From info at arin.net Fri Feb 8 16:20:13 2013 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 16:20:13 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Consultation: Changing the Voter Eligibility for ARIN Member Organizations Message-ID: <51156C0D.5000408@arin.net> Thanks to everyone who participated thus far in the voter eligibility consultation. Before we close the consultation on Tuesday, we wanted to review the discussion to date. We appreciate your valuable feedback. The proposed change to voter eligibility was mainly aimed to increase eligibility, and thus number of votes cast, by allowing those Members without a valid Designated Member Representative (DMR) on file to have someone vote. While ARIN does typically have good voter turnout (as compared to other associations), the change was proposed to remove the task of managing the DMR contact that may have been an impediment to some organizations voting. There were a number of responses put forth during the consultation: Some of you warned ARIN of unintended consequences of such a procedural change including security issues, increased costs, and that "many persons [with] one vote only creates more problems". There were also ideas presented for an alternate approach including allowing the Admin POC to easily designate which POC should be allowed to cast their organizations one vote. This approach could potentially eliminate the need for organizations to have a separate POC to maintain (DMR) and more easily allow organizations to vote that don't meet the existing DMR email criteria: * Not be that of a role account (info@, hostmaster@, support@) * Must contain a person's name or initials (joesmith@, joes @, js@) * Have a domain matching the Organization or DBA name that ARIN has on file Considering the voices of opposition to the proposed change thus far, it appears prudent at this time to maintain existing practices with respect to Designated Member Representatives for voting.We also would encourage further discussion on the requirements for DMR contacts and automation of their management at the upcoming ARIN 31 meeting in Bridgetown, Barbados on 21-24 April 2013. Be sure to send any final comments to this list by end of day Tuesday 12 February. Regards, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Fri Feb 8 17:02:26 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 14:02:26 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Consultation: Changing the Voter Eligibility for ARIN Member Organizations In-Reply-To: <51156C0D.5000408@arin.net> References: <51156C0D.5000408@arin.net> Message-ID: On Feb 8, 2013, at 13:20 , ARIN wrote: > Thanks to everyone who participated thus far in the voter eligibility consultation. Before we close the consultation on Tuesday, we wanted to review the discussion to date. We appreciate your valuable feedback. > > > > The proposed change to voter eligibility was mainly aimed to increase eligibility, and thus number of votes cast, by allowing those Members without a valid Designated Member Representative (DMR) on file to have someone vote. While ARIN does typically have good voter turnout (as compared to other associations), the change was proposed to remove the task of managing the DMR contact that may have been an impediment to some organizations voting. > > > > There were a number of responses put forth during the consultation: > > > > Some of you warned ARIN of unintended consequences of such a procedural change including security issues, increased costs, and that "many persons [with] one vote only creates more problems?. > I would summarize that as "many persons [sharing] one vote..." > > > There were also ideas presented for an alternate approach including allowing the Admin POC to easily designate which POC should be allowed to cast their organizations one vote. This approach could potentially eliminate the need for organizations to have a separate POC to maintain (DMR) and more easily allow organizations to vote that don?t meet the existing DMR email criteria: > > > > Not be that of a role account (info@, hostmaster@, support@) > Must contain a person's name or initials (joesmith@, joes?@, js@) > Have a domain matching the Organization or DBA name that ARIN has on file This last one is consistently problematic, esp. for consultants who often don't have an email address affiliated with the ORG in question and even more often would prefer to maintain a single login for all of their DMR activities with a single associated email address. I know it is relatively common for ARIN to end up putting special waivers in place to address this particular issue, so I would suggest having a documented non-exceptional mechanism for addressing that reality is well worth the effort. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jesse at la-broadband.com Fri Feb 8 17:04:47 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 22:04:47 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Consultation: Changing the Voter Eligibility for ARIN Member Organizations In-Reply-To: <51156C0D.5000408@arin.net> Message-ID: John, Thank you for giving us the opportunity to contribute. I think the resulting course is the wisest one. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC From: ARIN > Date: Friday, February 8, 2013 1:20 PM To: "arin-discuss at arin.net" > Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Consultation: Changing the Voter Eligibility for ARIN Member Organizations Thanks to everyone who participated thus far in the voter eligibility consultation. Before we close the consultation on Tuesday, we wanted to review the discussion to date. We appreciate your valuable feedback. The proposed change to voter eligibility was mainly aimed to increase eligibility, and thus number of votes cast, by allowing those Members without a valid Designated Member Representative (DMR) on file to have someone vote. While ARIN does typically have good voter turnout (as compared to other associations), the change was proposed to remove the task of managing the DMR contact that may have been an impediment to some organizations voting. There were a number of responses put forth during the consultation: Some of you warned ARIN of unintended consequences of such a procedural change including security issues, increased costs, and that "many persons [with] one vote only creates more problems?. There were also ideas presented for an alternate approach including allowing the Admin POC to easily designate which POC should be allowed to cast their organizations one vote. This approach could potentially eliminate the need for organizations to have a separate POC to maintain (DMR) and more easily allow organizations to vote that don?t meet the existing DMR email criteria: * Not be that of a role account (info@, hostmaster@, support@) * Must contain a person's name or initials (joesmith@, joes?@, js@) * Have a domain matching the Organization or DBA name that ARIN has on file Considering the voices of opposition to the proposed change thus far, it appears prudent at this time to maintain existing practices with respect to Designated Member Representatives for voting. We also would encourage further discussion on the requirements for DMR contacts and automation of their management at the upcoming ARIN 31 meeting in Bridgetown, Barbados on 21-24 April 2013. Be sure to send any final comments to this list by end of day Tuesday 12 February. Regards, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From info at arin.net Wed Feb 13 13:47:32 2013 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:47:32 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Voter Eligibility Consultation Now Closed Message-ID: <511BDFC4.5010709@arin.net> The ARIN member consultation on a proposed change to voter eligibility is now closed. We thank everyone who participated and shared their views. We were pleased to see a lively discussion and gather detailed feedback on this topic. In response to the overwhelming opposition to the proposed change, ARIN will maintain its existing practice of the Designated Member Representative being the sole eligible voter for an organization. We will, however, add the text below to our website to clarify the exception to the requirement that the voter-email domain must match the Organization or DBA name that ARIN has on file. Exceptions: DMRs can be made eligible to vote even if they don't meet this criteria, if the organization's ADMIN POC provides a URL demonstrating the affiliation between the organization/DBA name and DMR email domain or writes to info at arin.net explaining that the DMR is a doing consulting work for the company. We welcome further discussion on the requirements for DMR contacts and automation of their management at the upcoming ARIN 31 meeting in Bridgetown, Barbados on 21-24 April 2013. Regards, Communication and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kkriegel at cyberlynk.net Fri Feb 22 11:32:15 2013 From: kkriegel at cyberlynk.net (Kerry L. Kriegel) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:32:15 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 Message-ID: <00ac01ce111a$2c92c080$85b84180$@cyberlynk.net> We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before we could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last week that we decided to "roll out" IPv6 and see how things looked. After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers in our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel networks at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our backbone and started looking at Google. It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and HE is still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list had any "inside" information about the problem and whether or not there was an end in sight. It seems to me that having a disconnect between two major players is going to hinder IPv6 adaptation. Thank you, Kerry L. Kriegel Network Operations Engineer Cyberlynk Network, Inc. Office: 414-858-9335 Fax: 414-858-9336 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michael at birdhosting.com Fri Feb 22 11:52:38 2013 From: michael at birdhosting.com (Michael Wallace) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 08:52:38 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 Message-ID: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com> There are plenty of providers out there that do IPv6. We are currently terminating to a bunch of them. Abovenet, Level3, HE, etc etc. Are you broadcasting the BGP for these? Thanks, Michael Wallace Bird Hosting ---------------------------------------- From: "Kerry L. Kriegel" Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:48 AM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before we could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last week that we decided to "roll out" IPv6 and see how things looked. After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers in our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel networks at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our backbone and started looking at Google. It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and HE is still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list had any "inside" information about the problem and whether or not there was an end in sight. It seems to me that having a disconnect between two major players is going to hinder IPv6 adaptation. Thank you, Kerry L. Kriegel Network Operations Engineer Cyberlynk Network, Inc. Office: 414-858-9335 Fax: 414-858-9336 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net Fri Feb 22 12:07:59 2013 From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:07:59 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <00ac01ce111a$2c92c080$85b84180$@cyberlynk.net> References: <00ac01ce111a$2c92c080$85b84180$@cyberlynk.net> Message-ID: <5127A5EF.3030709@burnttofu.net> On 02/22/2013 08:32, Kerry L. Kriegel wrote: > We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before we could > do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS upgrades on our > backbone. We got enough of that finished last week that we decided to > ?roll out? IPv6 and see how things looked. > > After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers in our > data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel networks at home > (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our backbone and started looking > at Google. I assumed you looked at Google as a search engine and not Google as a service provider. (I was confused at first by your mention of Google...) > It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and HE is > still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list had any > ?inside? information about the problem and whether or not there was an > end in sight. I doubt it: Not in the timeframe that you will want to roll out IPv6. > It seems to me that having a disconnect between two major > players is going to hinder IPv6 adaptation. Not really. Most networks have multiple transit providers and/or settlement-free peers (you need multiple providers for basic redundancy anyway), and those providers and peers increasingly support IPv6. So, you just need to make sure that your transit providers put together can get you a full IPv6 route table. Peering disputes happen in IPv4 as well, and this also protects you against that sort of issue. I think that applications/management/security is still harder in IPv6 than getting the routing right, although security support is rapidly getting better. michael From jay at impulse.net Fri Feb 22 12:26:34 2013 From: jay at impulse.net (Jay Hennigan) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:26:34 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <00ac01ce111a$2c92c080$85b84180$@cyberlynk.net> References: <00ac01ce111a$2c92c080$85b84180$@cyberlynk.net> Message-ID: <5127AA4A.9000506@impulse.net> On 2/22/13 8:32 AM, Kerry L. Kriegel wrote: > It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and HE is > still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list had any > ?inside? information about the problem and whether or not there was an > end in sight. I doubt it. Hurricane did everything but bake Cogent a cake to get them to peer. Then they did that too. http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/10/22/peering-disputes-migrate-to-ipv6/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CObnXjmDtg > It seems to me that having a disconnect between two major > players is going to hinder IPv6 adaptation. That's why you want to be multi-homed. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Advanced Communications - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net Fri Feb 22 12:02:08 2013 From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:02:08 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <00ac01ce111a$2c92c080$85b84180$@cyberlynk.net> References: <00ac01ce111a$2c92c080$85b84180$@cyberlynk.net> Message-ID: <5127A490.1050203@burnttofu.net> On 02/22/2013 08:32, Kerry L. Kriegel wrote: > We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before we could > do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS upgrades on our > backbone. We got enough of that finished last week that we decided to > ?roll out? IPv6 and see how things looked. > > After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers in our > data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel networks at home > (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our backbone and started looking > at Google. I assumed you looked at Google as a search engine and not Google as a service provider. (I was confused at first by your mention of Google...) > It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and HE is > still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list had any > ?inside? information about the problem and whether or not there was an > end in sight. I doubt it: Not in the timeframe that you will want to roll out IPv6. > It seems to me that having a disconnect between two major > players is going to hinder IPv6 adaptation. Not really. Most networks have multiple transit providers and/or settlement-free peers (you need multiple providers for basic redundancy anyway), and those providers and peers increasingly support IPv6. So, you just need to make sure that your transit providers put together can get you a full IPv6 route table. Peering disputes happen in IPv4 as well, and this also protects you against that sort of issue. I think that applications/management/security is still harder in IPv6 than getting the routing right, although security support is rapidly getting better. michael From oliver at zerolag.com Fri Feb 22 12:58:42 2013 From: oliver at zerolag.com (Oliver Ddin) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:58:42 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <00ac01ce111a$2c92c080$85b84180$@cyberlynk.net> References: <00ac01ce111a$2c92c080$85b84180$@cyberlynk.net> Message-ID: We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before we could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last week that we decided to "roll out" IPv6 and see how things looked. After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers in our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel networks at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our backbone and started looking at Google. It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and HE is still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list had any "inside" information about the problem and whether or not there was an end in sight. It seems to me that having a disconnect between two major players is going to hinder IPv6 adaptation. This isn't a squabble per se - HE have always expressed that they are more than happy to peer with Cogent - They even sent them a cake at one point. Nonetheless, the whole thing ultimately comes down to competition; Cogent's opinion is (cough cough, allegedly) that HE should be paying them for peering. Sensibly, HE hasn't acquiesced to that and so we practically end up with two IPv6 Internets - I'll leave it to you to decide who is running the better connected one. I don't think there's any end in sight, but maybe one day Cogent's IPv6 prefix reachability will become ghastly enough for them and/or their customers that they change their tune. Regardless of that of course, this speaks to exactly why single-homing yourself is typically not in your best interests. Oliver Ddin Senior Network Engineer & Chief IPv6 Architect ZeroLag Communications ZeroLag - Embracing IPv6: http://www.zerolag.com/ipv6 Disclaimer: All content, opinions and statements herein are entirely my own. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hannigan at gmail.com Fri Feb 22 13:05:37 2013 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:05:37 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <5127AA4A.9000506@impulse.net> References: <00ac01ce111a$2c92c080$85b84180$@cyberlynk.net> <5127AA4A.9000506@impulse.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote: > On 2/22/13 8:32 AM, Kerry L. Kriegel wrote: > >> It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and HE is >> still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list had any >> ?inside? information about the problem and whether or not there was an >> end in sight. > > I doubt it. Hurricane did everything but bake Cogent a cake to get them > to peer. Then they did that too. > > http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/10/22/peering-disputes-migrate-to-ipv6/ > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CObnXjmDtg > Maybe it's just a typo in the router config? :) From james.cornick at jchost.net Fri Feb 22 13:31:54 2013 From: james.cornick at jchost.net (JCHost.net - James Cornick) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:31:54 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: <00ac01ce111a$2c92c080$85b84180$@cyberlynk.net> Message-ID: <5127B99A.1030803@jchost.net> I literally just fell out of my chair from laughing. On 2/22/2013 11:58 AM, Oliver Ddin wrote: > > We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before we > could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS upgrades > on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last week that we > decided to "roll out" IPv6 and see how things looked. > > After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers in > our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel networks > at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our backbone and > started looking at Google. > > It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and HE is > still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list had any > "inside" information about the problem and whether or not there was an > end in sight. It seems to me that having a disconnect between two > major players is going to hinder IPv6 adaptation. > > This isn't a squabble per se -- HE have always expressed that they are > more than happy to peer with Cogent -- They even sent them a cake at > one point. Nonetheless, the whole thing ultimately comes down to > competition; Cogent's opinion is (cough cough, allegedly) that HE > should be paying them for peering. Sensibly, HE hasn't acquiesced to > that and so we practically end up with two IPv6 Internets -- I'll > leave it to you to decide who is running the better connected one. > > I don't think there's any end in sight, but maybe one day Cogent's > IPv6 prefix reachability will become ghastly enough for them and/or > their customers that they change their tune. > > Regardless of that of course, this speaks to exactly why single-homing > yourself is typically not in your best interests. > > Oliver Ddin > > Senior Network Engineer & Chief IPv6 Architect > > ZeroLag Communications > > ZeroLag - Embracing IPv6: > > http://www.zerolag.com/ipv6 > > Disclaimer: All content, opinions and statements herein are entirely > my own. > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msalim at localweb.com Fri Feb 22 14:02:36 2013 From: msalim at localweb.com (Mike A. Salim) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:02:36 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 References: <00ac01ce111a$2c92c080$85b84180$@cyberlynk.net> Message-ID: Interesting ... We implemented IPv6 over an year ago and all seems well, we have not had any reports of any unreachable addresses. Is there a way to test whether or not this is an issue for us? I tried pinging a Cogent IPv6 address and an HE IPv6 address and both work OK for me but a simple ping6 test does not rule out potential problems: ping6 -n ipv6.cogentco.com ping6 -n ipv6.he.net Mike A. Michael Salim VP and Chief Technology Officer, American Data Technology, Inc. PO Box 12892 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA P: (919)544-4101 x101 F: (919)544-5345 E: msalim at localweb.com W: http://www.localweb.com PRIVACY NOTIFICATION: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kerry L. Kriegel Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 11:32 AM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before we could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last week that we decided to "roll out" IPv6 and see how things looked. After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers in our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel networks at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our backbone and started looking at Google. It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and HE is still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list had any "inside" information about the problem and whether or not there was an end in sight. It seems to me that having a disconnect between two major players is going to hinder IPv6 adaptation. Thank you, Kerry L. Kriegel Network Operations Engineer Cyberlynk Network, Inc. Office: 414-858-9335 Fax: 414-858-9336 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kkriegel at cyberlynk.net Fri Feb 22 15:37:34 2013 From: kkriegel at cyberlynk.net (Kerry L. Kriegel) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:37:34 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com> References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com> Message-ID: <02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net> We only broadcast our data center /32. Cogent is the only provider we have doing IPv6 at the moment. AT&T says they do it, but getting it implemented across our peering link has been in process for several months. TWTC has the request, and may be online within the week. TWC -- no way. Cogent - online. Level3 - online in about 45 days. Thank you, Kerry L. Kriegel Network Operations Engineer Cyberlynk Network, Inc. Office: 414-858-9335 Fax: 414-858-9336 From: Michael Wallace [mailto:michael at birdhosting.com] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:53 AM To: Kerry L. Kriegel; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 There are plenty of providers out there that do IPv6. We are currently terminating to a bunch of them. Abovenet, Level3, HE, etc etc. Are you broadcasting the BGP for these? Thanks, Michael Wallace Bird Hosting _____ From: "Kerry L. Kriegel" Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:48 AM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before we could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last week that we decided to "roll out" IPv6 and see how things looked. After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers in our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel networks at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our backbone and started looking at Google. It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and HE is still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list had any "inside" information about the problem and whether or not there was an end in sight. It seems to me that having a disconnect between two major players is going to hinder IPv6 adaptation. Thank you, Kerry L. Kriegel Network Operations Engineer Cyberlynk Network, Inc. Office: 414-858-9335 Fax: 414-858-9336 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alex-arin at gossamer-threads.com Fri Feb 22 18:47:03 2013 From: alex-arin at gossamer-threads.com (Alex Krohn) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:47:03 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure Message-ID: <20130222154702.5794.FADBF00C@gossamer-threads.com> Hi, In