPv6 Peers ASNet CUDI CA*net ESnet GEANT HARnet HEAnet Hurricane Electric Kreonet NORDUnet Surfnet WIDE Other Peers DTF vBNS Exchange Points: 6Tap (StarTap) StarLight PacWave 9/21/2018

Abilene IPv6 Backbone Current Connectors/Peers IPv6 Multicast DNS 18 native connections 17 native peers IPv6 Multicast Testing at North Carolina ITEC Internet2 consensus is that SSM is the appropriate direction for multicast under IPv6 Need layer 2 devices to do the correct thing DNS Production type server for reverse lookups at NOC – points to gigapop servers for details Connectors/members handle there own forward lookups Simple implementations right now 9/21/2018

Abilene IPv6 Backbone Will provide an IPv6 Measurement Infrastructure Attempt to perform measurements using IPv4 and IPv6 Need for MIBs for basic measurements via SNMP Types of data collected One way latency tests Throughput measurements Netflow measurements Routing End-2-end performance testing 9/21/2018

IPv6 in Gigapops, Campus Implementing IPv6 in gigaPoPs is similar to implementing on backbone, although there are different approaches Most are native connections now Some tunnels persist back to the campus or even to individual departments Campus implementations vary, but are gradually progressing, and are migrating deeper into the campus environments Problems include: Older equipment in locations where there is reluctance to upgrade because of a production environment DNS – often done on separate servers Deploying other applications Fear of deploying IPv6 servers in dual stack mode Naming issues 9/21/2018

Internet2 Support for IPv6 Tutorials Two day workshops, hands-on experience Descriptions and planning guides http://ipv6.internet2.edu/workshops/index.shtml Alternate discussion/lecture with hands-on work Slides are available http://ipv6.internet2.edu/fiu/presentations/ Very popular events 9/21/2018

Internet2 Support for IPv6 Topics Addressing Allocation Schemes Router Configuration Basic Functionality Multi-homing Multi-homing Lab Provider Independent Addressing Provider Independent Addressing Lab Under the Hood Stateless Autoconfiguration Neighbor Solicitation Transition and Tunnels DNS Unix Hosts Microsoft Windows DVTS ISIS GigaPoP Implementations 9/21/2018

Internet2 IPv6 Deployment Issues Addressing and routing – multi-homing Abilene currently has a /32, allocates /40 prefixes to large connectors, /48 prefixes to universities The classic model for IPv6 is PA addressing, to contain the size/stability of the global routing table – potentially very large if using PI addressing. Recall the complicated hierarchy within our infrastructure Within the next 6 months, we expect member institutions to inherit multiple prefixes, potentially from 2 or more research networks and 2 or more commodity networks Policy requirements complicate the multi-homing problem 9/21/2018

Internet2 IPv6 Deployment Issues – The Multi-homing Problem 9/21/2018

Internet2 IPv6 Deployment Issues – The Multi-homing Problem How should we deal with this problem? We have to make this work. Should we allow others to punch holes in the Internet2 prefix? Should we punch holes in the prefixes of other research networks? Should we encourage all connectors to obtain their own space? At some point in the hierarchy, this solution doesn’t work How to deal with multiple addresses is very important to our deployment Does the punching of holes in PA space make sense? Would it make more sense to allocate some PI space, make it work for now, allowing time for development of a solution to the multi-homing problem? Use some scheme, possibly one geographically based, to allow for a few years of development? 9/21/2018

Internet2 IPv6 Deployment Issues Routing databases – are these useful? Should we deploy an IPv6 RADB database? Experimental at first, production later? 9/21/2018

Internet2 IPv6 Deployment Issues References http://www.internet2.edu http://abilene.internet2.edu http://ipv6.internet2.edu abilene@internet2.edu Questions? 9/21/2018

9/21/2018