Status update on IPv6 in Canada Cairns, 6 July 2004 Chief Engineer

CA*net 4 Objectives provide and operate a high performance IP network in support of research and education amongst higher education institutions, government research labs, schools, etc. provide a lightpath customer empowered networking infrastructure which will enable end-users to control the routing of their own wavelengths end-users buy, establish, and tear-down their own optical links using OON concepts complement innovation performed in industry, as opposed to duplicate or compete

CA*net 4 IP backbone, RANs, and intl exchange points

CANARIE and IPv6 > Operates CA*net4, a nation-wide layer 1 and 3 (hybrid) network > Layer 3 network piece supports native IPv6 connections to provincial R&E networks and to 6TAP since operational in July 2002 > IPv6 is a peer protocl to IPv4 in all respects > tunnels to end-users or institutions supported if native is impossible > CANARIE has co-funded a number of IPv6 projects led by Hexago (Viagénie) including creation of 6TAP and freenet6. > Hexago develops IPv6 migration broker > encourages migration of applications to IPv6, e.g. v6NNTP

IPv6 value proposition > why do it? > for end users: – re-establish end-end principle of the Internet – provide more address space – eliminate need for NATs due to address exhaustion > for backbones: – dramatically aggregate BGP table – simplify address allocation and routing policy implementation

IPv6 multihoming workshop > held IPv6 multihoming workshop in Montréal in May 2003, attended by – Tony Hain (Cisco) – Michel Py (IETF v6 wgs) – Jeff Doyle (Juniper) – Marc Blanchet (Viagénie / Hexago) – Guy Almes, Rick Summerhill (Internet2) – Caren Litvanyi (StarLight) – Bill St-Arnaud,... (CANARIE) – Luc Desrosiers, Yves Boudreau (RISQ)

IPv6 multihoming workshop conclusions > > IPv6 hierarchical address allocation will not work in multihoming world > result: IPv6 routing à la IPv4

IPv6 value proposition > why do it? > for end users: – re-establish end-end model other solutions (hacks) – provide more address space not yet a concern in Canada – eliminate need for NATs due to address exhaustion but is address exhaustion main reason NATs are used? > for backbones: – dramatically aggregate BGP table – simplify address allocation and routing policy implementation not in a multihomed world > assuming unique IP addressing for all hosts, fundamentally there is little IPv6 brings to applicationlayer that IPv4 cannot deliver

status today > today in Canada, IPv6 brings little benefits, but significant costs to institutions and carriers an ISPs > progress is extremely slow – need to convince end institutions and researchers of the value – need to find value proposition for carriers and ISPs – need to get more application support > accepting all IPv6 routes in same way as IPv4 – IPv6 à la IPv4 > CA*net 4 accepts all commercial routes until such time as commercial providers offer IPv6 services commensurate with IPv4 offerings > CA*net 4 will support IPv6 multicast by end of 2004 > waiting to see what happens...