the new pending fee structure here: https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html#isps ISP's that have up to and including a /20 (X-Small) and who were "early" adopters and received a /32 IPv6 allocation which was the minimum allocation size at the time, will see their fees double. This was discussed on the lists a lot in the past in this thread: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2012-March/002112.html and a lot of opposition against seeing the rates double or being forced to get a /36 and re-number. What was the rational with going forward with this and not making a /32 be in the X-Small (or XX-Small I suppose), as that was the minimum size available for a lot of people? Thanks, Alex From agoins at arces.net Wed Feb 27 10:52:41 2013 From: agoins at arces.net (Adrian Goins) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:52:41 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net> References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com> <02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net> Message-ID: <2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net> I was sucked into the Cogent/HE problems during World IPv6 day v1 and v2. It ultimately affected one of my clients deciding to keep IPv6 up for their infrastructure - they saw that split in reachability as bad for their customers, since customers using HE as a tunnel broker would think that the client was the problem, not peering. For most users of the Internet discussions about peering have no value. I agree with the statement about multihoming being the solution. If you can't afford to multihome, see about getting your connectivity from a provider who _is_ multihomed. It puts you a couple hops away from the backbone, but it may be worth it to route around this issue. You might even be able to find someone in your datacenter who can throw a cross-connect to your cage and push you out to L3 or ATT or someone other than Cogent. We're up with IPv6 transit from Cogent and L3, using our own /32. I have the opportunity to get transit directly from HE, and I'm considering doing so as well. I think that the whole squabble is bad for the Internet and terrible for IPv6 adoption as a whole, but it's almost worth it for me to pay for the extra handoff to not be drawn into it any more than I have to be. What I'm waiting for is IPv6 to the real end users. If TWC or Comcast or Vz would reliably roll out IPv6 across their customer networks, it would make life much easier. One of our providers at our EU office was kind enough to enable IPv6 on our wireless link, but when I asked them about giving me a /64 or /48, they were stupefied. It hadn't occurred to them that we actually need to have an IP block in order to make use of it. I think we're still a long way off from where we should be for awareness and adoption, and, like most things business humans do, until it's actually the end of the freakin' IPv4 world, no one is going to make a move. Adrian Goins agoins at arces.net On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Kerry L. Kriegel wrote: > We only broadcast our data center /32. Cogent is the only provider we have doing IPv6 at the moment. > > AT&T says they do it, but getting it implemented across our peering link has been in process for several months. > TWTC has the request, and may be online within the week. > TWC -- no way. > Cogent ? online. > Level3 ? online in about 45 days. > > Thank you, > > Kerry L. Kriegel > Network Operations Engineer > Cyberlynk Network, Inc. > Office: 414-858-9335 > Fax: 414-858-9336 > > From: Michael Wallace [mailto:michael at birdhosting.com] > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:53 AM > To: Kerry L. Kriegel; arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 > > There are plenty of providers out there that do IPv6. We are currently terminating to a bunch of them. Abovenet, Level3, HE, etc etc. Are you broadcasting the BGP for these? > > Thanks, > > Michael Wallace > Bird Hosting > > > From: "Kerry L. Kriegel" > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:48 AM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 > > We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before we could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last week that we decided to ?roll out? IPv6 and see how things looked. > > After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers in our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel networks at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our backbone and started looking at Google. > > It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and HE is still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list had any ?inside? information about the problem and whether or not there was an end in sight. It seems to me that having a disconnect between two major players is going to hinder IPv6 adaptation. > > > > Thank you, > > Kerry L. Kriegel > Network Operations Engineer > Cyberlynk Network, Inc. > Office: 414-858-9335 > Fax: 414-858-9336 > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tim at communicatefreely.net Wed Feb 27 11:40:59 2013 From: tim at communicatefreely.net (Tim St. Pierre) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:40:59 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net> References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com> <02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net> <2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net> Message-ID: <512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net> So how do we make it "The end of the Freakin' IPv4 World" so people will actually do this already. I talk to access ISPs about it all the time, and the usual response is "well, we're working on it, but it's years away. It isn't really a priority right now." I think if we set a deadline, like "World Turn off IPv4 day", then we will actually see some traction. -Tim On 13-02-27 10:52 AM, Adrian Goins wrote: > I was sucked into the Cogent/HE problems during World IPv6 day v1 and > v2. It ultimately affected one of my clients deciding to keep IPv6 up > for their infrastructure - they saw that split in reachability as bad > for their customers, since customers using HE as a tunnel broker would > think that the client was the problem, not peering. For most users of > the Internet discussions about peering have no value. > > I agree with the statement about multihoming being the solution. If > you can't afford to multihome, see about getting your connectivity > from a provider who _is_ multihomed. It puts you a couple hops away > from the backbone, but it may be worth it to route around this issue. > You might even be able to find someone in your datacenter who can > throw a cross-connect to your cage and push you out to L3 or ATT or > someone other than Cogent. > > We're up with IPv6 transit from Cogent and L3, using our own /32. I > have the opportunity to get transit directly from HE, and I'm > considering doing so as well. I think that the whole squabble is bad > for the Internet and terrible for IPv6 adoption as a whole, but it's > almost worth it for me to pay for the extra handoff to not be drawn > into it any more than I have to be. > > What I'm waiting for is IPv6 to the real end users. If TWC or Comcast > or Vz would reliably roll out IPv6 across their customer networks, it > would make life much easier. One of our providers at our EU office > was kind enough to enable IPv6 on our wireless link, but when I asked > them about giving me a /64 or /48, they were stupefied. It hadn't > occurred to them that we actually need to have an IP block in order to > make use of it. > > I think we're still a long way off from where we should be for > awareness and adoption, and, like most things business humans do, > until it's actually the end of the freakin' IPv4 world, no one is > going to make a move. > > Adrian Goins > agoins at arces.net > > > > > On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Kerry L. Kriegel > wrote: > >> We only broadcast our data center /32. Cogent is the only provider >> we have doing IPv6 at the moment. >> >> AT&T says they do it, but getting it implemented across our peering >> link has been in process for several months. >> TWTC has the request, and may be online within the week. >> TWC -- no way. >> Cogent -- online. >> Level3 -- online in about 45 days. >> >> Thank you, >> >> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >> Network Operations Engineer >> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >> Office: 414-858-9335 >> Fax: 414-858-9336 >> >> *From:* Michael Wallace [mailto:michael at birdhosting.com >> ] >> *Sent:* Friday, February 22, 2013 10:53 AM >> *To:* Kerry L. Kriegel; arin-discuss at arin.net >> >> *Subject:* re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >> >> >> There are plenty of providers out there that do IPv6. We are >> currently terminating to a bunch of them. Abovenet, Level3, HE, etc >> etc. Are you broadcasting the BGP for these? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Michael Wallace >> Bird Hosting >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *From*: "Kerry L. Kriegel" > > >> *Sent*: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:48 AM >> *To*: arin-discuss at arin.net >> *Subject*: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >> >> We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before we >> could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS >> upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last week >> that we decided to "roll out" IPv6 and see how things looked. >> >> After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers in >> our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel networks >> at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our backbone and >> started looking at Google. >> >> It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and HE is >> still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list had any >> "inside" information about the problem and whether or not there was >> an end in sight. It seems to me that having a disconnect between two >> major players is going to hinder IPv6 adaptation. >> >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >> Network Operations Engineer >> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >> Office: 414-858-9335 >> Fax: 414-858-9336 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> ). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- -- Tim St. Pierre System Operator Communicate Freely 289 225 1220 x5101 tim at communicatefreely.net www.communicatefreely.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net Wed Feb 27 12:02:42 2013 From: Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net (Jawaid Bazyar) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:02:42 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net> References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com> <02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net> <2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net> <512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net> Message-ID: <512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net> What is really needed is simple cookbooks for ISPs and business networks - step by step checklist of everything you need to do to fully enable and support IPv6. We have implemented IPv6 and successfully tested it directly. What we don't have is clear methodology around IPv4 to v6 gateways and vice-versa. Make it stupid easy to implement and it will get done. On 02/27/2013 09:40 AM, Tim St. Pierre wrote: > So how do we make it "The end of the Freakin' IPv4 World" so people > will actually do this already. > > I talk to access ISPs about it all the time, and the usual response is > "well, we're working on it, but it's years away. It isn't really a > priority right now." I think if we set a deadline, like "World Turn > off IPv4 day", then we will actually see some traction. > > -Tim > > On 13-02-27 10:52 AM, Adrian Goins wrote: >> I was sucked into the Cogent/HE problems during World IPv6 day v1 and >> v2. It ultimately affected one of my clients deciding to keep IPv6 up >> for their infrastructure - they saw that split in reachability as bad >> for their customers, since customers using HE as a tunnel broker >> would think that the client was the problem, not peering. For most >> users of the Internet discussions about peering have no value. >> >> I agree with the statement about multihoming being the solution. If >> you can't afford to multihome, see about getting your connectivity >> from a provider who _is_ multihomed. It puts you a couple hops away >> from the backbone, but it may be worth it to route around this issue. >> You might even be able to find someone in your datacenter who can >> throw a cross-connect to your cage and push you out to L3 or ATT or >> someone other than Cogent. >> >> We're up with IPv6 transit from Cogent and L3, using our own /32. I >> have the opportunity to get transit directly from HE, and I'm >> considering doing so as well. I think that the whole squabble is bad >> for the Internet and terrible for IPv6 adoption as a whole, but it's >> almost worth it for me to pay for the extra handoff to not be drawn >> into it any more than I have to be. >> >> What I'm waiting for is IPv6 to the real end users. If TWC or Comcast >> or Vz would reliably roll out IPv6 across their customer networks, it >> would make life much easier. One of our providers at our EU office >> was kind enough to enable IPv6 on our wireless link, but when I asked >> them about giving me a /64 or /48, they were stupefied. It hadn't >> occurred to them that we actually need to have an IP block in order >> to make use of it. >> >> I think we're still a long way off from where we should be for >> awareness and adoption, and, like most things business humans do, >> until it's actually the end of the freakin' IPv4 world, no one is >> going to make a move. >> >> Adrian Goins >> agoins at arces.net >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Kerry L. Kriegel > > wrote: >> >>> We only broadcast our data center /32. Cogent is the only provider >>> we have doing IPv6 at the moment. >>> AT&T says they do it, but getting it implemented across our peering >>> link has been in process for several months. >>> TWTC has the request, and may be online within the week. >>> TWC -- no way. >>> Cogent ? online. >>> Level3 ? online in about 45 days. >>> Thank you, >>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>> Network Operations Engineer >>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>> *From:*Michael Wallace [mailto:michael at birdhosting.com >>> ] >>> *Sent:*Friday, February 22, 2013 10:53 AM >>> *To:*Kerry L. Kriegel; arin-discuss at arin.net >>> >>> *Subject:*re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>> >>> There are plenty of providers out there that do IPv6. We are >>> currently terminating to a bunch of them. Abovenet, Level3, HE, etc >>> etc. Are you broadcasting the BGP for these? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Michael Wallace >>> Bird Hosting >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> *From*: "Kerry L. Kriegel" >> > >>> *Sent*: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:48 AM >>> *To*:arin-discuss at arin.net >>> *Subject*: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>> >>> We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before we >>> could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS >>> upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last week >>> that we decided to ?roll out? IPv6 and see how things looked. >>> After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers in >>> our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel networks >>> at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our backbone and >>> started looking at Google. >>> It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and HE >>> is still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list had any >>> ?inside? information about the problem and whether or not there was >>> an end in sight. It seems to me that having a disconnect between two >>> major players is going to hinder IPv6 adaptation. >>> Thank you, >>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>> Network Operations Engineer >>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>> ). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contactinfo at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > -- > -- > Tim St. Pierre > System Operator > Communicate Freely > 289 225 1220 x5101 > tim at communicatefreely.net > www.communicatefreely.net > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Jawaid Bazyar President ph 303.815.1814 fax 303.815.1001 Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 From msalim at localweb.com Wed Feb 27 13:47:51 2013 From: msalim at localweb.com (Mike A. Salim) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:47:51 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com><02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net><2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net><512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net> <512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net> Message-ID: Is IPv4 space "really" running out any time soon? Since "wolf" was cried almost two years ago and the sky didn't fall yet, I do not see an immediate mass rush to IPv6 coming yet. As for simple / stupid checklists, these abound. I googled for IPv6 checklists and found: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc786337(v=ws.10).aspx http://www.es.net/services/ipv6-network/ipv6-implementation-checklist/ http://www.infoworld.com/d/data-explosion/your-handy-ipv6-checklist-232 There is probably no "one size fits all" checklist. For example, how much practical attention is being paid to IPv6 security at this point? Zero to none as far as I can tell. I am having a hard time finding any commercial or open source IPv6 monitoring tools that will just tell me if my http is alive over IPv6, let alone IPv6 specific security tools. Mike A. Michael Salim VP and Chief Technology Officer, American Data Technology, Inc. PO Box 12892 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA P: (919)544-4101 x101 F: (919)544-5345 E: msalim at localweb.com W: http://www.localweb.com PRIVACY NOTIFICATION: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ??Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jawaid Bazyar Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:03 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 What is really needed is simple cookbooks for ISPs and business networks - step by step checklist of everything you need to do to fully enable and support IPv6. We have implemented IPv6 and successfully tested it directly. What we don't have is clear methodology around IPv4 to v6 gateways and vice-versa. Make it stupid easy to implement and it will get done. On 02/27/2013 09:40 AM, Tim St. Pierre wrote: > So how do we make it "The end of the Freakin' IPv4 World" so people > will actually do this already. > > I talk to access ISPs about it all the time, and the usual response is > "well, we're working on it, but it's years away. It isn't really a > priority right now." I think if we set a deadline, like "World Turn > off IPv4 day", then we will actually see some traction. > > -Tim > > On 13-02-27 10:52 AM, Adrian Goins wrote: >> I was sucked into the Cogent/HE problems during World IPv6 day v1 and >> v2. It ultimately affected one of my clients deciding to keep IPv6 up >> for their infrastructure - they saw that split in reachability as bad >> for their customers, since customers using HE as a tunnel broker >> would think that the client was the problem, not peering. For most >> users of the Internet discussions about peering have no value. >> >> I agree with the statement about multihoming being the solution. If >> you can't afford to multihome, see about getting your connectivity >> from a provider who _is_ multihomed. It puts you a couple hops away >> from the backbone, but it may be worth it to route around this issue. >> You might even be able to find someone in your datacenter who can >> throw a cross-connect to your cage and push you out to L3 or ATT or >> someone other than Cogent. >> >> We're up with IPv6 transit from Cogent and L3, using our own /32. I >> have the opportunity to get transit directly from HE, and I'm >> considering doing so as well. I think that the whole squabble is bad >> for the Internet and terrible for IPv6 adoption as a whole, but it's >> almost worth it for me to pay for the extra handoff to not be drawn >> into it any more than I have to be. >> >> What I'm waiting for is IPv6 to the real end users. If TWC or Comcast >> or Vz would reliably roll out IPv6 across their customer networks, it >> would make life much easier. One of our providers at our EU office >> was kind enough to enable IPv6 on our wireless link, but when I asked >> them about giving me a /64 or /48, they were stupefied. It hadn't >> occurred to them that we actually need to have an IP block in order >> to make use of it. >> >> I think we're still a long way off from where we should be for >> awareness and adoption, and, like most things business humans do, >> until it's actually the end of the freakin' IPv4 world, no one is >> going to make a move. >> >> Adrian Goins >> agoins at arces.net >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Kerry L. Kriegel > > wrote: >> >>> We only broadcast our data center /32. Cogent is the only provider >>> we have doing IPv6 at the moment. >>> AT&T says they do it, but getting it implemented across our peering >>> link has been in process for several months. >>> TWTC has the request, and may be online within the week. >>> TWC -- no way. >>> Cogent ? online. >>> Level3 ? online in about 45 days. >>> Thank you, >>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>> Network Operations Engineer >>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>> *From:*Michael Wallace [mailto:michael at birdhosting.com >>> ] *Sent:*Friday, February 22, 2013 10:53 AM >>> *To:*Kerry L. Kriegel; arin-discuss at arin.net >>> >>> *Subject:*re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>> >>> There are plenty of providers out there that do IPv6. We are >>> currently terminating to a bunch of them. Abovenet, Level3, HE, etc >>> etc. Are you broadcasting the BGP for these? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Michael Wallace >>> Bird Hosting >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ---- >>> >>> *From*: "Kerry L. Kriegel" >> > >>> *Sent*: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:48 AM *To*:arin-discuss at arin.net >>> >>> *Subject*: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>> >>> We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before we >>> could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS >>> upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last week >>> that we decided to ?roll out? IPv6 and see how things looked. >>> After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers in >>> our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel networks >>> at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our backbone and >>> started looking at Google. >>> It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and HE >>> is still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list had any >>> ?inside? information about the problem and whether or not there was >>> an end in sight. It seems to me that having a disconnect between two >>> major players is going to hinder IPv6 adaptation. >>> Thank you, >>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>> Network Operations Engineer >>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the >>> ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>> ). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contactinfo at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > -- > -- > Tim St. Pierre > System Operator > Communicate Freely > 289 225 1220 x5101 > tim at communicatefreely.net > www.communicatefreely.net > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Jawaid Bazyar President ph 303.815.1814 fax 303.815.1001 Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From john at quonix.net Wed Feb 27 13:51:51 2013 From: john at quonix.net (John Von Essen) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:51:51 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net> References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com> <02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net> <2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net> <512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net> <512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net> Message-ID: <83FE8E35-6721-4E03-9ED7-6F1A8F4316B1@quonix.net> I dont know why this thread keeps going. IPv6 implementation is SO easy. Step 1: Call your BGP peers and ask them to give you dual-stack IPv4/ IPv6 and setup an IPv6 BGP session. Step 2: Configure the WAN link on your routers with dual-stack IPv4/ IPv6 and assign the IPv6 address given to you by your BGP peers. Step 3: Add the BGP session info for v6 Step 4: Add your v6 advertisements Step 5: Your DONE I have Cogent, Level3, and Abovenet peers. It literally took 1-2 days to get completely setup with IPv6, I just emailed them, requested dual- stack, got my v6 address, brought up the peer's BGP session for v6, and boom I was done. As for the people who are behind Cogent alone and have some issues with HE, ummm.... how can you be a recent Arin member with IP resources and NOT be multi-homed? If you're legitimately an end-user network, thats fine, but why run BGP over a single-homed link? Just do a static route to your single ISP and let your ISP announce your block, and since your ISP is multi-homed the HE thing is not an issue. Lets not confuse implementation and adoption. v6 is extremely easy to implement, adoption is a different story. I've been native v6 for over 2 years, and of my 300+ datacenter customers - alone one is using v6 - the rest are oblivious. -John On Feb 27, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > What is really needed is simple cookbooks for ISPs and business > networks - step by step checklist of everything you need to do to > fully enable and support IPv6. > > We have implemented IPv6 and successfully tested it directly. What > we don't have is clear methodology around IPv4 to v6 gateways and > vice-versa. > > Make it stupid easy to implement and it will get done. > > On 02/27/2013 09:40 AM, Tim St. Pierre wrote: >> So how do we make it "The end of the Freakin' IPv4 World" so people >> will actually do this already. >> >> I talk to access ISPs about it all the time, and the usual response >> is "well, we're working on it, but it's years away. It isn't really >> a priority right now." I think if we set a deadline, like "World >> Turn off IPv4 day", then we will actually see some traction. >> >> -Tim >> >> On 13-02-27 10:52 AM, Adrian Goins wrote: >>> I was sucked into the Cogent/HE problems during World IPv6 day v1 >>> and v2. It ultimately affected one of my clients deciding to keep >>> IPv6 up for their infrastructure - they saw that split in >>> reachability as bad for their customers, since customers using HE >>> as a tunnel broker would think that the client was the problem, >>> not peering. For most users of the Internet discussions about >>> peering have no value. >>> >>> I agree with the statement about multihoming being the solution. >>> If you can't afford to multihome, see about getting your >>> connectivity from a provider who _is_ multihomed. It puts you a >>> couple hops away from the backbone, but it may be worth it to >>> route around this issue. You might even be able to find someone in >>> your datacenter who can throw a cross-connect to your cage and >>> push you out to L3 or ATT or someone other than Cogent. >>> >>> We're up with IPv6 transit from Cogent and L3, using our own /32. >>> I have the opportunity to get transit directly from HE, and I'm >>> considering doing so as well. I think that the whole squabble is >>> bad for the Internet and terrible for IPv6 adoption as a whole, >>> but it's almost worth it for me to pay for the extra handoff to >>> not be drawn into it any more than I have to be. >>> >>> What I'm waiting for is IPv6 to the real end users. If TWC or >>> Comcast or Vz would reliably roll out IPv6 across their customer >>> networks, it would make life much easier. One of our providers at >>> our EU office was kind enough to enable IPv6 on our wireless link, >>> but when I asked them about giving me a /64 or /48, they were >>> stupefied. It hadn't occurred to them that we actually need to >>> have an IP block in order to make use of it. >>> >>> I think we're still a long way off from where we should be for >>> awareness and adoption, and, like most things business humans do, >>> until it's actually the end of the freakin' IPv4 world, no one is >>> going to make a move. >>> >>> Adrian Goins >>> agoins at arces.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Kerry L. Kriegel >> > wrote: >>> >>>> We only broadcast our data center /32. Cogent is the only >>>> provider we have doing IPv6 at the moment. >>>> AT&T says they do it, but getting it implemented across our >>>> peering link has been in process for several months. >>>> TWTC has the request, and may be online within the week. >>>> TWC -- no way. >>>> Cogent ? online. >>>> Level3 ? online in about 45 days. >>>> Thank you, >>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>> *From:*Michael Wallace [mailto:michael at birdhosting.com >>> >] >>>> *Sent:*Friday, February 22, 2013 10:53 AM >>>> *To:*Kerry L. Kriegel; arin-discuss at arin.net >>> > >>>> *Subject:*re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>> >>>> There are plenty of providers out there that do IPv6. We are >>>> currently terminating to a bunch of them. Abovenet, Level3, HE, >>>> etc etc. Are you broadcasting the BGP for these? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Michael Wallace >>>> Bird Hosting >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> *From*: "Kerry L. Kriegel" >>> >> >>>> *Sent*: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:48 AM >>>> *To*:arin-discuss at arin.net >>>> *Subject*: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>> >>>> We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before >>>> we could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS >>>> upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last >>>> week that we decided to ?roll out? IPv6 and see how things looked. >>>> After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers >>>> in our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel >>>> networks at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our >>>> backbone and started looking at Google. >>>> It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and >>>> HE is still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list >>>> had any ?inside? information about the problem and whether or not >>>> there was an end in sight. It seems to me that having a >>>> disconnect between two major players is going to hinder IPv6 >>>> adaptation. >>>> Thank you, >>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>> >). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contactinfo at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Tim St. Pierre >> System Operator >> Communicate Freely >> 289 225 1220 x5101 >> tim at communicatefreely.net >> www.communicatefreely.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > -- > > Jawaid Bazyar > > President > > ph 303.815.1814 > > fax 303.815.1001 > > Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net > > Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net Wed Feb 27 14:15:11 2013 From: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net (Jawaid Bazyar) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:15:11 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <83FE8E35-6721-4E03-9ED7-6F1A8F4316B1@quonix.net> References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com> <02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net> <2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net> <512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net> <512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net> <83FE8E35-6721-4E03-9ED7-6F1A8F4316B1@quonix.net> Message-ID: <512E5B3F.4010408@forethought.net> John, You just ignored what I said. An ISP implementing pure IPv6 is the easy part. The hard part is supporting the hundreds of millions of non-IPv6 devices. Implementing requires knowledge and process for handling that. Your typical IT guy is going to need help with it. On 02/27/2013 11:51 AM, John Von Essen wrote: > I dont know why this thread keeps going. IPv6 implementation is SO easy. > > Step 1: Call your BGP peers and ask them to give you dual-stack > IPv4/IPv6 and setup an IPv6 BGP session. > Step 2: Configure the WAN link on your routers with dual-stack > IPv4/IPv6 and assign the IPv6 address given to you by your BGP peers. > Step 3: Add the BGP session info for v6 > Step 4: Add your v6 advertisements > Step 5: Your DONE > > I have Cogent, Level3, and Abovenet peers. It literally took 1-2 days > to get completely setup with IPv6, I just emailed them, requested > dual-stack, got my v6 address, brought up the peer's BGP session for > v6, and boom I was done. > > As for the people who are behind Cogent alone and have some issues > with HE, ummm.... how can you be a recent Arin member with IP > resources and NOT be multi-homed? If you're legitimately an end-user > network, thats fine, but why run BGP over a single-homed link? Just do > a static route to your single ISP and let your ISP announce your > block, and since your ISP is multi-homed the HE thing is not an issue. > > > Lets not confuse implementation and adoption. v6 is extremely easy to > implement, adoption is a different story. I've been native v6 for over > 2 years, and of my 300+ datacenter customers - alone one is using v6 - > the rest are oblivious. > > -John > > > > On Feb 27, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > >> What is really needed is simple cookbooks for ISPs and business >> networks - step by step checklist of everything you need to do to >> fully enable and support IPv6. >> >> We have implemented IPv6 and successfully tested it directly. What we >> don't have is clear methodology around IPv4 to v6 gateways and >> vice-versa. >> >> Make it stupid easy to implement and it will get done. >> >> On 02/27/2013 09:40 AM, Tim St. Pierre wrote: >>> So how do we make it "The end of the Freakin' IPv4 World" so people >>> will actually do this already. >>> >>> I talk to access ISPs about it all the time, and the usual response >>> is "well, we're working on it, but it's years away. It isn't really >>> a priority right now." I think if we set a deadline, like "World >>> Turn off IPv4 day", then we will actually see some traction. >>> >>> -Tim >>> >>> On 13-02-27 10:52 AM, Adrian Goins wrote: >>>> I was sucked into the Cogent/HE problems during World IPv6 day v1 >>>> and v2. It ultimately affected one of my clients deciding to keep >>>> IPv6 up for their infrastructure - they saw that split in >>>> reachability as bad for their customers, since customers using HE >>>> as a tunnel broker would think that the client was the problem, not >>>> peering. For most users of the Internet discussions about peering >>>> have no value. >>>> >>>> I agree with the statement about multihoming being the solution. If >>>> you can't afford to multihome, see about getting your connectivity >>>> from a provider who _is_ multihomed. It puts you a couple hops away >>>> from the backbone, but it may be worth it to route around this >>>> issue. You might even be able to find someone in your datacenter >>>> who can throw a cross-connect to your cage and push you out to L3 >>>> or ATT or someone other than Cogent. >>>> >>>> We're up with IPv6 transit from Cogent and L3, using our own /32. I >>>> have the opportunity to get transit directly from HE, and I'm >>>> considering doing so as well. I think that the whole squabble is >>>> bad for the Internet and terrible for IPv6 adoption as a whole, but >>>> it's almost worth it for me to pay for the extra handoff to not be >>>> drawn into it any more than I have to be. >>>> >>>> What I'm waiting for is IPv6 to the real end users. If TWC or >>>> Comcast or Vz would reliably roll out IPv6 across their customer >>>> networks, it would make life much easier. One of our providers at >>>> our EU office was kind enough to enable IPv6 on our wireless link, >>>> but when I asked them about giving me a /64 or /48, they were >>>> stupefied. It hadn't occurred to them that we actually need to have >>>> an IP block in order to make use of it. >>>> >>>> I think we're still a long way off from where we should be for >>>> awareness and adoption, and, like most things business humans do, >>>> until it's actually the end of the freakin' IPv4 world, no one is >>>> going to make a move. >>>> >>>> Adrian Goins >>>> agoins at arces.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Kerry L. Kriegel >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> We only broadcast our data center /32. Cogent is the only provider >>>>> we have doing IPv6 at the moment. >>>>> AT&T says they do it, but getting it implemented across our >>>>> peering link has been in process for several months. >>>>> TWTC has the request, and may be online within the week. >>>>> TWC -- no way. >>>>> Cogent ? online. >>>>> Level3 ? online in about 45 days. >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>>> *From:*Michael Wallace [mailto:michael at birdhosting.com >>>>> ] >>>>> *Sent:*Friday, February 22, 2013 10:53 AM >>>>> *To:*Kerry L. Kriegel; arin-discuss at arin.net >>>>> >>>>> *Subject:*re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>>> >>>>> There are plenty of providers out there that do IPv6. We are >>>>> currently terminating to a bunch of them. Abovenet, Level3, HE, >>>>> etc etc. Are you broadcasting the BGP for these? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Michael Wallace >>>>> Bird Hosting >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From*: "Kerry L. Kriegel" >>>> > >>>>> *Sent*: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:48 AM >>>>> *To*:arin-discuss at arin.net >>>>> *Subject*: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>>> >>>>> We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before we >>>>> could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS >>>>> upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last week >>>>> that we decided to ?roll out? IPv6 and see how things looked. >>>>> After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers >>>>> in our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel >>>>> networks at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our >>>>> backbone and started looking at Google. >>>>> It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and HE >>>>> is still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list had >>>>> any ?inside? information about the problem and whether or not >>>>> there was an end in sight. It seems to me that having a disconnect >>>>> between two major players is going to hinder IPv6 adaptation. >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>>>> ). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contactinfo at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Tim St. Pierre >>> System Operator >>> Communicate Freely >>> 289 225 1220 x5101 >>> tim at communicatefreely.net >>> www.communicatefreely.net >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> -- >> >> Jawaid Bazyar >> >> President >> >> ph 303.815.1814 >> >> fax 303.815.1001 >> >> Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net >> >> Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Jawaid Bazyar President ph 303.815.1814 fax 303.815.1001 Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 From paul at redbarn.org Wed Feb 27 14:23:10 2013 From: paul at redbarn.org (P Vixie) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:23:10 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com><02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net><2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net><512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net> <512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net> Message-ID: Its going to be a bit of a mess if folks wait for the sky to fall before planning and executing their v6 migration. Also if more folks would get it done then the transition and translation costs for those coming in after v4 is gone will be lower. There is and had been every reason to expedite, so, nothing that's happened so far should be thought of as crying wolf. Paul "Mike A. Salim" wrote: >Is IPv4 space "really" running out any time soon? Since "wolf" was >cried almost two years ago and the sky didn't fall yet, I do not see an >immediate mass rush to IPv6 coming yet. > >As for simple / stupid checklists, these abound. > >I googled for IPv6 checklists and found: > >http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc786337(v=ws.10).aspx > >http://www.es.net/services/ipv6-network/ipv6-implementation-checklist/ > >http://www.infoworld.com/d/data-explosion/your-handy-ipv6-checklist-232 > >There is probably no "one size fits all" checklist. For example, how >much practical attention is being paid to IPv6 security at this point? >Zero to none as far as I can tell. I am having a hard time finding any >commercial or open source IPv6 monitoring tools that will just tell me >if my http is alive over IPv6, let alone IPv6 specific security tools. > >Mike > >A. Michael Salim >VP and Chief Technology Officer, >American Data Technology, Inc. >PO Box 12892 >Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA >P: (919)544-4101 x101 >F: (919)544-5345 >E: msalim at localweb.com >W: http://www.localweb.com > >PRIVACY NOTIFICATION: This e-mail message, including any attachments, >is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. >2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may >contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. >Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If >you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply >e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. > >??Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jawaid Bazyar >Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:03 PM >To: arin-discuss at arin.net >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 > >What is really needed is simple cookbooks for ISPs and business >networks >- step by step checklist of everything you need to do to fully enable >and support IPv6. > >We have implemented IPv6 and successfully tested it directly. What we >don't have is clear methodology around IPv4 to v6 gateways and >vice-versa. > >Make it stupid easy to implement and it will get done. > >On 02/27/2013 09:40 AM, Tim St. Pierre wrote: >> So how do we make it "The end of the Freakin' IPv4 World" so people >> will actually do this already. >> >> I talk to access ISPs about it all the time, and the usual response >is >> "well, we're working on it, but it's years away. It isn't really a >> priority right now." I think if we set a deadline, like "World Turn >> off IPv4 day", then we will actually see some traction. >> >> -Tim >> >> On 13-02-27 10:52 AM, Adrian Goins wrote: >>> I was sucked into the Cogent/HE problems during World IPv6 day v1 >and >>> v2. It ultimately affected one of my clients deciding to keep IPv6 >up >>> for their infrastructure - they saw that split in reachability as >bad >>> for their customers, since customers using HE as a tunnel broker >>> would think that the client was the problem, not peering. For most >>> users of the Internet discussions about peering have no value. >>> >>> I agree with the statement about multihoming being the solution. If >>> you can't afford to multihome, see about getting your connectivity >>> from a provider who _is_ multihomed. It puts you a couple hops away >>> from the backbone, but it may be worth it to route around this >issue. >>> You might even be able to find someone in your datacenter who can >>> throw a cross-connect to your cage and push you out to L3 or ATT or >>> someone other than Cogent. >>> >>> We're up with IPv6 transit from Cogent and L3, using our own /32. I >>> have the opportunity to get transit directly from HE, and I'm >>> considering doing so as well. I think that the whole squabble is bad > >>> for the Internet and terrible for IPv6 adoption as a whole, but it's > >>> almost worth it for me to pay for the extra handoff to not be drawn >>> into it any more than I have to be. >>> >>> What I'm waiting for is IPv6 to the real end users. If TWC or >Comcast >>> or Vz would reliably roll out IPv6 across their customer networks, >it >>> would make life much easier. One of our providers at our EU office >>> was kind enough to enable IPv6 on our wireless link, but when I >asked >>> them about giving me a /64 or /48, they were stupefied. It hadn't >>> occurred to them that we actually need to have an IP block in order >>> to make use of it. >>> >>> I think we're still a long way off from where we should be for >>> awareness and adoption, and, like most things business humans do, >>> until it's actually the end of the freakin' IPv4 world, no one is >>> going to make a move. >>> >>> Adrian Goins >>> agoins at arces.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Kerry L. Kriegel >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> We only broadcast our data center /32. Cogent is the only provider >>>> we have doing IPv6 at the moment. >>>> AT&T says they do it, but getting it implemented across our peering > >>>> link has been in process for several months. >>>> TWTC has the request, and may be online within the week. >>>> TWC -- no way. >>>> Cogent ? online. >>>> Level3 ? online in about 45 days. >>>> Thank you, >>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>> *From:*Michael Wallace [mailto:michael at birdhosting.com >>>> ] *Sent:*Friday, February 22, 2013 10:53 AM > >>>> *To:*Kerry L. Kriegel; arin-discuss at arin.net >>>> >>>> *Subject:*re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>> >>>> There are plenty of providers out there that do IPv6. We are >>>> currently terminating to a bunch of them. Abovenet, Level3, HE, etc > >>>> etc. Are you broadcasting the BGP for these? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Michael Wallace >>>> Bird Hosting >>>> >>>> >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> ---- >>>> >>>> *From*: "Kerry L. Kriegel" >>> > >>>> *Sent*: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:48 AM >*To*:arin-discuss at arin.net >>>> >>>> *Subject*: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>> >>>> We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before we >>>> could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS >>>> upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last week >>>> that we decided to ?roll out? IPv6 and see how things looked. >>>> After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers >in >>>> our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel >networks >>>> at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our backbone and >>>> started looking at Google. >>>> It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and HE >>>> is still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list had >any >>>> ?inside? information about the problem and whether or not there was > >>>> an end in sight. It seems to me that having a disconnect between >two >>>> major players is going to hinder IPv6 adaptation. >>>> Thank you, >>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the >>>> ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>>> ). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the >ARIN >>> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contactinfo at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Tim St. Pierre >> System Operator >> Communicate Freely >> 289 225 1220 x5101 >> tim at communicatefreely.net >> www.communicatefreely.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > >> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >-- > >Jawaid Bazyar > >President > >ph 303.815.1814 > >fax 303.815.1001 > >Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net > >Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 > >_______________________________________________ >ARIN-Discuss >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >_______________________________________________ >ARIN-Discuss >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net Wed Feb 27 14:03:28 2013 From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:03:28 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com><02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net><2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net><512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net> <512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net> Message-ID: <512E5880.6040702@burnttofu.net> On 02/27/2013 10:47, Mike A. Salim wrote: > Is IPv4 space "really" running out any time soon? Since "wolf" was cried almost two years ago and the sky didn't fall yet, I do not see an immediate mass rush to IPv6 coming yet. We already see networks in the DFZ table that are only announcing IPv6. Now, of course, they could be getting their IPv4 from elsewhere, but it may still be the case that their IPv6 connectivity is way better than their IPv4. So if you want to have good connectivity to *all* of your customers, IPv6 (specifically dual-stack) is in your best interests. Remember, in the "cry wolf" fable, the wolf really does show up at the end. michael From harriott_200 at hotmail.com Wed Feb 27 14:38:10 2013 From: harriott_200 at hotmail.com (Basil Harriott) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:38:10 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com><02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net><2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net><512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net>, <512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net>, , Message-ID: We know it is not a matter of crying wolf on false asumptions becasue as it is now we know that the wolf eventually will come, this is really a preemption of the wolf's coming so that we can be prepared for it. There need to be forceful policies that will enhance the integration of v4 and v6 and well as a full migration to v6. We need to engage in intensive research that will provide an environment where the two can co-exist without conflicts, without compatibility, user and security issues. We cannot let the coming catch us unprepared because it definitely is coming. Regards, Basil Harriott "You don't need wings to fly" From: paul at redbarn.org Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:23:10 -0800 To: msalim at localweb.com; Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 Its going to be a bit of a mess if folks wait for the sky to fall before planning and executing their v6 migration. Also if more folks would get it done then the transition and translation costs for those coming in after v4 is gone will be lower. There is and had been every reason to expedite, so, nothing that's happened so far should be thought of as crying wolf. Paul "Mike A. Salim" wrote: Is IPv4 space "really" running out any time soon? Since "wolf" was cried almost two years ago and the sky didn't fall yet, I do not see an immediate mass rush to IPv6 coming yet. As for simple / stupid checklists, these abound. I googled for IPv6 checklists and found: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc786337(v=ws.10).aspx http://www.es.net/services/ipv6-network/ipv6-implementation-checklist/ http://www.infoworld.com/d/data-explosion/your-handy-ipv6-checklist-232 There is probably no "one size fits all" checklist. For example, how much practical attention is being paid to IPv6 security at this point? Zero to none as far as I can tell. I am having a hard time finding any commercial or open source IPv6 monitoring tools that will just tell me if my http is alive over IPv6, let alone IPv6 specific security tools. Mike A. Michael Salim VP and Chief Technology Officer, American Data Technology, Inc. PO Box 12892 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA P: (919)544-4101 x101 F: (919)544-5345 E: msalim at localweb.com W: http://www.localweb.com PRIVACY NOTIFICATION: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ??Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jawaid Bazyar Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:03 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 What is really needed is simple cookbooks for ISPs and business networks - step by step checklist of everything you need to do to fully enable and support IPv6. We have implemented IPv6 and successfully tested it directly. What we don't have is clear methodology around IPv4 to v6 gateways and vice-versa. Make it stupid easy to implement and it will get done. On 02/27/2013 09:40 AM, Tim St. Pierre wrote: So how do we make it "The end of the Freakin' IPv4 World" so people will actually do this already. I talk to access ISPs about it all the time, and the usual response is "well, we're working on it, but it's years away. It isn't really a priority right now." I think if we set a deadline, like "World Turn off IPv4 day", then we will actually see some traction. -Tim On 13-02-27 10:52 AM, Adrian Goins wrote: I was sucked into the Cogent/HE problems during World IPv6 day v1 and v2. It ultimately affected one of my clients deciding to keep IPv6 up for their infrastructure - they saw that split in reachability as bad for their customers, since customers using HE as a tunnel broker would think that the client was the problem, not peering. For most users of the Internet discussions about peering have no value. I agree with the statement about multihoming being the solution. If you can't afford to multihome, see about getting your connectivity from a provider who _is_ multihomed. It puts you a couple hops away from the backbone, but it may be worth it to route around this issue. You might even be able to find someone in your datacenter who can throw a cross-connect to your cage and push you out to L3 or ATT or someone other than Cogent. We're up with IPv6 transit from Cogent and L3, using our own /32. I have the opportunity to get transit directly from HE, and I'm considering doing so as well. I think that the whole squabble is bad for the Internet and terrible for IPv6 adoption as a whole, but it's almost worth it for me to pay for the extra handoff to not be drawn into it any more than I have to be. What I'm waiting for is IPv6 to the real end users. If TWC or Comcast or Vz would reliably roll out IPv6 across their customer networks, it would make life much easier. One of our providers at our EU office was kind enough to enable IPv6 on our wireless link, but when I asked them about giving me a /64 or /48, they were stupefied. It hadn't occurred to them that we actually need to have an IP block in order to make use of it. I think we're still a long way off from where we should be for awareness and adoption, and, like most things business humans do, until it's actually the end of the freakin' IPv4 world, no one is going to make a move. Adrian Goins agoins at arces.net On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Kerry L. Kriegel > wrote: We only broadcast our data center /32. Cogent is the only provider we have doing IPv6 at the moment. AT&T says they do it, but getting it implemented across our peering link has been in process for several months. TWTC has the request, and may be online within the week. TWC -- no way. Cogent ? online. Level3 ? online in about 45 days. Thank you, *Kerry L. Kriegel* Network Operations Engineer Cyberlynk Network, Inc. Office: 414-858-9335 Fax: 414-858-9336 *From:*Michael Wallace [mailto:michael at birdhosting.com ] *Sent:*Friday, February 22, 2013 10:53 AM *To:*Kerry L. Kriegel; arin-discuss at arin.net *Subject:*re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 There are plenty of providers out there that do IPv6. We are currently terminating to a bunch of them. Abovenet, Level3, HE, etc etc. Are you broadcasting the BGP for these? Thanks, Michael Wallace Bird Hosting ---- *From*: "Kerry L. Kriegel" > *Sent*: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:48 AM *To*:arin-discuss at arin.net *Subject*: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before we could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last week that we decided to ?roll out? IPv6 and see how things looked. After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers in our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel networks at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our backbone and started looking a t Google. It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and HE is still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list had any ?inside? information about the problem and whether or not there was an end in sight. It seems to me that having a disconnect between two major players is going to hinder IPv6 adaptation. Thank you, *Kerry L. Kriegel* Network Operations Engineer Cyberlynk Network, Inc. Office: 414-858-9335 Fax: 414-858-9336 ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net ). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contactinfo at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- -- Tim St. Pierre System Operator Communicate Freely 289 225 1220 x5101 tim at communicatefreely.net www.communicatefreely.net ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ccie18532 at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 14:37:34 2013 From: ccie18532 at gmail.com (GMail Account) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:37:34 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <83FE8E35-6721-4E03-9ED7-6F1A8F4316B1@quonix.net> References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com> <02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net> <2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net> <512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net> <512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net> <83FE8E35-6721-4E03-9ED7-6F1A8F4316B1@quonix.net> Message-ID: <00f601ce1521$e46a2a30$ad3e7e90$@gmail.com> Good afternoon: Attached is a configuration that I have used with cisco routers. The key to start the IPv6 in BGP is to turn-off "bgp default ipv4-unicast". Now when you do that the BGP session becomes dual stacked IPv4 and IPv6. I have also added an interface command. In cisco you can have multiple IPv6 addresses and do not need the "secondary" command as you do with IPv4. This was an IOS 12.4 configuration, but IOS 15 ain't much different. Don't panic IPv6 is very easy once you use notepad to build your configuration. There are no RFC 1918's so I made my own with 10::, easy to understand and I won't announce it anyway. Now cisco has been slow in offering NAT-66 and NAT-64, but others are doing NAT-44, NAT-46, NAT-64, and NAT-66, (Arista, F5, etc.). router bgp 12345 no bgp fast-external-fallover no bgp default ipv4-unicast bgp log-neighbor-changes neighbor 1:1::2 remote-as 1 neighbor 1:1::2 description *** Fist ISP IPv6 *** neighbor 1.1.1.1 remote-as 1 neighbor 1.1.1.1 description *** Fist ISP IPv4 *** neighbor 2.2.2.2 remote-as 2 neighbor 2.2.2.2 description *** Second ISP IPv4 *** neighbor 3:3::3 remote-as 3 neighbor 3:3::3 description *** Third ISP IPv6 *** neighbor 3.3.3.3 remote-as 3 neighbor 3.3.3.3 description *** Third ISP IPv4 *** ! address-family ipv4 neighbor 1.1.1.1 activate neighbor 1.1.1.1 soft-reconfiguration inbound neighbor 2.2.2.2 activate neighbor 2.2.2.2 soft-reconfiguration inbound neighbor 3.3.3.3 activate neighbor 3.3.3.3 soft-reconfiguration inbound no auto-summary no synchronization network 11.11.11.0 mask 255.255.255.0 network 12.12.12.0 mask 255.255.255.0 network 21.21.21.0 mask 255.255.255.0 network 22.22.22.0 mask 255.255.255.0 network 31.31.31.0 mask 255.255.255.0 network 32.32.32.0 mask 255.255.255.0 network 222.33.0.0 exit-address-family ! address-family ipv6 neighbor 1:1::2 activate neighbor 1:1::2 soft-reconfiguration inbound neighbor 1:1::2 prefix-list IPv6 in neighbor 3:3::3 soft-reconfiguration inbound network 12:12::/32 network 31:31::/32 exit-address-family ! interface G0/0 description Gateway for Servers and Network Services ip address 12.12.12.1 255.255.255.0 secondary ip address 22.22.22.1 255.255.240.0 ip verify unicast source reachable-via rx allow-default 199 no ip redirects no ip unreachables no ip proxy-arp ipv6 address 20::1/48 ipv6 address 40::1/48 ipv6 enable no ipv6 unreachables no ipv6 redirects ipv6 verify unicast reverse-path RFC-2827 end ! access-list 199 remark *** Verify Reverse Path *** access-list 199 deny ip any any log ! ipv6 access-list RFC-2827 deny ipv6 any any log George Morton, Ph. D. Principal Network Architect Enabling the Smart Network Dual CCIE 18532, Router/Switch & Security 954-802-1347 Cell 954-839-8486 Remote Office 202-787-3988 DC Office The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Von Essen Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 1:52 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 I dont know why this thread keeps going. IPv6 implementation is SO easy. Step 1: Call your BGP peers and ask them to give you dual-stack IPv4/ IPv6 and setup an IPv6 BGP session. Step 2: Configure the WAN link on your routers with dual-stack IPv4/ IPv6 and assign the IPv6 address given to you by your BGP peers. Step 3: Add the BGP session info for v6 Step 4: Add your v6 advertisements Step 5: Your DONE I have Cogent, Level3, and Abovenet peers. It literally took 1-2 days to get completely setup with IPv6, I just emailed them, requested dual- stack, got my v6 address, brought up the peer's BGP session for v6, and boom I was done. As for the people who are behind Cogent alone and have some issues with HE, ummm.... how can you be a recent Arin member with IP resources and NOT be multi-homed? If you're legitimately an end-user network, thats fine, but why run BGP over a single-homed link? Just do a static route to your single ISP and let your ISP announce your block, and since your ISP is multi-homed the HE thing is not an issue. Lets not confuse implementation and adoption. v6 is extremely easy to implement, adoption is a different story. I've been native v6 for over 2 years, and of my 300+ datacenter customers - alone one is using v6 - the rest are oblivious. -John On Feb 27, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > What is really needed is simple cookbooks for ISPs and business > networks - step by step checklist of everything you need to do to > fully enable and support IPv6. > > We have implemented IPv6 and successfully tested it directly. What > we don't have is clear methodology around IPv4 to v6 gateways and > vice-versa. > > Make it stupid easy to implement and it will get done. > > On 02/27/2013 09:40 AM, Tim St. Pierre wrote: >> So how do we make it "The end of the Freakin' IPv4 World" so people >> will actually do this already. >> >> I talk to access ISPs about it all the time, and the usual response >> is "well, we're working on it, but it's years away. It isn't really >> a priority right now." I think if we set a deadline, like "World >> Turn off IPv4 day", then we will actually see some traction. >> >> -Tim >> >> On 13-02-27 10:52 AM, Adrian Goins wrote: >>> I was sucked into the Cogent/HE problems during World IPv6 day v1 >>> and v2. It ultimately affected one of my clients deciding to keep >>> IPv6 up for their infrastructure - they saw that split in >>> reachability as bad for their customers, since customers using HE >>> as a tunnel broker would think that the client was the problem, >>> not peering. For most users of the Internet discussions about >>> peering have no value. >>> >>> I agree with the statement about multihoming being the solution. >>> If you can't afford to multihome, see about getting your >>> connectivity from a provider who _is_ multihomed. It puts you a >>> couple hops away from the backbone, but it may be worth it to >>> route around this issue. You might even be able to find someone in >>> your datacenter who can throw a cross-connect to your cage and >>> push you out to L3 or ATT or someone other than Cogent. >>> >>> We're up with IPv6 transit from Cogent and L3, using our own /32. >>> I have the opportunity to get transit directly from HE, and I'm >>> considering doing so as well. I think that the whole squabble is >>> bad for the Internet and terrible for IPv6 adoption as a whole, >>> but it's almost worth it for me to pay for the extra handoff to >>> not be drawn into it any more than I have to be. >>> >>> What I'm waiting for is IPv6 to the real end users. If TWC or >>> Comcast or Vz would reliably roll out IPv6 across their customer >>> networks, it would make life much easier. One of our providers at >>> our EU office was kind enough to enable IPv6 on our wireless link, >>> but when I asked them about giving me a /64 or /48, they were >>> stupefied. It hadn't occurred to them that we actually need to >>> have an IP block in order to make use of it. >>> >>> I think we're still a long way off from where we should be for >>> awareness and adoption, and, like most things business humans do, >>> until it's actually the end of the freakin' IPv4 world, no one is >>> going to make a move. >>> >>> Adrian Goins >>> agoins at arces.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Kerry L. Kriegel >> > wrote: >>> >>>> We only broadcast our data center /32. Cogent is the only >>>> provider we have doing IPv6 at the moment. >>>> AT&T says they do it, but getting it implemented across our >>>> peering link has been in process for several months. >>>> TWTC has the request, and may be online within the week. >>>> TWC -- no way. >>>> Cogent - online. >>>> Level3 - online in about 45 days. >>>> Thank you, >>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>> *From:*Michael Wallace [mailto:michael at birdhosting.com >>> >] >>>> *Sent:*Friday, February 22, 2013 10:53 AM >>>> *To:*Kerry L. Kriegel; arin-discuss at arin.net >>> > >>>> *Subject:*re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>> >>>> There are plenty of providers out there that do IPv6. We are >>>> currently terminating to a bunch of them. Abovenet, Level3, HE, >>>> etc etc. Are you broadcasting the BGP for these? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Michael Wallace >>>> Bird Hosting >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> *From*: "Kerry L. Kriegel" >>> >> >>>> *Sent*: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:48 AM >>>> *To*:arin-discuss at arin.net >>>> *Subject*: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>> >>>> We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before >>>> we could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS >>>> upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last >>>> week that we decided to "roll out" IPv6 and see how things looked. >>>> After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers >>>> in our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel >>>> networks at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our >>>> backbone and started looking at Google. >>>> It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and >>>> HE is still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list >>>> had any "inside" information about the problem and whether or not >>>> there was an end in sight. It seems to me that having a >>>> disconnect between two major players is going to hinder IPv6 >>>> adaptation. >>>> Thank you, >>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>> >). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contactinfo at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Tim St. Pierre >> System Operator >> Communicate Freely >> 289 225 1220 x5101 >> tim at communicatefreely.net >> www.communicatefreely.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > -- > > Jawaid Bazyar > > President > > ph 303.815.1814 > > fax 303.815.1001 > > Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net > > Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Wed Feb 27 15:44:02 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:44:02 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com><02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net><2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net><512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net> <512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net> Message-ID: On Feb 27, 2013, at 10:47 AM, Mike A. Salim wrote: > Is IPv4 space "really" running out any time soon? Since "wolf" was cried almost two years ago and the sky didn't fall yet, I do not see an immediate mass rush to IPv6 coming yet. Depends on how you define "running out". 1. The IANA free pool was empty 2 years ago (3 February, 2011). 2. APNIC reached their austerity policy 2 years ago (15 April, 2011)[1] 3. RIPE NCC reached their austerity policy last year (14 September, 2012)[2] It is not unlikely that ARIN will run out either this year or next. LACNIC and AfriNIC may last considerably longer. [1] APNIC's austerity policy began when their free pool contained only a single /8. The policy allows each organization to request a single /22 and makes no provision for any organization to get any additional IPv4 space beyond that /22. [2] RIPE's austerity policy began when their free pool contained only a single /8. The policy allows an LIR to receive a /22 if they already have an IPv6 allocation. No new IPv4 PI space is to be assigned in the RIPE region. So I guess it really depends on how you define "the sky has fallen". I would argue that the sky has fallen on Europe and Asia to at least some extent. According to ipv4.potaroo.net, ARIN is most likely to run out around the middle of next year. I suspect for a number of reasons that it may well come earlier than that. > There is probably no "one size fits all" checklist. For example, how much practical attention is being paid to IPv6 security at this point? Zero to none as far as I can tell. I am having a hard time finding any commercial or open source IPv6 monitoring tools that will just tell me if my http is alive over IPv6, let alone IPv6 specific security tools. > Indeed, each organization has a unique network and a unique set of goals and tradeoffs for making changes to their network. As such, each organization will need to develop their own unique path to IPv6 deployment and later IPv4 deprecation. Owen From owen at delong.com Wed Feb 27 15:48:42 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:48:42 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <83FE8E35-6721-4E03-9ED7-6F1A8F4316B1@quonix.net> References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com> <02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net> <2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net> <512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net> <512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net> <83FE8E35-6721-4E03-9ED7-6F1A8F4316B1@quonix.net> Message-ID: <9BAD9213-9223-446E-A970-17237357B83B@delong.com> On Feb 27, 2013, at 10:51 AM, John Von Essen wrote: > I dont know why this thread keeps going. IPv6 implementation is SO easy. > > Step 1: Call your BGP peers and ask them to give you dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 and setup an IPv6 BGP session. > Step 2: Configure the WAN link on your routers with dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 and assign the IPv6 address given to you by your BGP peers. > Step 3: Add the BGP session info for v6 > Step 4: Add your v6 advertisements > Step 5: Your DONE > Interesting? As much as I am an IPv6 proponent, this doesn't quite cut it. You claim you are "DONE", yet: 1. None of your DNS servers are yet answering queries on IPv6. 2. None of your Web or Mail servers are yet reachable via IPv6. 3. None of your services have AAAA records in DNS. 4. None of your monitoring systems are looking out for failures on IPv6. 5. None of your engineers, help desk, or users are trained on IPv6. 6. None of your procedures have been updated to account for IPv6. 7. None of your legacy "won't ever do IPv6" systems have been dealt with. While IPv6 implementation isn't hard and most of the early steps are pretty easy, a complete implementation does take some time and some thought. That's one of the reasons we are pushing so hard for people to deploy now, before the sky has completely fallen on IPv4 so that we have working IPv6 by the time it does. Owen From Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net Wed Feb 27 15:56:37 2013 From: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net (Jawaid Bazyar) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:56:37 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <9BAD9213-9223-446E-A970-17237357B83B@delong.com> References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com> <02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net> <2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net> <512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net> <512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net> <83FE8E35-6721-4E03-9ED7-6F1A8F4316B1@quonix.net> <9BAD9213-9223-446E-A970-17237357B83B@delong.com> Message-ID: <512E7305.30603@forethought.net> Yeah, once again the backbone guys have no idea what actually has to happen inside enterprise networks to have working Internet services. :-) On 02/27/2013 01:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Interesting? As much as I am an IPv6 proponent, this doesn't quite cut > it. You claim you are "DONE", yet: 1. None of your DNS servers are yet > answering queries on IPv6. 2. None of your Web or Mail servers are yet > reachable via IPv6. 3. None of your services have AAAA records in DNS. > 4. None of your monitoring systems are looking out for failures on > IPv6. 5. None of your engineers, help desk, or users are trained on > IPv6. 6. None of your procedures have been updated to account for > IPv6. 7. None of your legacy "won't ever do IPv6" systems have been > dealt with. While IPv6 implementation isn't hard and most of the early > steps are pretty easy, a complete implementation does take some time > and some thought. That's one of the reasons we are pushing so hard for > people to deploy now, before the sky has completely fallen on IPv4 so > that we have working IPv6 by the time it does. -- Jawaid Bazyar President ph 303.815.1814 fax 303.815.1001 Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 From ptimmins at clearrate.com Wed Feb 27 15:47:00 2013 From: ptimmins at clearrate.com (Paul G. Timmins) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:47:00 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <00f601ce1521$e46a2a30$ad3e7e90$@gmail.com> References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com> <02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net> <2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net> <512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net> <512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net> <83FE8E35-6721-4E03-9ED7-6F1A8F4316B1@quonix.net>, <00f601ce1521$e46a2a30$ad3e7e90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <40FD5CABB21B5046B3836EBD6008C4663FBEA46E@Exchange2.corp.clearrate.net> I'm disappointed that a dual CCIE is saying there's no RFC-1918 equivalent. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4193 Paul Timmins Clear Rate Communications Direct: (248) 556-4532 Customer Support: (877) 877-4799 24 Hour Repair: (866) 366-4665 Network Operations: (877) 877-1250 www.clearrate.com ________________________________________ From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] on behalf of GMail Account [ccie18532 at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:37 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 Good afternoon: Attached is a configuration that I have used with cisco routers. The key to start the IPv6 in BGP is to turn-off "bgp default ipv4-unicast". Now when you do that the BGP session becomes dual stacked IPv4 and IPv6. I have also added an interface command. In cisco you can have multiple IPv6 addresses and do not need the "secondary" command as you do with IPv4. This was an IOS 12.4 configuration, but IOS 15 ain't much different. Don't panic IPv6 is very easy once you use notepad to build your configuration. There are no RFC 1918's so I made my own with 10::, easy to understand and I won't announce it anyway. Now cisco has been slow in offering NAT-66 and NAT-64, but others are doing NAT-44, NAT-46, NAT-64, and NAT-66, (Arista, F5, etc.). router bgp 12345 no bgp fast-external-fallover no bgp default ipv4-unicast bgp log-neighbor-changes neighbor 1:1::2 remote-as 1 neighbor 1:1::2 description *** Fist ISP IPv6 *** neighbor 1.1.1.1 remote-as 1 neighbor 1.1.1.1 description *** Fist ISP IPv4 *** neighbor 2.2.2.2 remote-as 2 neighbor 2.2.2.2 description *** Second ISP IPv4 *** neighbor 3:3::3 remote-as 3 neighbor 3:3::3 description *** Third ISP IPv6 *** neighbor 3.3.3.3 remote-as 3 neighbor 3.3.3.3 description *** Third ISP IPv4 *** ! address-family ipv4 neighbor 1.1.1.1 activate neighbor 1.1.1.1 soft-reconfiguration inbound neighbor 2.2.2.2 activate neighbor 2.2.2.2 soft-reconfiguration inbound neighbor 3.3.3.3 activate neighbor 3.3.3.3 soft-reconfiguration inbound no auto-summary no synchronization network 11.11.11.0 mask 255.255.255.0 network 12.12.12.0 mask 255.255.255.0 network 21.21.21.0 mask 255.255.255.0 network 22.22.22.0 mask 255.255.255.0 network 31.31.31.0 mask 255.255.255.0 network 32.32.32.0 mask 255.255.255.0 network 222.33.0.0 exit-address-family ! address-family ipv6 neighbor 1:1::2 activate neighbor 1:1::2 soft-reconfiguration inbound neighbor 1:1::2 prefix-list IPv6 in neighbor 3:3::3 soft-reconfiguration inbound network 12:12::/32 network 31:31::/32 exit-address-family ! interface G0/0 description Gateway for Servers and Network Services ip address 12.12.12.1 255.255.255.0 secondary ip address 22.22.22.1 255.255.240.0 ip verify unicast source reachable-via rx allow-default 199 no ip redirects no ip unreachables no ip proxy-arp ipv6 address 20::1/48 ipv6 address 40::1/48 ipv6 enable no ipv6 unreachables no ipv6 redirects ipv6 verify unicast reverse-path RFC-2827 end ! access-list 199 remark *** Verify Reverse Path *** access-list 199 deny ip any any log ! ipv6 access-list RFC-2827 deny ipv6 any any log George Morton, Ph. D. Principal Network Architect Enabling the Smart Network Dual CCIE 18532, Router/Switch & Security 954-802-1347 Cell 954-839-8486 Remote Office 202-787-3988 DC Office The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Von Essen Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 1:52 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 I dont know why this thread keeps going. IPv6 implementation is SO easy. Step 1: Call your BGP peers and ask them to give you dual-stack IPv4/ IPv6 and setup an IPv6 BGP session. Step 2: Configure the WAN link on your routers with dual-stack IPv4/ IPv6 and assign the IPv6 address given to you by your BGP peers. Step 3: Add the BGP session info for v6 Step 4: Add your v6 advertisements Step 5: Your DONE I have Cogent, Level3, and Abovenet peers. It literally took 1-2 days to get completely setup with IPv6, I just emailed them, requested dual- stack, got my v6 address, brought up the peer's BGP session for v6, and boom I was done. As for the people who are behind Cogent alone and have some issues with HE, ummm.... how can you be a recent Arin member with IP resources and NOT be multi-homed? If you're legitimately an end-user network, thats fine, but why run BGP over a single-homed link? Just do a static route to your single ISP and let your ISP announce your block, and since your ISP is multi-homed the HE thing is not an issue. Lets not confuse implementation and adoption. v6 is extremely easy to implement, adoption is a different story. I've been native v6 for over 2 years, and of my 300+ datacenter customers - alone one is using v6 - the rest are oblivious. -John On Feb 27, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > What is really needed is simple cookbooks for ISPs and business > networks - step by step checklist of everything you need to do to > fully enable and support IPv6. > > We have implemented IPv6 and successfully tested it directly. What > we don't have is clear methodology around IPv4 to v6 gateways and > vice-versa. > > Make it stupid easy to implement and it will get done. > > On 02/27/2013 09:40 AM, Tim St. Pierre wrote: >> So how do we make it "The end of the Freakin' IPv4 World" so people >> will actually do this already. >> >> I talk to access ISPs about it all the time, and the usual response >> is "well, we're working on it, but it's years away. It isn't really >> a priority right now." I think if we set a deadline, like "World >> Turn off IPv4 day", then we will actually see some traction. >> >> -Tim >> >> On 13-02-27 10:52 AM, Adrian Goins wrote: >>> I was sucked into the Cogent/HE problems during World IPv6 day v1 >>> and v2. It ultimately affected one of my clients deciding to keep >>> IPv6 up for their infrastructure - they saw that split in >>> reachability as bad for their customers, since customers using HE >>> as a tunnel broker would think that the client was the problem, >>> not peering. For most users of the Internet discussions about >>> peering have no value. >>> >>> I agree with the statement about multihoming being the solution. >>> If you can't afford to multihome, see about getting your >>> connectivity from a provider who _is_ multihomed. It puts you a >>> couple hops away from the backbone, but it may be worth it to >>> route around this issue. You might even be able to find someone in >>> your datacenter who can throw a cross-connect to your cage and >>> push you out to L3 or ATT or someone other than Cogent. >>> >>> We're up with IPv6 transit from Cogent and L3, using our own /32. >>> I have the opportunity to get transit directly from HE, and I'm >>> considering doing so as well. I think that the whole squabble is >>> bad for the Internet and terrible for IPv6 adoption as a whole, >>> but it's almost worth it for me to pay for the extra handoff to >>> not be drawn into it any more than I have to be. >>> >>> What I'm waiting for is IPv6 to the real end users. If TWC or >>> Comcast or Vz would reliably roll out IPv6 across their customer >>> networks, it would make life much easier. One of our providers at >>> our EU office was kind enough to enable IPv6 on our wireless link, >>> but when I asked them about giving me a /64 or /48, they were >>> stupefied. It hadn't occurred to them that we actually need to >>> have an IP block in order to make use of it. >>> >>> I think we're still a long way off from where we should be for >>> awareness and adoption, and, like most things business humans do, >>> until it's actually the end of the freakin' IPv4 world, no one is >>> going to make a move. >>> >>> Adrian Goins >>> agoins at arces.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Kerry L. Kriegel >> > wrote: >>> >>>> We only broadcast our data center /32. Cogent is the only >>>> provider we have doing IPv6 at the moment. >>>> AT&T says they do it, but getting it implemented across our >>>> peering link has been in process for several months. >>>> TWTC has the request, and may be online within the week. >>>> TWC -- no way. >>>> Cogent - online. >>>> Level3 - online in about 45 days. >>>> Thank you, >>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>> *From:*Michael Wallace [mailto:michael at birdhosting.com >>> >] >>>> *Sent:*Friday, February 22, 2013 10:53 AM >>>> *To:*Kerry L. Kriegel; arin-discuss at arin.net >>> > >>>> *Subject:*re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>> >>>> There are plenty of providers out there that do IPv6. We are >>>> currently terminating to a bunch of them. Abovenet, Level3, HE, >>>> etc etc. Are you broadcasting the BGP for these? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Michael Wallace >>>> Bird Hosting >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> *From*: "Kerry L. Kriegel" >>> >> >>>> *Sent*: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:48 AM >>>> *To*:arin-discuss at arin.net >>>> *Subject*: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>> >>>> We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before >>>> we could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS >>>> upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last >>>> week that we decided to "roll out" IPv6 and see how things looked. >>>> After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers >>>> in our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel >>>> networks at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our >>>> backbone and started looking at Google. >>>> It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and >>>> HE is still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list >>>> had any "inside" information about the problem and whether or not >>>> there was an end in sight. It seems to me that having a >>>> disconnect between two major players is going to hinder IPv6 >>>> adaptation. >>>> Thank you, >>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>> >). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contactinfo at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Tim St. Pierre >> System Operator >> Communicate Freely >> 289 225 1220 x5101 >> tim at communicatefreely.net >> www.communicatefreely.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > -- > > Jawaid Bazyar > > President > > ph 303.815.1814 > > fax 303.815.1001 > > Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net > > Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Wed Feb 27 15:57:54 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:57:54 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <00f601ce1521$e46a2a30$ad3e7e90$@gmail.com> References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com> <02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net> <2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net> <512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net> <512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net> <83FE8E35-6721-4E03-9ED7-6F1A8F4316B1@quonix.net> <00f601ce1521$e46a2a30$ad3e7e90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2AF4B77B-483A-4485-90AB-4187D9149FC4@delong.com> On Feb 27, 2013, at 11:37 AM, "GMail Account" wrote: > Good afternoon: > > Attached is a configuration that I have used with cisco routers. The key to > start the IPv6 in BGP is to turn-off "bgp default ipv4-unicast". Now when > you do that the BGP session becomes dual stacked IPv4 and IPv6. I have also > added an interface command. In cisco you can have multiple IPv6 addresses > and do not need the "secondary" command as you do with IPv4. This was an > IOS 12.4 configuration, but IOS 15 ain't much different. That seems to indicate a slight misunderstanding of what "bhp default ipv4-unicast" does. I agree that turning it off is a good idea. However, here's what it actually changes: With bgp default ipv4-unicast on, the default address family for bgp is IPv4 and any command entered without an address family specified will default to IPv4. (essentially everything under "address-family ipv4" would move to being just regular statements under "router bgp 12345". You can still configure bgp sessions in IPv4 and IPv6 and you can still advertise IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes on those sessions. The reason you want to turn off the default to IPv4 is so that when you are entering your IPv6 configuration and you (rationally) type: router bgp 12345 address-family ipv6 neighbor 1:1::2 remote-as 1 neighbor 1:1::2 prefix-list IPv6 in You will get an error on the second statement instead of getting the following effective configuration: router bgp 12345 neighbor 1:1::2 remote-as 1 address-family ipv4 neighbor 1:1::2 prefix-list IPv6 in (No, the IPv4 is not a typo, that's really how the router will effectively parse the above configuration inputs.) Why? Well, because it goes like this. router bgp 12345 puts you into configuring BGP. address-family ipv6 puts you into configuring the IPv6 address family in BGP. neighbor 1:1::2 remote-as 1 puts you back into configuring BGP because it is not considered an address-family specific command. Now the next line you type is an address-family specific command, so it gets associated with an address family. However, since one was not yet specified and the default is IPv4, it will go into the IPv4 configuration and not do at all what you expect. However, it is considered syntactically valid, so you don't get an error message. Hope that clarifies. Owen > > Don't panic IPv6 is very easy once you use notepad to build your > configuration. There are no RFC 1918's so I made my own with 10::, easy to > understand and I won't announce it anyway. Now cisco has been slow in > offering NAT-66 and NAT-64, but others are doing NAT-44, NAT-46, NAT-64, and > NAT-66, (Arista, F5, etc.). > > router bgp 12345 > no bgp fast-external-fallover > no bgp default ipv4-unicast > bgp log-neighbor-changes > neighbor 1:1::2 remote-as 1 > neighbor 1:1::2 description *** Fist ISP IPv6 *** > neighbor 1.1.1.1 remote-as 1 > neighbor 1.1.1.1 description *** Fist ISP IPv4 *** > neighbor 2.2.2.2 remote-as 2 > neighbor 2.2.2.2 description *** Second ISP IPv4 *** > neighbor 3:3::3 remote-as 3 > neighbor 3:3::3 description *** Third ISP IPv6 *** > neighbor 3.3.3.3 remote-as 3 > neighbor 3.3.3.3 description *** Third ISP IPv4 *** > ! > address-family ipv4 > neighbor 1.1.1.1 activate > neighbor 1.1.1.1 soft-reconfiguration inbound > neighbor 2.2.2.2 activate > neighbor 2.2.2.2 soft-reconfiguration inbound > neighbor 3.3.3.3 activate > neighbor 3.3.3.3 soft-reconfiguration inbound > no auto-summary > no synchronization > network 11.11.11.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 12.12.12.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 21.21.21.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 22.22.22.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 31.31.31.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 32.32.32.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 222.33.0.0 > exit-address-family > ! > address-family ipv6 > neighbor 1:1::2 activate > neighbor 1:1::2 soft-reconfiguration inbound > neighbor 1:1::2 prefix-list IPv6 in > neighbor 3:3::3 soft-reconfiguration inbound > network 12:12::/32 > network 31:31::/32 > exit-address-family > ! > interface G0/0 > description Gateway for Servers and Network Services > ip address 12.12.12.1 255.255.255.0 secondary > ip address 22.22.22.1 255.255.240.0 > ip verify unicast source reachable-via rx allow-default 199 > no ip redirects > no ip unreachables > no ip proxy-arp > ipv6 address 20::1/48 > ipv6 address 40::1/48 > ipv6 enable > no ipv6 unreachables > no ipv6 redirects > ipv6 verify unicast reverse-path RFC-2827 > end > ! > access-list 199 remark *** Verify Reverse Path *** > access-list 199 deny ip any any log > ! > ipv6 access-list RFC-2827 > deny ipv6 any any log > > > George Morton, Ph. D. > Principal Network Architect > Enabling the Smart Network > Dual CCIE 18532, Router/Switch & Security > 954-802-1347 Cell > 954-839-8486 Remote Office > 202-787-3988 DC Office > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or > privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use > of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or > entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received > this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all > computers. > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of John Von Essen > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 1:52 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 > > I dont know why this thread keeps going. IPv6 implementation is SO easy. > > Step 1: Call your BGP peers and ask them to give you dual-stack IPv4/ > IPv6 and setup an IPv6 BGP session. > Step 2: Configure the WAN link on your routers with dual-stack IPv4/ > IPv6 and assign the IPv6 address given to you by your BGP peers. > Step 3: Add the BGP session info for v6 > Step 4: Add your v6 advertisements > Step 5: Your DONE > > I have Cogent, Level3, and Abovenet peers. It literally took 1-2 days to get > completely setup with IPv6, I just emailed them, requested dual- stack, got > my v6 address, brought up the peer's BGP session for v6, and boom I was > done. > > As for the people who are behind Cogent alone and have some issues with HE, > ummm.... how can you be a recent Arin member with IP resources and NOT be > multi-homed? If you're legitimately an end-user network, thats fine, but why > run BGP over a single-homed link? Just do a static route to your single ISP > and let your ISP announce your block, and since your ISP is multi-homed the > HE thing is not an issue. > > > Lets not confuse implementation and adoption. v6 is extremely easy to > implement, adoption is a different story. I've been native v6 for over > 2 years, and of my 300+ datacenter customers - alone one is using v6 - the > rest are oblivious. > > -John > > > > On Feb 27, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > >> What is really needed is simple cookbooks for ISPs and business >> networks - step by step checklist of everything you need to do to >> fully enable and support IPv6. >> >> We have implemented IPv6 and successfully tested it directly. What >> we don't have is clear methodology around IPv4 to v6 gateways and >> vice-versa. >> >> Make it stupid easy to implement and it will get done. >> >> On 02/27/2013 09:40 AM, Tim St. Pierre wrote: >>> So how do we make it "The end of the Freakin' IPv4 World" so people >>> will actually do this already. >>> >>> I talk to access ISPs about it all the time, and the usual response >>> is "well, we're working on it, but it's years away. It isn't really >>> a priority right now." I think if we set a deadline, like "World >>> Turn off IPv4 day", then we will actually see some traction. >>> >>> -Tim >>> >>> On 13-02-27 10:52 AM, Adrian Goins wrote: >>>> I was sucked into the Cogent/HE problems during World IPv6 day v1 >>>> and v2. It ultimately affected one of my clients deciding to keep >>>> IPv6 up for their infrastructure - they saw that split in >>>> reachability as bad for their customers, since customers using HE >>>> as a tunnel broker would think that the client was the problem, >>>> not peering. For most users of the Internet discussions about >>>> peering have no value. >>>> >>>> I agree with the statement about multihoming being the solution. >>>> If you can't afford to multihome, see about getting your >>>> connectivity from a provider who _is_ multihomed. It puts you a >>>> couple hops away from the backbone, but it may be worth it to >>>> route around this issue. You might even be able to find someone in >>>> your datacenter who can throw a cross-connect to your cage and >>>> push you out to L3 or ATT or someone other than Cogent. >>>> >>>> We're up with IPv6 transit from Cogent and L3, using our own /32. >>>> I have the opportunity to get transit directly from HE, and I'm >>>> considering doing so as well. I think that the whole squabble is >>>> bad for the Internet and terrible for IPv6 adoption as a whole, >>>> but it's almost worth it for me to pay for the extra handoff to >>>> not be drawn into it any more than I have to be. >>>> >>>> What I'm waiting for is IPv6 to the real end users. If TWC or >>>> Comcast or Vz would reliably roll out IPv6 across their customer >>>> networks, it would make life much easier. One of our providers at >>>> our EU office was kind enough to enable IPv6 on our wireless link, >>>> but when I asked them about giving me a /64 or /48, they were >>>> stupefied. It hadn't occurred to them that we actually need to >>>> have an IP block in order to make use of it. >>>> >>>> I think we're still a long way off from where we should be for >>>> awareness and adoption, and, like most things business humans do, >>>> until it's actually the end of the freakin' IPv4 world, no one is >>>> going to make a move. >>>> >>>> Adrian Goins >>>> agoins at arces.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Kerry L. Kriegel >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> We only broadcast our data center /32. Cogent is the only >>>>> provider we have doing IPv6 at the moment. >>>>> AT&T says they do it, but getting it implemented across our >>>>> peering link has been in process for several months. >>>>> TWTC has the request, and may be online within the week. >>>>> TWC -- no way. >>>>> Cogent - online. >>>>> Level3 - online in about 45 days. >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>>> *From:*Michael Wallace [mailto:michael at birdhosting.com > >>>>> ] >>>>> *Sent:*Friday, February 22, 2013 10:53 AM >>>>> *To:*Kerry L. Kriegel; arin-discuss at arin.net > >>>>> >>>>> *Subject:*re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>>> >>>>> There are plenty of providers out there that do IPv6. We are >>>>> currently terminating to a bunch of them. Abovenet, Level3, HE, >>>>> etc etc. Are you broadcasting the BGP for these? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Michael Wallace >>>>> Bird Hosting >>>>> >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> *From*: "Kerry L. Kriegel" >>>>>> >>>>> *Sent*: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:48 AM >>>>> *To*:arin-discuss at arin.net >>>>> *Subject*: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>>> >>>>> We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before >>>>> we could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS >>>>> upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last >>>>> week that we decided to "roll out" IPv6 and see how things looked. >>>>> After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers >>>>> in our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel >>>>> networks at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our >>>>> backbone and started looking at Google. >>>>> It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and >>>>> HE is still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list >>>>> had any "inside" information about the problem and whether or not >>>>> there was an end in sight. It seems to me that having a >>>>> disconnect between two major players is going to hinder IPv6 >>>>> adaptation. >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > >>>>> ). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contactinfo at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Tim St. Pierre >>> System Operator >>> Communicate Freely >>> 289 225 1220 x5101 >>> tim at communicatefreely.net >>> www.communicatefreely.net >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> -- >> >> Jawaid Bazyar >> >> President >> >> ph 303.815.1814 >> >> fax 303.815.1001 >> >> Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net >> >> Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From bob at FiberInternetCenter.com Wed Feb 27 16:08:54 2013 From: bob at FiberInternetCenter.com (Bob Evans) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:08:54 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com><02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net><2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net><512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net> <512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net> Message-ID: <9f1a329a317641363fe7694972d396b6.squirrel@66.201.44.180> The curiosity was there from customers. So our company built a native IPv6 network that is multi-homed. No tunneling - customer gets an easy to use ipv6 port together with their ipv4 port on the cpe gear we provide. Can't get much more simple than that. To date, only 2 customers out of many hundreds of fiber customers actually used the ipv6 space we assigned them. Those had need was for accessing European offices , one of the first places for the sky to fall. I have actually had IT heads ask us not to tell anyone in the company they can have ipv6 today. So what's wrong with this picture? The gear for Customers just isn't up to par. We have tested so many devices. Most of what's available has limited functionality - this manufacturer IPv6 ready label is almost meaningless. Much of what's available for networks is over priced and newly buggy. It's not so much the customer base or the networks or the manufacturers, it's all of them together. It's like a the fat nurse telling a fat patient to exercise more and eat less. People are lazy, they wait until they have a breathing problem to follow advice. So until there is a poor breathing episode , IPv4 is here for some time. Probably another 5-7 years. The ipv4 oxygen tank on wheels is NAT44. I know Europeans are implementing this on big networks. They reuse the ip addresses and leverage logical port bits. So the sky falling now has even more of a big delay factor. bob evans > Its going to be a bit of a mess if folks wait for the sky to fall before > planning and executing their v6 migration. > > Also if more folks would get it done then the transition and translation > costs for those coming in after v4 is gone will be lower. > > There is and had been every reason to expedite, so, nothing that's > happened so far should be thought of as crying wolf. > > Paul > > "Mike A. Salim" wrote: > >>Is IPv4 space "really" running out any time soon? Since "wolf" was >>cried almost two years ago and the sky didn't fall yet, I do not see an >>immediate mass rush to IPv6 coming yet. >> >>As for simple / stupid checklists, these abound. >> >>I googled for IPv6 checklists and found: >> >>http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc786337(v=ws.10).aspx >> >>http://www.es.net/services/ipv6-network/ipv6-implementation-checklist/ >> >>http://www.infoworld.com/d/data-explosion/your-handy-ipv6-checklist-232 >> >>There is probably no "one size fits all" checklist. For example, how >>much practical attention is being paid to IPv6 security at this point? >>Zero to none as far as I can tell. I am having a hard time finding any >>commercial or open source IPv6 monitoring tools that will just tell me >>if my http is alive over IPv6, let alone IPv6 specific security tools. >> >>Mike >> >>A. Michael Salim >>VP and Chief Technology Officer, >>American Data Technology, Inc. >>PO Box 12892 >>Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA >>P: (919)544-4101 x101 >>F: (919)544-5345 >>E: msalim at localweb.com >>W: http://www.localweb.com >> >>PRIVACY NOTIFICATION: This e-mail message, including any attachments, >>is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. >>2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may >>contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. >>Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If >>you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply >>e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. >> >>??????Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jawaid Bazyar >>Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:03 PM >>To: arin-discuss at arin.net >>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >> >>What is really needed is simple cookbooks for ISPs and business >>networks >>- step by step checklist of everything you need to do to fully enable >>and support IPv6. >> >>We have implemented IPv6 and successfully tested it directly. What we >>don't have is clear methodology around IPv4 to v6 gateways and >>vice-versa. >> >>Make it stupid easy to implement and it will get done. >> >>On 02/27/2013 09:40 AM, Tim St. Pierre wrote: >>> So how do we make it "The end of the Freakin' IPv4 World" so people >>> will actually do this already. >>> >>> I talk to access ISPs about it all the time, and the usual response >>is >>> "well, we're working on it, but it's years away. It isn't really a >>> priority right now." I think if we set a deadline, like "World Turn >>> off IPv4 day", then we will actually see some traction. >>> >>> -Tim >>> >>> On 13-02-27 10:52 AM, Adrian Goins wrote: >>>> I was sucked into the Cogent/HE problems during World IPv6 day v1 >>and >>>> v2. It ultimately affected one of my clients deciding to keep IPv6 >>up >>>> for their infrastructure - they saw that split in reachability as >>bad >>>> for their customers, since customers using HE as a tunnel broker >>>> would think that the client was the problem, not peering. For most >>>> users of the Internet discussions about peering have no value. >>>> >>>> I agree with the statement about multihoming being the solution. If >>>> you can't afford to multihome, see about getting your connectivity >>>> from a provider who _is_ multihomed. It puts you a couple hops away >>>> from the backbone, but it may be worth it to route around this >>issue. >>>> You might even be able to find someone in your datacenter who can >>>> throw a cross-connect to your cage and push you out to L3 or ATT or >>>> someone other than Cogent. >>>> >>>> We're up with IPv6 transit from Cogent and L3, using our own /32. I >>>> have the opportunity to get transit directly from HE, and I'm >>>> considering doing so as well. I think that the whole squabble is bad >> >>>> for the Internet and terrible for IPv6 adoption as a whole, but it's >> >>>> almost worth it for me to pay for the extra handoff to not be drawn >>>> into it any more than I have to be. >>>> >>>> What I'm waiting for is IPv6 to the real end users. If TWC or >>Comcast >>>> or Vz would reliably roll out IPv6 across their customer networks, >>it >>>> would make life much easier. One of our providers at our EU office >>>> was kind enough to enable IPv6 on our wireless link, but when I >>asked >>>> them about giving me a /64 or /48, they were stupefied. It hadn't >>>> occurred to them that we actually need to have an IP block in order >>>> to make use of it. >>>> >>>> I think we're still a long way off from where we should be for >>>> awareness and adoption, and, like most things business humans do, >>>> until it's actually the end of the freakin' IPv4 world, no one is >>>> going to make a move. >>>> >>>> Adrian Goins >>>> agoins at arces.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Kerry L. Kriegel >>>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> We only broadcast our data center /32. Cogent is the only provider >>>>> we have doing IPv6 at the moment. >>>>> AT&T says they do it, but getting it implemented across our peering >> >>>>> link has been in process for several months. >>>>> TWTC has the request, and may be online within the week. >>>>> TWC -- no way. >>>>> Cogent ??? online. >>>>> Level3 ??? online in about 45 days. >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>>> *From:*Michael Wallace [mailto:michael at birdhosting.com >>>>> ] *Sent:*Friday, February 22, 2013 10:53 AM >> >>>>> *To:*Kerry L. Kriegel; arin-discuss at arin.net >>>>> >>>>> *Subject:*re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>>> >>>>> There are plenty of providers out there that do IPv6. We are >>>>> currently terminating to a bunch of them. Abovenet, Level3, HE, etc >> >>>>> etc. Are you broadcasting the BGP for these? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Michael Wallace >>>>> Bird Hosting >>>>> >>>>> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> ---- >>>>> >>>>> *From*: "Kerry L. Kriegel" >>>> > >>>>> *Sent*: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:48 AM >>*To*:arin-discuss at arin.net >>>>> >>>>> *Subject*: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>>> >>>>> We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before we >>>>> could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS >>>>> upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last week >>>>> that we decided to ???roll out??? IPv6 and see how things looked. >>>>> After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers >>in >>>>> our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel >>networks >>>>> at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our backbone and >>>>> started looking at Google. >>>>> It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and HE >>>>> is still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list had >>any >>>>> ???inside??? information about the problem and whether or not there >>>>> was >> >>>>> an end in sight. It seems to me that having a disconnect between >>two >>>>> major players is going to hinder IPv6 adaptation. >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>> ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>>>> ). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the >>ARIN >>>> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contactinfo at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Tim St. Pierre >>> System Operator >>> Communicate Freely >>> 289 225 1220 x5101 >>> tim at communicatefreely.net >>> www.communicatefreely.net >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >> >>> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >>-- >> >>Jawaid Bazyar >> >>President >> >>ph 303.815.1814 >> >>fax 303.815.1001 >> >>Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net >> >>Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ARIN-Discuss >>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >>Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>_______________________________________________ >>ARIN-Discuss >>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > -- > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my > brevity._______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. Bob Evans CTO 650-330-0428 ext 204 M-F 9-5 Pacific , please From ccie18532 at gmail.com Wed Feb 27 16:15:23 2013 From: ccie18532 at gmail.com (George Morton Ph. D. Dual CCIE 18532) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:15:23 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <40FD5CABB21B5046B3836EBD6008C4663FBEA46E@Exchange2.corp.clearrate.net> References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com> <02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net> <2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net> <512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net> <512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net> <83FE8E35-6721-4E03-9ED7-6F1A8F4316B1@quonix.net> <00f601ce1521$e46a2a30$ad3e7e90$@gmail.com> <40FD5CABB21B5046B3836EBD6008C4663FBEA46E@Exchange2.corp.clearrate.net> Message-ID: <75D7AD97-523A-46DC-B40F-8C3400C2C095@gmail.com> Hello again Sorry I only got an 80 on the test. George Morton, Ph.D. Dual CCIE 18532 Sent from George Morton's iPhone 954-591-8532 On Feb 27, 2013, at 3:47 PM, "Paul G. Timmins" wrote: > I'm disappointed that a dual CCIE is saying there's no RFC-1918 equivalent. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4193 > > Paul Timmins > Clear Rate Communications > Direct: (248) 556-4532 > Customer Support: (877) 877-4799 > 24 Hour Repair: (866) 366-4665 > Network Operations: (877) 877-1250 > www.clearrate.com > > > ________________________________________ > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] on behalf of GMail Account [ccie18532 at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:37 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 > > Good afternoon: > > Attached is a configuration that I have used with cisco routers. The key to > start the IPv6 in BGP is to turn-off "bgp default ipv4-unicast". Now when > you do that the BGP session becomes dual stacked IPv4 and IPv6. I have also > added an interface command. In cisco you can have multiple IPv6 addresses > and do not need the "secondary" command as you do with IPv4. This was an > IOS 12.4 configuration, but IOS 15 ain't much different. > > Don't panic IPv6 is very easy once you use notepad to build your > configuration. There are no RFC 1918's so I made my own with 10::, easy to > understand and I won't announce it anyway. Now cisco has been slow in > offering NAT-66 and NAT-64, but others are doing NAT-44, NAT-46, NAT-64, and > NAT-66, (Arista, F5, etc.). > > router bgp 12345 > no bgp fast-external-fallover > no bgp default ipv4-unicast > bgp log-neighbor-changes > neighbor 1:1::2 remote-as 1 > neighbor 1:1::2 description *** Fist ISP IPv6 *** > neighbor 1.1.1.1 remote-as 1 > neighbor 1.1.1.1 description *** Fist ISP IPv4 *** > neighbor 2.2.2.2 remote-as 2 > neighbor 2.2.2.2 description *** Second ISP IPv4 *** > neighbor 3:3::3 remote-as 3 > neighbor 3:3::3 description *** Third ISP IPv6 *** > neighbor 3.3.3.3 remote-as 3 > neighbor 3.3.3.3 description *** Third ISP IPv4 *** > ! > address-family ipv4 > neighbor 1.1.1.1 activate > neighbor 1.1.1.1 soft-reconfiguration inbound > neighbor 2.2.2.2 activate > neighbor 2.2.2.2 soft-reconfiguration inbound > neighbor 3.3.3.3 activate > neighbor 3.3.3.3 soft-reconfiguration inbound > no auto-summary > no synchronization > network 11.11.11.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 12.12.12.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 21.21.21.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 22.22.22.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 31.31.31.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 32.32.32.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 222.33.0.0 > exit-address-family > ! > address-family ipv6 > neighbor 1:1::2 activate > neighbor 1:1::2 soft-reconfiguration inbound > neighbor 1:1::2 prefix-list IPv6 in > neighbor 3:3::3 soft-reconfiguration inbound > network 12:12::/32 > network 31:31::/32 > exit-address-family > ! > interface G0/0 > description Gateway for Servers and Network Services > ip address 12.12.12.1 255.255.255.0 secondary > ip address 22.22.22.1 255.255.240.0 > ip verify unicast source reachable-via rx allow-default 199 > no ip redirects > no ip unreachables > no ip proxy-arp > ipv6 address 20::1/48 > ipv6 address 40::1/48 > ipv6 enable > no ipv6 unreachables > no ipv6 redirects > ipv6 verify unicast reverse-path RFC-2827 > end > ! > access-list 199 remark *** Verify Reverse Path *** > access-list 199 deny ip any any log > ! > ipv6 access-list RFC-2827 > deny ipv6 any any log > > > George Morton, Ph. D. > Principal Network Architect > Enabling the Smart Network > Dual CCIE 18532, Router/Switch & Security > 954-802-1347 Cell > 954-839-8486 Remote Office > 202-787-3988 DC Office > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or > privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use > of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or > entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received > this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all > computers. > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of John Von Essen > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 1:52 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 > > I dont know why this thread keeps going. IPv6 implementation is SO easy. > > Step 1: Call your BGP peers and ask them to give you dual-stack IPv4/ > IPv6 and setup an IPv6 BGP session. > Step 2: Configure the WAN link on your routers with dual-stack IPv4/ > IPv6 and assign the IPv6 address given to you by your BGP peers. > Step 3: Add the BGP session info for v6 > Step 4: Add your v6 advertisements > Step 5: Your DONE > > I have Cogent, Level3, and Abovenet peers. It literally took 1-2 days to get > completely setup with IPv6, I just emailed them, requested dual- stack, got > my v6 address, brought up the peer's BGP session for v6, and boom I was > done. > > As for the people who are behind Cogent alone and have some issues with HE, > ummm.... how can you be a recent Arin member with IP resources and NOT be > multi-homed? If you're legitimately an end-user network, thats fine, but why > run BGP over a single-homed link? Just do a static route to your single ISP > and let your ISP announce your block, and since your ISP is multi-homed the > HE thing is not an issue. > > > Lets not confuse implementation and adoption. v6 is extremely easy to > implement, adoption is a different story. I've been native v6 for over > 2 years, and of my 300+ datacenter customers - alone one is using v6 - the > rest are oblivious. > > -John > > > > On Feb 27, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > >> What is really needed is simple cookbooks for ISPs and business >> networks - step by step checklist of everything you need to do to >> fully enable and support IPv6. >> >> We have implemented IPv6 and successfully tested it directly. What >> we don't have is clear methodology around IPv4 to v6 gateways and >> vice-versa. >> >> Make it stupid easy to implement and it will get done. >> >> On 02/27/2013 09:40 AM, Tim St. Pierre wrote: >>> So how do we make it "The end of the Freakin' IPv4 World" so people >>> will actually do this already. >>> >>> I talk to access ISPs about it all the time, and the usual response >>> is "well, we're working on it, but it's years away. It isn't really >>> a priority right now." I think if we set a deadline, like "World >>> Turn off IPv4 day", then we will actually see some traction. >>> >>> -Tim >>> >>> On 13-02-27 10:52 AM, Adrian Goins wrote: >>>> I was sucked into the Cogent/HE problems during World IPv6 day v1 >>>> and v2. It ultimately affected one of my clients deciding to keep >>>> IPv6 up for their infrastructure - they saw that split in >>>> reachability as bad for their customers, since customers using HE >>>> as a tunnel broker would think that the client was the problem, >>>> not peering. For most users of the Internet discussions about >>>> peering have no value. >>>> >>>> I agree with the statement about multihoming being the solution. >>>> If you can't afford to multihome, see about getting your >>>> connectivity from a provider who _is_ multihomed. It puts you a >>>> couple hops away from the backbone, but it may be worth it to >>>> route around this issue. You might even be able to find someone in >>>> your datacenter who can throw a cross-connect to your cage and >>>> push you out to L3 or ATT or someone other than Cogent. >>>> >>>> We're up with IPv6 transit from Cogent and L3, using our own /32. >>>> I have the opportunity to get transit directly from HE, and I'm >>>> considering doing so as well. I think that the whole squabble is >>>> bad for the Internet and terrible for IPv6 adoption as a whole, >>>> but it's almost worth it for me to pay for the extra handoff to >>>> not be drawn into it any more than I have to be. >>>> >>>> What I'm waiting for is IPv6 to the real end users. If TWC or >>>> Comcast or Vz would reliably roll out IPv6 across their customer >>>> networks, it would make life much easier. One of our providers at >>>> our EU office was kind enough to enable IPv6 on our wireless link, >>>> but when I asked them about giving me a /64 or /48, they were >>>> stupefied. It hadn't occurred to them that we actually need to >>>> have an IP block in order to make use of it. >>>> >>>> I think we're still a long way off from where we should be for >>>> awareness and adoption, and, like most things business humans do, >>>> until it's actually the end of the freakin' IPv4 world, no one is >>>> going to make a move. >>>> >>>> Adrian Goins >>>> agoins at arces.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Kerry L. Kriegel >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> We only broadcast our data center /32. Cogent is the only >>>>> provider we have doing IPv6 at the moment. >>>>> AT&T says they do it, but getting it implemented across our >>>>> peering link has been in process for several months. >>>>> TWTC has the request, and may be online within the week. >>>>> TWC -- no way. >>>>> Cogent - online. >>>>> Level3 - online in about 45 days. >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>>> *From:*Michael Wallace [mailto:michael at birdhosting.com > >>>>> ] >>>>> *Sent:*Friday, February 22, 2013 10:53 AM >>>>> *To:*Kerry L. Kriegel; arin-discuss at arin.net > >>>> *Subject:*re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>>> >>>>> There are plenty of providers out there that do IPv6. We are >>>>> currently terminating to a bunch of them. Abovenet, Level3, HE, >>>>> etc etc. Are you broadcasting the BGP for these? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Michael Wallace >>>>> Bird Hosting > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> *From*: "Kerry L. Kriegel" >>>> *Sent*: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:48 AM >>>>> *To*:arin-discuss at arin.net >>>>> *Subject*: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>>> >>>>> We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before >>>>> we could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS >>>>> upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last >>>>> week that we decided to "roll out" IPv6 and see how things looked. >>>>> After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers >>>>> in our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel >>>>> networks at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our >>>>> backbone and started looking at Google. >>>>> It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and >>>>> HE is still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list >>>>> had any "inside" information about the problem and whether or not >>>>> there was an end in sight. It seems to me that having a >>>>> disconnect between two major players is going to hinder IPv6 >>>>> adaptation. >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > >>>>> ). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contactinfo at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Tim St. Pierre >>> System Operator >>> Communicate Freely >>> 289 225 1220 x5101 >>> tim at communicatefreely.net >>> www.communicatefreely.net >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> -- >> >> Jawaid Bazyar >> >> President >> >> ph 303.815.1814 >> >> fax 303.815.1001 >> >> Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net >> >> Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Wed Feb 27 16:24:01 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:24:01 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <40FD5CABB21B5046B3836EBD6008C4663FBEA46E@Exchange2.corp.clearrate.net> References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com> <02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net> <2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net> <512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net> <512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net> <83FE8E35-6721-4E03-9ED7-6F1A8F4316B1@quonix.net>, <00f601ce1521$e46a2a30$ad3e7e90$@gmail.com> <40FD5CABB21B5046B3836EBD6008C4663FBEA46E@Exchange2.corp.clearrate.net> Message-ID: Yes, there is ULA. However, there's no need for RFC-1918 in IPv6 and no need for NAT, so I'm even more disappointed that a double CCIE couldn't just use the doc prefix (both IPv4 and IPv6) as intended and skip the whole ambiguous addressing problem altogether. Owen On Feb 27, 2013, at 12:47 PM, "Paul G. Timmins" wrote: > I'm disappointed that a dual CCIE is saying there's no RFC-1918 equivalent. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4193 > > Paul Timmins > Clear Rate Communications > Direct: (248) 556-4532 > Customer Support: (877) 877-4799 > 24 Hour Repair: (866) 366-4665 > Network Operations: (877) 877-1250 > www.clearrate.com > > > ________________________________________ > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] on behalf of GMail Account [ccie18532 at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:37 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 > > Good afternoon: > > Attached is a configuration that I have used with cisco routers. The key to > start the IPv6 in BGP is to turn-off "bgp default ipv4-unicast". Now when > you do that the BGP session becomes dual stacked IPv4 and IPv6. I have also > added an interface command. In cisco you can have multiple IPv6 addresses > and do not need the "secondary" command as you do with IPv4. This was an > IOS 12.4 configuration, but IOS 15 ain't much different. > > Don't panic IPv6 is very easy once you use notepad to build your > configuration. There are no RFC 1918's so I made my own with 10::, easy to > understand and I won't announce it anyway. Now cisco has been slow in > offering NAT-66 and NAT-64, but others are doing NAT-44, NAT-46, NAT-64, and > NAT-66, (Arista, F5, etc.). > > router bgp 12345 > no bgp fast-external-fallover > no bgp default ipv4-unicast > bgp log-neighbor-changes > neighbor 1:1::2 remote-as 1 > neighbor 1:1::2 description *** Fist ISP IPv6 *** > neighbor 1.1.1.1 remote-as 1 > neighbor 1.1.1.1 description *** Fist ISP IPv4 *** > neighbor 2.2.2.2 remote-as 2 > neighbor 2.2.2.2 description *** Second ISP IPv4 *** > neighbor 3:3::3 remote-as 3 > neighbor 3:3::3 description *** Third ISP IPv6 *** > neighbor 3.3.3.3 remote-as 3 > neighbor 3.3.3.3 description *** Third ISP IPv4 *** > ! > address-family ipv4 > neighbor 1.1.1.1 activate > neighbor 1.1.1.1 soft-reconfiguration inbound > neighbor 2.2.2.2 activate > neighbor 2.2.2.2 soft-reconfiguration inbound > neighbor 3.3.3.3 activate > neighbor 3.3.3.3 soft-reconfiguration inbound > no auto-summary > no synchronization > network 11.11.11.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 12.12.12.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 21.21.21.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 22.22.22.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 31.31.31.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 32.32.32.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 222.33.0.0 > exit-address-family > ! > address-family ipv6 > neighbor 1:1::2 activate > neighbor 1:1::2 soft-reconfiguration inbound > neighbor 1:1::2 prefix-list IPv6 in > neighbor 3:3::3 soft-reconfiguration inbound > network 12:12::/32 > network 31:31::/32 > exit-address-family > ! > interface G0/0 > description Gateway for Servers and Network Services > ip address 12.12.12.1 255.255.255.0 secondary > ip address 22.22.22.1 255.255.240.0 > ip verify unicast source reachable-via rx allow-default 199 > no ip redirects > no ip unreachables > no ip proxy-arp > ipv6 address 20::1/48 > ipv6 address 40::1/48 > ipv6 enable > no ipv6 unreachables > no ipv6 redirects > ipv6 verify unicast reverse-path RFC-2827 > end > ! > access-list 199 remark *** Verify Reverse Path *** > access-list 199 deny ip any any log > ! > ipv6 access-list RFC-2827 > deny ipv6 any any log > > > George Morton, Ph. D. > Principal Network Architect > Enabling the Smart Network > Dual CCIE 18532, Router/Switch & Security > 954-802-1347 Cell > 954-839-8486 Remote Office > 202-787-3988 DC Office > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or > privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use > of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or > entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received > this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all > computers. > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of John Von Essen > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 1:52 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 > > I dont know why this thread keeps going. IPv6 implementation is SO easy. > > Step 1: Call your BGP peers and ask them to give you dual-stack IPv4/ > IPv6 and setup an IPv6 BGP session. > Step 2: Configure the WAN link on your routers with dual-stack IPv4/ > IPv6 and assign the IPv6 address given to you by your BGP peers. > Step 3: Add the BGP session info for v6 > Step 4: Add your v6 advertisements > Step 5: Your DONE > > I have Cogent, Level3, and Abovenet peers. It literally took 1-2 days to get > completely setup with IPv6, I just emailed them, requested dual- stack, got > my v6 address, brought up the peer's BGP session for v6, and boom I was > done. > > As for the people who are behind Cogent alone and have some issues with HE, > ummm.... how can you be a recent Arin member with IP resources and NOT be > multi-homed? If you're legitimately an end-user network, thats fine, but why > run BGP over a single-homed link? Just do a static route to your single ISP > and let your ISP announce your block, and since your ISP is multi-homed the > HE thing is not an issue. > > > Lets not confuse implementation and adoption. v6 is extremely easy to > implement, adoption is a different story. I've been native v6 for over > 2 years, and of my 300+ datacenter customers - alone one is using v6 - the > rest are oblivious. > > -John > > > > On Feb 27, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > >> What is really needed is simple cookbooks for ISPs and business >> networks - step by step checklist of everything you need to do to >> fully enable and support IPv6. >> >> We have implemented IPv6 and successfully tested it directly. What >> we don't have is clear methodology around IPv4 to v6 gateways and >> vice-versa. >> >> Make it stupid easy to implement and it will get done. >> >> On 02/27/2013 09:40 AM, Tim St. Pierre wrote: >>> So how do we make it "The end of the Freakin' IPv4 World" so people >>> will actually do this already. >>> >>> I talk to access ISPs about it all the time, and the usual response >>> is "well, we're working on it, but it's years away. It isn't really >>> a priority right now." I think if we set a deadline, like "World >>> Turn off IPv4 day", then we will actually see some traction. >>> >>> -Tim >>> >>> On 13-02-27 10:52 AM, Adrian Goins wrote: >>>> I was sucked into the Cogent/HE problems during World IPv6 day v1 >>>> and v2. It ultimately affected one of my clients deciding to keep >>>> IPv6 up for their infrastructure - they saw that split in >>>> reachability as bad for their customers, since customers using HE >>>> as a tunnel broker would think that the client was the problem, >>>> not peering. For most users of the Internet discussions about >>>> peering have no value. >>>> >>>> I agree with the statement about multihoming being the solution. >>>> If you can't afford to multihome, see about getting your >>>> connectivity from a provider who _is_ multihomed. It puts you a >>>> couple hops away from the backbone, but it may be worth it to >>>> route around this issue. You might even be able to find someone in >>>> your datacenter who can throw a cross-connect to your cage and >>>> push you out to L3 or ATT or someone other than Cogent. >>>> >>>> We're up with IPv6 transit from Cogent and L3, using our own /32. >>>> I have the opportunity to get transit directly from HE, and I'm >>>> considering doing so as well. I think that the whole squabble is >>>> bad for the Internet and terrible for IPv6 adoption as a whole, >>>> but it's almost worth it for me to pay for the extra handoff to >>>> not be drawn into it any more than I have to be. >>>> >>>> What I'm waiting for is IPv6 to the real end users. If TWC or >>>> Comcast or Vz would reliably roll out IPv6 across their customer >>>> networks, it would make life much easier. One of our providers at >>>> our EU office was kind enough to enable IPv6 on our wireless link, >>>> but when I asked them about giving me a /64 or /48, they were >>>> stupefied. It hadn't occurred to them that we actually need to >>>> have an IP block in order to make use of it. >>>> >>>> I think we're still a long way off from where we should be for >>>> awareness and adoption, and, like most things business humans do, >>>> until it's actually the end of the freakin' IPv4 world, no one is >>>> going to make a move. >>>> >>>> Adrian Goins >>>> agoins at arces.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Kerry L. Kriegel >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> We only broadcast our data center /32. Cogent is the only >>>>> provider we have doing IPv6 at the moment. >>>>> AT&T says they do it, but getting it implemented across our >>>>> peering link has been in process for several months. >>>>> TWTC has the request, and may be online within the week. >>>>> TWC -- no way. >>>>> Cogent - online. >>>>> Level3 - online in about 45 days. >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>>> *From:*Michael Wallace [mailto:michael at birdhosting.com > >>>>> ] >>>>> *Sent:*Friday, February 22, 2013 10:53 AM >>>>> *To:*Kerry L. Kriegel; arin-discuss at arin.net > >>>>> >>>>> *Subject:*re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>>> >>>>> There are plenty of providers out there that do IPv6. We are >>>>> currently terminating to a bunch of them. Abovenet, Level3, HE, >>>>> etc etc. Are you broadcasting the BGP for these? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Michael Wallace >>>>> Bird Hosting >>>>> >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> *From*: "Kerry L. Kriegel" >>>>>> >>>>> *Sent*: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:48 AM >>>>> *To*:arin-discuss at arin.net >>>>> *Subject*: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>>> >>>>> We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before >>>>> we could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS >>>>> upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last >>>>> week that we decided to "roll out" IPv6 and see how things looked. >>>>> After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers >>>>> in our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel >>>>> networks at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our >>>>> backbone and started looking at Google. >>>>> It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and >>>>> HE is still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list >>>>> had any "inside" information about the problem and whether or not >>>>> there was an end in sight. It seems to me that having a >>>>> disconnect between two major players is going to hinder IPv6 >>>>> adaptation. >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > >>>>> ). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contactinfo at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Tim St. Pierre >>> System Operator >>> Communicate Freely >>> 289 225 1220 x5101 >>> tim at communicatefreely.net >>> www.communicatefreely.net >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> -- >> >> Jawaid Bazyar >> >> President >> >> ph 303.815.1814 >> >> fax 303.815.1001 >> >> Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net >> >> Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From msalim at localweb.com Wed Feb 27 16:26:30 2013 From: msalim at localweb.com (Mike A. Salim) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:26:30 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com><02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net><2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net><512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net><512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net> <9f1a329a317641363fe7694972d396b6.squirrel@66.201.44.180> Message-ID: Bob, I have to concur with your statement "- this manufacturer IPv6 ready label is almost meaningless. Much of what's available for networks is over priced and newly buggy.". We are currently dealing with an IPv6 issue with our "IPv6 enabled load balancers" (I won't say which manufacturer). Their equipment is stellar in other respects but It does not do IPv6 properly yet, which is forcing us to leave a proxy and a tunnel in place till this is fixed. Mike A. Michael Salim VP and Chief Technology Officer, American Data Technology, Inc. PO Box 12892 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA P: (919)544-4101 x101 F: (919)544-5345 E: msalim at localweb.com W: http://www.localweb.com PRIVACY NOTIFICATION: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ??Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Bob Evans Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:09 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 The curiosity was there from customers. So our company built a native IPv6 network that is multi-homed. No tunneling - customer gets an easy to use ipv6 port together with their ipv4 port on the cpe gear we provide. Can't get much more simple than that. To date, only 2 customers out of many hundreds of fiber customers actually used the ipv6 space we assigned them. Those had need was for accessing European offices , one of the first places for the sky to fall. I have actually had IT heads ask us not to tell anyone in the company they can have ipv6 today. So what's wrong with this picture? The gear for Customers just isn't up to par. We have tested so many devices. Most of what's available has limited functionality - this manufacturer IPv6 ready label is almost meaningless. Much of what's available for networks is over priced and newly buggy. It's not so much the customer base or the networks or the manufacturers, it's all of them together. It's like a the fat nurse telling a fat patient to exercise more and eat less. People are lazy, they wait until they have a breathing problem to follow advice. So until there is a poor breathing episode , IPv4 is here for some time. Probably another 5-7 years. The ipv4 oxygen tank on wheels is NAT44. I know Europeans are implementing this on big networks. They reuse the ip addresses and leverage logical port bits. So the sky falling now has even more of a big delay factor. bob evans > Its going to be a bit of a mess if folks wait for the sky to fall > before planning and executing their v6 migration. > > Also if more folks would get it done then the transition and > translation costs for those coming in after v4 is gone will be lower. > > There is and had been every reason to expedite, so, nothing that's > happened so far should be thought of as crying wolf. > > Paul > > "Mike A. Salim" wrote: > >>Is IPv4 space "really" running out any time soon? Since "wolf" was >>cried almost two years ago and the sky didn't fall yet, I do not see >>an immediate mass rush to IPv6 coming yet. >> >>As for simple / stupid checklists, these abound. >> >>I googled for IPv6 checklists and found: >> >>http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc786337(v=ws.10).aspx >> >>http://www.es.net/services/ipv6-network/ipv6-implementation-checklist/ >> >>http://www.infoworld.com/d/data-explosion/your-handy-ipv6-checklist-23 >>2 >> >>There is probably no "one size fits all" checklist. For example, how >>much practical attention is being paid to IPv6 security at this point? >>Zero to none as far as I can tell. I am having a hard time finding >>any commercial or open source IPv6 monitoring tools that will just >>tell me if my http is alive over IPv6, let alone IPv6 specific security tools. >> >>Mike >> >>A. Michael Salim >>VP and Chief Technology Officer, >>American Data Technology, Inc. >>PO Box 12892 >>Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA >>P: (919)544-4101 x101 >>F: (919)544-5345 >>E: msalim at localweb.com >>W: http://www.localweb.com >> >>PRIVACY NOTIFICATION: This e-mail message, including any attachments, >>is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. >>2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It >>may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. >>Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If >>you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply >>e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. >> >>??????Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >>[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jawaid Bazyar >>Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:03 PM >>To: arin-discuss at arin.net >>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >> >>What is really needed is simple cookbooks for ISPs and business >>networks >>- step by step checklist of everything you need to do to fully enable >>and support IPv6. >> >>We have implemented IPv6 and successfully tested it directly. What we >>don't have is clear methodology around IPv4 to v6 gateways and >>vice-versa. >> >>Make it stupid easy to implement and it will get done. >> >>On 02/27/2013 09:40 AM, Tim St. Pierre wrote: >>> So how do we make it "The end of the Freakin' IPv4 World" so people >>> will actually do this already. >>> >>> I talk to access ISPs about it all the time, and the usual response >>is >>> "well, we're working on it, but it's years away. It isn't really a >>> priority right now." I think if we set a deadline, like "World Turn >>> off IPv4 day", then we will actually see some traction. >>> >>> -Tim >>> >>> On 13-02-27 10:52 AM, Adrian Goins wrote: >>>> I was sucked into the Cogent/HE problems during World IPv6 day v1 >>and >>>> v2. It ultimately affected one of my clients deciding to keep IPv6 >>up >>>> for their infrastructure - they saw that split in reachability as >>bad >>>> for their customers, since customers using HE as a tunnel broker >>>> would think that the client was the problem, not peering. For most >>>> users of the Internet discussions about peering have no value. >>>> >>>> I agree with the statement about multihoming being the solution. If >>>> you can't afford to multihome, see about getting your connectivity >>>> from a provider who _is_ multihomed. It puts you a couple hops away >>>> from the backbone, but it may be worth it to route around this >>issue. >>>> You might even be able to find someone in your datacenter who can >>>> throw a cross-connect to your cage and push you out to L3 or ATT or >>>> someone other than Cogent. >>>> >>>> We're up with IPv6 transit from Cogent and L3, using our own /32. I >>>> have the opportunity to get transit directly from HE, and I'm >>>> considering doing so as well. I think that the whole squabble is >>>> bad >> >>>> for the Internet and terrible for IPv6 adoption as a whole, but >>>> it's >> >>>> almost worth it for me to pay for the extra handoff to not be drawn >>>> into it any more than I have to be. >>>> >>>> What I'm waiting for is IPv6 to the real end users. If TWC or >>Comcast >>>> or Vz would reliably roll out IPv6 across their customer networks, >>it >>>> would make life much easier. One of our providers at our EU office >>>> was kind enough to enable IPv6 on our wireless link, but when I >>asked >>>> them about giving me a /64 or /48, they were stupefied. It hadn't >>>> occurred to them that we actually need to have an IP block in order >>>> to make use of it. >>>> >>>> I think we're still a long way off from where we should be for >>>> awareness and adoption, and, like most things business humans do, >>>> until it's actually the end of the freakin' IPv4 world, no one is >>>> going to make a move. >>>> >>>> Adrian Goins >>>> agoins at arces.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Kerry L. Kriegel >>>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> We only broadcast our data center /32. Cogent is the only provider >>>>> we have doing IPv6 at the moment. >>>>> AT&T says they do it, but getting it implemented across our >>>>> peering >> >>>>> link has been in process for several months. >>>>> TWTC has the request, and may be online within the week. >>>>> TWC -- no way. >>>>> Cogent ??? online. >>>>> Level3 ??? online in about 45 days. >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>>> *From:*Michael Wallace [mailto:michael at birdhosting.com >>>>> ] *Sent:*Friday, February 22, 2013 10:53 >>>>> AM >> >>>>> *To:*Kerry L. Kriegel; arin-discuss at arin.net >>>>> >>>>> *Subject:*re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>>> >>>>> There are plenty of providers out there that do IPv6. We are >>>>> currently terminating to a bunch of them. Abovenet, Level3, HE, >>>>> etc >> >>>>> etc. Are you broadcasting the BGP for these? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Michael Wallace >>>>> Bird Hosting >>>>> >>>>> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> ---- >>>>> >>>>> *From*: "Kerry L. Kriegel" >>>> > >>>>> *Sent*: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:48 AM >>*To*:arin-discuss at arin.net >>>>> >>>>> *Subject*: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>>> >>>>> We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before we >>>>> could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS >>>>> upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last week >>>>> that we decided to ???roll out??? IPv6 and see how things looked. >>>>> After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers >>in >>>>> our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel >>networks >>>>> at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our backbone and >>>>> started looking at Google. >>>>> It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and HE >>>>> is still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list had >>any >>>>> ???inside??? information about the problem and whether or not >>>>> there was >> >>>>> an end in sight. It seems to me that having a disconnect between >>two >>>>> major players is going to hinder IPv6 adaptation. >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>> ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>>>> ). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the >>ARIN >>>> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contactinfo at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Tim St. Pierre >>> System Operator >>> Communicate Freely >>> 289 225 1220 x5101 >>> tim at communicatefreely.net >>> www.communicatefreely.net >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the >>> ARIN >> >>> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >>-- >> >>Jawaid Bazyar >> >>President >> >>ph 303.815.1814 >> >>fax 303.815.1001 >> >>Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net >> >>Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ARIN-Discuss >>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >>Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>_______________________________________________ >>ARIN-Discuss >>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >>Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > -- > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my > brevity._______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. Bob Evans CTO 650-330-0428 ext 204 M-F 9-5 Pacific , please _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at arin.net Wed Feb 27 16:52:04 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:52:04 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <83FE8E35-6721-4E03-9ED7-6F1A8F4316B1@quonix.net> References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com> <02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net> <2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net> <512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net> <512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net> <83FE8E35-6721-4E03-9ED7-6F1A8F4316B1@quonix.net> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F8F1C37@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Feb 28, 2013, at 2:51 AM, John Von Essen wrote: > I dont know why this thread keeps going. IPv6 implementation is SO easy. > > Step 1: Call your BGP peers and ask them to give you dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 and setup an IPv6 BGP session. > Step 2: Configure the WAN link on your routers with dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 and assign the IPv6 address given to you by your BGP peers. > Step 3: Add the BGP session info for v6 > Step 4: Add your v6 advertisements > Step 5: Your DONE > > I have Cogent, Level3, and Abovenet peers. It literally took 1-2 days to get completely setup with IPv6, I just emailed them, requested dual-stack, got my v6 address, brought up the peer's BGP session for v6, and boom I was done. > ... > Lets not confuse implementation and adoption. v6 is extremely easy to implement, adoption is a different story. I've been native v6 for over 2 years, and of my 300+ datacenter customers - alone one is using v6 - the rest are oblivious. John - Excellent job - offering IPv6 to your customers is a step ahead of many reading this list... (although I'd expect that you've also done some steps not shown in IPv6 monitoring and management to make sure it keeps running :-) Here's the one large step which is problematic for everyone: - You should inform your datacenter customers that it's relatively easy to get IPv6 interfaces configured on their firewalls/load-balancers, and (for those running public facing applications) testing their applications with IPv6 and configuring this in addition to IPv4 might be prudent given that the growth in connected homes and devices nearly guarantees some of the new connections will be via IPv6 in the near future. While IPv4 alone will continue to work, but the path between your customer's application and their customers will get more and more convoluted over the next few years if your customer's applications are only reachable via IPv4. I've run a datacenter providing colocation and hosting services, and do indeed know that this step is not at all normal (as customers feel know what they want and telling them they need something more, even at no cost, isn't typical) but we're also experiencing a one-of-kind transition in the Internet, and it is going to take some atypical actions on everyone's part to make this happen. If you'd like any help with this (e.g. a guest writeup suitable for your blog or newsletter, or you'd like me to come up to Philly to a customer gathering and speak on the same topic), just let me know. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From farmer at umn.edu Wed Feb 27 20:07:27 2013 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:07:27 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <512E5B3F.4010408@forethought.net> References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com> <02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net> <2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net> <512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net> <512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net> <83FE8E35-6721-4E03-9ED7-6F1A8F4316B1@quonix.net> <512E5B3F.4010408@forethought.net> Message-ID: <512EADCF.3020404@umn.edu> Jawaid, You are correct the ISP Core and Internet facing infrastructure is the easiest part, some of us in the R&E world had that part done back in 2001 or so, and many by the mid-2000's . The much harder part is all the edge facing infrastructure, the DSLAMs, CMTSes, CPE boxes, etc.. in the provider world and the APs, switches, load balancers, firewalls, etc... in the enterprise and data-center world and the servers and applications for all of the above. Back in the early 2000's, after we got IPv6 turned up in the R&E backbone networks the biggest problem was host OS support, but that is mostly solved now. While there are still issue in the edge network infrastructure above, the actual biggest problem I see is getting application owners and server operators to turn IPv6 on when its available and getting application developers to support IPv6 when its not. And there really isn't a check list for a network operator to follow to solve that problem, I really wish there was. I'm afraid the few people that have solved these server and application problems view the fact that they have solved them as a competitive advantage in the long-term and may not be willing to share their solutions to these complicated non-technical problems. Or the solved them with brute force and don't want to admit that either. :) On 2/27/13 13:15 , Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > John, > > You just ignored what I said. An ISP implementing pure IPv6 is the easy > part. The hard part is supporting the hundreds of millions of non-IPv6 > devices. Implementing requires knowledge and process for handling that. > Your typical IT guy is going to need help with it. > > On 02/27/2013 11:51 AM, John Von Essen wrote: >> I dont know why this thread keeps going. IPv6 implementation is SO easy. >> >> Step 1: Call your BGP peers and ask them to give you dual-stack >> IPv4/IPv6 and setup an IPv6 BGP session. >> Step 2: Configure the WAN link on your routers with dual-stack >> IPv4/IPv6 and assign the IPv6 address given to you by your BGP peers. >> Step 3: Add the BGP session info for v6 >> Step 4: Add your v6 advertisements >> Step 5: Your DONE NOT DONE this is just the ISP CORE and facing infrastructure!!! -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================ From owen at delong.com Wed Feb 27 20:20:04 2013 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:20:04 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <512EADCF.3020404@umn.edu> References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com> <02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net> <2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net> <512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net> <512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net> <83FE8E35-6721-4E03-9ED7-6F1A8F4316B1@quonix.net> <512E5B3F.4010408@forethought.net> <512EADCF.3020404@umn.edu> Message-ID: <5353DF1C-E2F7-4B1C-B224-15C190748A4D@delong.com> I think brute force really is the only solution to those problems. Each organization just needs to make the decision to move forward and actually do it. Surest path to failure: IPv6 is a "network" issue. IPv6 is a "IT" problem. Surest path to success: IPv6 is a major infrastructure initiative which must receive executive sponsorship at the highest level and which will impact every group within the organization. Owen (Who has been through IPv6 rollout at several organizations and is available to help yours if you wish) On Feb 27, 2013, at 5:07 PM, David Farmer wrote: > Jawaid, > > You are correct the ISP Core and Internet facing infrastructure is the easiest part, some of us in the R&E world had that part done back in 2001 or so, and many by the mid-2000's . The much harder part is all the edge facing infrastructure, the DSLAMs, CMTSes, CPE boxes, etc.. in the provider world and the APs, switches, load balancers, firewalls, etc... in the enterprise and data-center world and the servers and applications for all of the above. > > Back in the early 2000's, after we got IPv6 turned up in the R&E backbone networks the biggest problem was host OS support, but that is mostly solved now. While there are still issue in the edge network infrastructure above, the actual biggest problem I see is getting application owners and server operators to turn IPv6 on when its available and getting application developers to support IPv6 when its not. And there really isn't a check list for a network operator to follow to solve that problem, I really wish there was. > > I'm afraid the few people that have solved these server and application problems view the fact that they have solved them as a competitive advantage in the long-term and may not be willing to share their solutions to these complicated non-technical problems. Or the solved them with brute force and don't want to admit that either. :) > > On 2/27/13 13:15 , Jawaid Bazyar wrote: >> John, >> >> You just ignored what I said. An ISP implementing pure IPv6 is the easy >> part. The hard part is supporting the hundreds of millions of non-IPv6 >> devices. Implementing requires knowledge and process for handling that. >> Your typical IT guy is going to need help with it. >> >> On 02/27/2013 11:51 AM, John Von Essen wrote: >>> I dont know why this thread keeps going. IPv6 implementation is SO easy. >>> >>> Step 1: Call your BGP peers and ask them to give you dual-stack >>> IPv4/IPv6 and setup an IPv6 BGP session. >>> Step 2: Configure the WAN link on your routers with dual-stack >>> IPv4/IPv6 and assign the IPv6 address given to you by your BGP peers. >>> Step 3: Add the BGP session info for v6 >>> Step 4: Add your v6 advertisements >>> Step 5: Your DONE > > NOT DONE this is just the ISP CORE and facing infrastructure!!! > > -- > ================================================ > David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 > ================================================ > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jesse at la-broadband.com Wed Feb 27 16:23:15 2013 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse D. Geddis) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:23:15 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <40FD5CABB21B5046B3836EBD6008C4663FBEA46E@Exchange2.corp.clearrate.net> Message-ID: What the hell is this man? Didn't your mom ever teach you what to do when you don't have something nice to say? My gosh. Jesse Geddis LA Broadband LLC On 2/27/13 12:47 PM, "Paul G. Timmins" wrote: >I'm disappointed that a dual CCIE is saying there's no RFC-1918 >equivalent. > >https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4193 > >Paul Timmins >Clear Rate Communications >Direct: (248) 556-4532 >Customer Support: (877) 877-4799 >24 Hour Repair: (866) 366-4665 >Network Operations: (877) 877-1250 >www.clearrate.com > > >________________________________________ >From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] on >behalf of GMail Account [ccie18532 at gmail.com] >Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:37 PM >To: arin-discuss at arin.net >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 > >Good afternoon: > >Attached is a configuration that I have used with cisco routers. The key >to >start the IPv6 in BGP is to turn-off "bgp default ipv4-unicast". Now when >you do that the BGP session becomes dual stacked IPv4 and IPv6. I have >also >added an interface command. In cisco you can have multiple IPv6 addresses >and do not need the "secondary" command as you do with IPv4. This was an >IOS 12.4 configuration, but IOS 15 ain't much different. > >Don't panic IPv6 is very easy once you use notepad to build your >configuration. There are no RFC 1918's so I made my own with 10::, easy to >understand and I won't announce it anyway. Now cisco has been slow in >offering NAT-66 and NAT-64, but others are doing NAT-44, NAT-46, NAT-64, >and >NAT-66, (Arista, F5, etc.). > >router bgp 12345 > no bgp fast-external-fallover > no bgp default ipv4-unicast > bgp log-neighbor-changes > neighbor 1:1::2 remote-as 1 > neighbor 1:1::2 description *** Fist ISP IPv6 *** > neighbor 1.1.1.1 remote-as 1 > neighbor 1.1.1.1 description *** Fist ISP IPv4 *** > neighbor 2.2.2.2 remote-as 2 > neighbor 2.2.2.2 description *** Second ISP IPv4 *** > neighbor 3:3::3 remote-as 3 > neighbor 3:3::3 description *** Third ISP IPv6 *** > neighbor 3.3.3.3 remote-as 3 > neighbor 3.3.3.3 description *** Third ISP IPv4 *** > ! > address-family ipv4 > neighbor 1.1.1.1 activate > neighbor 1.1.1.1 soft-reconfiguration inbound > neighbor 2.2.2.2 activate > neighbor 2.2.2.2 soft-reconfiguration inbound > neighbor 3.3.3.3 activate > neighbor 3.3.3.3 soft-reconfiguration inbound > no auto-summary > no synchronization > network 11.11.11.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 12.12.12.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 21.21.21.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 22.22.22.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 31.31.31.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 32.32.32.0 mask 255.255.255.0 > network 222.33.0.0 > exit-address-family > ! > address-family ipv6 > neighbor 1:1::2 activate > neighbor 1:1::2 soft-reconfiguration inbound > neighbor 1:1::2 prefix-list IPv6 in > neighbor 3:3::3 soft-reconfiguration inbound > network 12:12::/32 > network 31:31::/32 > exit-address-family >! >interface G0/0 > description Gateway for Servers and Network Services > ip address 12.12.12.1 255.255.255.0 secondary > ip address 22.22.22.1 255.255.240.0 > ip verify unicast source reachable-via rx allow-default 199 > no ip redirects > no ip unreachables > no ip proxy-arp > ipv6 address 20::1/48 > ipv6 address 40::1/48 > ipv6 enable > no ipv6 unreachables > no ipv6 redirects > ipv6 verify unicast reverse-path RFC-2827 >end >! >access-list 199 remark *** Verify Reverse Path *** >access-list 199 deny ip any any log >! >ipv6 access-list RFC-2827 > deny ipv6 any any log > > >George Morton, Ph. D. >Principal Network Architect >Enabling the Smart Network >Dual CCIE 18532, Router/Switch & Security >954-802-1347 Cell >954-839-8486 Remote Office >202-787-3988 DC Office > >The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to >which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or >privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other >use >of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons >or >entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received >this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all >computers. > >-----Original Message----- >From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] >On Behalf Of John Von Essen >Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 1:52 PM >To: arin-discuss at arin.net >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 > >I dont know why this thread keeps going. IPv6 implementation is SO easy. > >Step 1: Call your BGP peers and ask them to give you dual-stack IPv4/ >IPv6 and setup an IPv6 BGP session. >Step 2: Configure the WAN link on your routers with dual-stack IPv4/ >IPv6 and assign the IPv6 address given to you by your BGP peers. >Step 3: Add the BGP session info for v6 >Step 4: Add your v6 advertisements >Step 5: Your DONE > >I have Cogent, Level3, and Abovenet peers. It literally took 1-2 days to >get >completely setup with IPv6, I just emailed them, requested dual- stack, >got >my v6 address, brought up the peer's BGP session for v6, and boom I was >done. > >As for the people who are behind Cogent alone and have some issues with >HE, >ummm.... how can you be a recent Arin member with IP resources and NOT be >multi-homed? If you're legitimately an end-user network, thats fine, but >why >run BGP over a single-homed link? Just do a static route to your single >ISP >and let your ISP announce your block, and since your ISP is multi-homed >the >HE thing is not an issue. > > >Lets not confuse implementation and adoption. v6 is extremely easy to >implement, adoption is a different story. I've been native v6 for over >2 years, and of my 300+ datacenter customers - alone one is using v6 - the >rest are oblivious. > >-John > > > >On Feb 27, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > >> What is really needed is simple cookbooks for ISPs and business >> networks - step by step checklist of everything you need to do to >> fully enable and support IPv6. >> >> We have implemented IPv6 and successfully tested it directly. What >> we don't have is clear methodology around IPv4 to v6 gateways and >> vice-versa. >> >> Make it stupid easy to implement and it will get done. >> >> On 02/27/2013 09:40 AM, Tim St. Pierre wrote: >>> So how do we make it "The end of the Freakin' IPv4 World" so people >>> will actually do this already. >>> >>> I talk to access ISPs about it all the time, and the usual response >>> is "well, we're working on it, but it's years away. It isn't really >>> a priority right now." I think if we set a deadline, like "World >>> Turn off IPv4 day", then we will actually see some traction. >>> >>> -Tim >>> >>> On 13-02-27 10:52 AM, Adrian Goins wrote: >>>> I was sucked into the Cogent/HE problems during World IPv6 day v1 >>>> and v2. It ultimately affected one of my clients deciding to keep >>>> IPv6 up for their infrastructure - they saw that split in >>>> reachability as bad for their customers, since customers using HE >>>> as a tunnel broker would think that the client was the problem, >>>> not peering. For most users of the Internet discussions about >>>> peering have no value. >>>> >>>> I agree with the statement about multihoming being the solution. >>>> If you can't afford to multihome, see about getting your >>>> connectivity from a provider who _is_ multihomed. It puts you a >>>> couple hops away from the backbone, but it may be worth it to >>>> route around this issue. You might even be able to find someone in >>>> your datacenter who can throw a cross-connect to your cage and >>>> push you out to L3 or ATT or someone other than Cogent. >>>> >>>> We're up with IPv6 transit from Cogent and L3, using our own /32. >>>> I have the opportunity to get transit directly from HE, and I'm >>>> considering doing so as well. I think that the whole squabble is >>>> bad for the Internet and terrible for IPv6 adoption as a whole, >>>> but it's almost worth it for me to pay for the extra handoff to >>>> not be drawn into it any more than I have to be. >>>> >>>> What I'm waiting for is IPv6 to the real end users. If TWC or >>>> Comcast or Vz would reliably roll out IPv6 across their customer >>>> networks, it would make life much easier. One of our providers at >>>> our EU office was kind enough to enable IPv6 on our wireless link, >>>> but when I asked them about giving me a /64 or /48, they were >>>> stupefied. It hadn't occurred to them that we actually need to >>>> have an IP block in order to make use of it. >>>> >>>> I think we're still a long way off from where we should be for >>>> awareness and adoption, and, like most things business humans do, >>>> until it's actually the end of the freakin' IPv4 world, no one is >>>> going to make a move. >>>> >>>> Adrian Goins >>>> agoins at arces.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Kerry L. Kriegel >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> We only broadcast our data center /32. Cogent is the only >>>>> provider we have doing IPv6 at the moment. >>>>> AT&T says they do it, but getting it implemented across our >>>>> peering link has been in process for several months. >>>>> TWTC has the request, and may be online within the week. >>>>> TWC -- no way. >>>>> Cogent - online. >>>>> Level3 - online in about 45 days. >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>>> *From:*Michael Wallace [mailto:michael at birdhosting.com >>>>> >] >>>>> *Sent:*Friday, February 22, 2013 10:53 AM >>>>> *To:*Kerry L. Kriegel; arin-discuss at arin.net >>>>> > >>>>> *Subject:*re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>>> >>>>> There are plenty of providers out there that do IPv6. We are >>>>> currently terminating to a bunch of them. Abovenet, Level3, HE, >>>>> etc etc. Are you broadcasting the BGP for these? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Michael Wallace >>>>> Bird Hosting >>>>> >>>>> >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> *From*: "Kerry L. Kriegel" >>>> >> >>>>> *Sent*: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:48 AM >>>>> *To*:arin-discuss at arin.net >>>>> *Subject*: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>>> >>>>> We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before >>>>> we could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS >>>>> upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last >>>>> week that we decided to "roll out" IPv6 and see how things looked. >>>>> After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers >>>>> in our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel >>>>> networks at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our >>>>> backbone and started looking at Google. >>>>> It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and >>>>> HE is still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list >>>>> had any "inside" information about the problem and whether or not >>>>> there was an end in sight. It seems to me that having a >>>>> disconnect between two major players is going to hinder IPv6 >>>>> adaptation. >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>>>> >). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contactinfo at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Tim St. Pierre >>> System Operator >>> Communicate Freely >>> 289 225 1220 x5101 >>> tim at communicatefreely.net >>> www.communicatefreely.net >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> -- >> >> Jawaid Bazyar >> >> President >> >> ph 303.815.1814 >> >> fax 303.815.1001 >> >> Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net >> >> Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >_______________________________________________ >ARIN-Discuss >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > >_______________________________________________ >ARIN-Discuss >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >_______________________________________________ >ARIN-Discuss >You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jake at recol.com Thu Feb 28 07:15:01 2013 From: jake at recol.com (Jacob Epstein) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:15:01 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <83FE8E35-6721-4E03-9ED7-6F1A8F4316B1@quonix.net> References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com> <02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net> <2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net> <512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net> <512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net> <83FE8E35-6721-4E03-9ED7-6F1A8F4316B1@quonix.net> Message-ID: <512F4A45.50704@recol.com> John, Our experience is identical to yours. We have been native for just over 3 years. Ran with HE Tunnel for several years before that for internal r&D, Demo and Evaluation. Had one as you say lone IPv6 Managed physical Server customer which is now virtualized and does not need IPv6 support at this point. Our Data Center Routing and Firewalling uses Cisco based. Implementing single and dual stacked routing and security was not difficult. Broadband and Metro Ethernet Internet Services poses a much greater challenge due multi-vender and older firmware at customers sites. We have looked at implementing tunnels for our customers. We have done seminars and spoken at Professional organizations on IPv6. Lots of interest but no adopters. Jake RECOL, LLC Branford, CT On 2/27/13 1:51 PM, John Von Essen wrote: > I dont know why this thread keeps going. IPv6 implementation is SO easy. > > Step 1: Call your BGP peers and ask them to give you dual-stack > IPv4/IPv6 and setup an IPv6 BGP session. > Step 2: Configure the WAN link on your routers with dual-stack > IPv4/IPv6 and assign the IPv6 address given to you by your BGP peers. > Step 3: Add the BGP session info for v6 > Step 4: Add your v6 advertisements > Step 5: Your DONE > > I have Cogent, Level3, and Abovenet peers. It literally took 1-2 days > to get completely setup with IPv6, I just emailed them, requested > dual-stack, got my v6 address, brought up the peer's BGP session for > v6, and boom I was done. > > As for the people who are behind Cogent alone and have some issues > with HE, ummm.... how can you be a recent Arin member with IP > resources and NOT be multi-homed? If you're legitimately an end-user > network, thats fine, but why run BGP over a single-homed link? Just do > a static route to your single ISP and let your ISP announce your > block, and since your ISP is multi-homed the HE thing is not an issue. > > > Lets not confuse implementation and adoption. v6 is extremely easy to > implement, adoption is a different story. I've been native v6 for over > 2 years, and of my 300+ datacenter customers - alone one is using v6 - > the rest are oblivious. > > -John > > > > On Feb 27, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > >> What is really needed is simple cookbooks for ISPs and business >> networks - step by step checklist of everything you need to do to >> fully enable and support IPv6. >> >> We have implemented IPv6 and successfully tested it directly. What we >> don't have is clear methodology around IPv4 to v6 gateways and >> vice-versa. >> >> Make it stupid easy to implement and it will get done. >> >> On 02/27/2013 09:40 AM, Tim St. Pierre wrote: >>> So how do we make it "The end of the Freakin' IPv4 World" so people >>> will actually do this already. >>> >>> I talk to access ISPs about it all the time, and the usual response >>> is "well, we're working on it, but it's years away. It isn't really >>> a priority right now." I think if we set a deadline, like "World >>> Turn off IPv4 day", then we will actually see some traction. >>> >>> -Tim >>> >>> On 13-02-27 10:52 AM, Adrian Goins wrote: >>>> I was sucked into the Cogent/HE problems during World IPv6 day v1 >>>> and v2. It ultimately affected one of my clients deciding to keep >>>> IPv6 up for their infrastructure - they saw that split in >>>> reachability as bad for their customers, since customers using HE >>>> as a tunnel broker would think that the client was the problem, not >>>> peering. For most users of the Internet discussions about peering >>>> have no value. >>>> >>>> I agree with the statement about multihoming being the solution. If >>>> you can't afford to multihome, see about getting your connectivity >>>> from a provider who _is_ multihomed. It puts you a couple hops away >>>> from the backbone, but it may be worth it to route around this >>>> issue. You might even be able to find someone in your datacenter >>>> who can throw a cross-connect to your cage and push you out to L3 >>>> or ATT or someone other than Cogent. >>>> >>>> We're up with IPv6 transit from Cogent and L3, using our own /32. I >>>> have the opportunity to get transit directly from HE, and I'm >>>> considering doing so as well. I think that the whole squabble is >>>> bad for the Internet and terrible for IPv6 adoption as a whole, but >>>> it's almost worth it for me to pay for the extra handoff to not be >>>> drawn into it any more than I have to be. >>>> >>>> What I'm waiting for is IPv6 to the real end users. If TWC or >>>> Comcast or Vz would reliably roll out IPv6 across their customer >>>> networks, it would make life much easier. One of our providers at >>>> our EU office was kind enough to enable IPv6 on our wireless link, >>>> but when I asked them about giving me a /64 or /48, they were >>>> stupefied. It hadn't occurred to them that we actually need to have >>>> an IP block in order to make use of it. >>>> >>>> I think we're still a long way off from where we should be for >>>> awareness and adoption, and, like most things business humans do, >>>> until it's actually the end of the freakin' IPv4 world, no one is >>>> going to make a move. >>>> >>>> Adrian Goins >>>> agoins at arces.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Kerry L. Kriegel >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> We only broadcast our data center /32. Cogent is the only provider >>>>> we have doing IPv6 at the moment. >>>>> AT&T says they do it, but getting it implemented across our >>>>> peering link has been in process for several months. >>>>> TWTC has the request, and may be online within the week. >>>>> TWC -- no way. >>>>> Cogent ? online. >>>>> Level3 ? online in about 45 days. >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>>> *From:*Michael Wallace [mailto:michael at birdhosting.com >>>>> ] >>>>> *Sent:*Friday, February 22, 2013 10:53 AM >>>>> *To:*Kerry L. Kriegel; arin-discuss at arin.net >>>>> >>>>> *Subject:*re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>>> >>>>> There are plenty of providers out there that do IPv6. We are >>>>> currently terminating to a bunch of them. Abovenet, Level3, HE, >>>>> etc etc. Are you broadcasting the BGP for these? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Michael Wallace >>>>> Bird Hosting >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From*: "Kerry L. Kriegel" >>>> > >>>>> *Sent*: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:48 AM >>>>> *To*:arin-discuss at arin.net >>>>> *Subject*: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>>> >>>>> We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before we >>>>> could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS >>>>> upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last week >>>>> that we decided to ?roll out? IPv6 and see how things looked. >>>>> After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers >>>>> in our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel >>>>> networks at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our >>>>> backbone and started looking at Google. >>>>> It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and HE >>>>> is still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list had >>>>> any ?inside? information about the problem and whether or not >>>>> there was an end in sight. It seems to me that having a disconnect >>>>> between two major players is going to hinder IPv6 adaptation. >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>>>> ). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contactinfo at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Tim St. Pierre >>> System Operator >>> Communicate Freely >>> 289 225 1220 x5101 >>> tim at communicatefreely.net >>> www.communicatefreely.net >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> -- >> >> Jawaid Bazyar >> >> President >> >> ph 303.815.1814 >> >> fax 303.815.1001 >> >> Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net >> >> Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From arik at NEXTCOMMUNICATIONS.COM Thu Feb 28 16:23:29 2013 From: arik at NEXTCOMMUNICATIONS.COM (Arik Meimoun) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:23:29 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 In-Reply-To: <512F4A45.50704@recol.com> References: <6c87673$64e68f97$7a0ec86a$@birdhosting.com> <02b601ce113c$71b413e0$551c3ba0$@cyberlynk.net> <2E2D2D48-E813-4C38-A677-511A39B0E2F0@arces.net> <512E371B.9060504@communicatefreely.net> <512E3C32.3070809@foreThought.net> <83FE8E35-6721-4E03-9ED7-6F1A8F4316B1@quonix.net> <512F4A45.50704@recol.com> Message-ID: ALL, Next communications with the great help of Cisco was able to turn up IPV-6 recently. http://blogs.cisco.com/sp/cisco-helps-nxtgn-and-telarix-deliver-ipv6-enabled-video-solution/ There is big difference in speed/Security on VOICE and the only way to make Telepresence HD call mobile enable. This has been indorsed by Cisco System recently. NxtGn which own by our group seams to improve all the group network performances. I hope this info will be helpful for you guys. If you need anything else or have any question please feel free to ask. Thanks Arik Meimoun Chairman/CEO NextCommunications, Inc. 100 North Biscayne Blvd. Suite 900 Miami, FL. 33132. USA Phone: +1-305-356-4507 Fax: +1-305-374-4081 E-Fax: +1-866-422-8984 e-mail: arik at nextcommunications.com -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jacob Epstein Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 7:15 AM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 John, Our experience is identical to yours. We have been native for just over 3 years. Ran with HE Tunnel for several years before that for internal r&D, Demo and Evaluation. Had one as you say lone IPv6 Managed physical Server customer which is now virtualized and does not need IPv6 support at this point. Our Data Center Routing and Firewalling uses Cisco based. Implementing single and dual stacked routing and security was not difficult. Broadband and Metro Ethernet Internet Services poses a much greater challenge due multi-vender and older firmware at customers sites. We have looked at implementing tunnels for our customers. We have done seminars and spoken at Professional organizations on IPv6. Lots of interest but no adopters. Jake RECOL, LLC Branford, CT On 2/27/13 1:51 PM, John Von Essen wrote: > I dont know why this thread keeps going. IPv6 implementation is SO easy. > > Step 1: Call your BGP peers and ask them to give you dual-stack > IPv4/IPv6 and setup an IPv6 BGP session. > Step 2: Configure the WAN link on your routers with dual-stack > IPv4/IPv6 and assign the IPv6 address given to you by your BGP peers. > Step 3: Add the BGP session info for v6 Step 4: Add your v6 > advertisements Step 5: Your DONE > > I have Cogent, Level3, and Abovenet peers. It literally took 1-2 days > to get completely setup with IPv6, I just emailed them, requested > dual-stack, got my v6 address, brought up the peer's BGP session for > v6, and boom I was done. > > As for the people who are behind Cogent alone and have some issues > with HE, ummm.... how can you be a recent Arin member with IP > resources and NOT be multi-homed? If you're legitimately an end-user > network, thats fine, but why run BGP over a single-homed link? Just do > a static route to your single ISP and let your ISP announce your > block, and since your ISP is multi-homed the HE thing is not an issue. > > > Lets not confuse implementation and adoption. v6 is extremely easy to > implement, adoption is a different story. I've been native v6 for over > 2 years, and of my 300+ datacenter customers - alone one is using v6 - > the rest are oblivious. > > -John > > > > On Feb 27, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Jawaid Bazyar wrote: > >> What is really needed is simple cookbooks for ISPs and business >> networks - step by step checklist of everything you need to do to >> fully enable and support IPv6. >> >> We have implemented IPv6 and successfully tested it directly. What we >> don't have is clear methodology around IPv4 to v6 gateways and >> vice-versa. >> >> Make it stupid easy to implement and it will get done. >> >> On 02/27/2013 09:40 AM, Tim St. Pierre wrote: >>> So how do we make it "The end of the Freakin' IPv4 World" so people >>> will actually do this already. >>> >>> I talk to access ISPs about it all the time, and the usual response >>> is "well, we're working on it, but it's years away. It isn't really >>> a priority right now." I think if we set a deadline, like "World >>> Turn off IPv4 day", then we will actually see some traction. >>> >>> -Tim >>> >>> On 13-02-27 10:52 AM, Adrian Goins wrote: >>>> I was sucked into the Cogent/HE problems during World IPv6 day v1 >>>> and v2. It ultimately affected one of my clients deciding to keep >>>> IPv6 up for their infrastructure - they saw that split in >>>> reachability as bad for their customers, since customers using HE >>>> as a tunnel broker would think that the client was the problem, not >>>> peering. For most users of the Internet discussions about peering >>>> have no value. >>>> >>>> I agree with the statement about multihoming being the solution. If >>>> you can't afford to multihome, see about getting your connectivity >>>> from a provider who _is_ multihomed. It puts you a couple hops away >>>> from the backbone, but it may be worth it to route around this >>>> issue. You might even be able to find someone in your datacenter >>>> who can throw a cross-connect to your cage and push you out to L3 >>>> or ATT or someone other than Cogent. >>>> >>>> We're up with IPv6 transit from Cogent and L3, using our own /32. I >>>> have the opportunity to get transit directly from HE, and I'm >>>> considering doing so as well. I think that the whole squabble is >>>> bad for the Internet and terrible for IPv6 adoption as a whole, but >>>> it's almost worth it for me to pay for the extra handoff to not be >>>> drawn into it any more than I have to be. >>>> >>>> What I'm waiting for is IPv6 to the real end users. If TWC or >>>> Comcast or Vz would reliably roll out IPv6 across their customer >>>> networks, it would make life much easier. One of our providers at >>>> our EU office was kind enough to enable IPv6 on our wireless link, >>>> but when I asked them about giving me a /64 or /48, they were >>>> stupefied. It hadn't occurred to them that we actually need to have >>>> an IP block in order to make use of it. >>>> >>>> I think we're still a long way off from where we should be for >>>> awareness and adoption, and, like most things business humans do, >>>> until it's actually the end of the freakin' IPv4 world, no one is >>>> going to make a move. >>>> >>>> Adrian Goins >>>> agoins at arces.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Kerry L. Kriegel >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> We only broadcast our data center /32. Cogent is the only provider >>>>> we have doing IPv6 at the moment. >>>>> AT&T says they do it, but getting it implemented across our >>>>> peering link has been in process for several months. >>>>> TWTC has the request, and may be online within the week. >>>>> TWC -- no way. >>>>> Cogent - online. >>>>> Level3 - online in about 45 days. >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>>> *From:*Michael Wallace [mailto:michael at birdhosting.com >>>>> ] *Sent:*Friday, February 22, 2013 10:53 >>>>> AM *To:*Kerry L. Kriegel; arin-discuss at arin.net >>>>> >>>>> *Subject:*re: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>>> >>>>> There are plenty of providers out there that do IPv6. We are >>>>> currently terminating to a bunch of them. Abovenet, Level3, HE, >>>>> etc etc. Are you broadcasting the BGP for these? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Michael Wallace >>>>> Bird Hosting >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> ------ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From*: "Kerry L. Kriegel" >>>> > >>>>> *Sent*: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:48 AM >>>>> *To*:arin-discuss at arin.net >>>>> *Subject*: [arin-discuss] Implementing IPv6 >>>>> >>>>> We received our /32 IPv6 block from ARIN awhile back but before we >>>>> could do anything with it we needed to do some hardware / IOS >>>>> upgrades on our backbone. We got enough of that finished last week >>>>> that we decided to "roll out" IPv6 and see how things looked. >>>>> After a couple days of trouble shooting why none of the engineers >>>>> in our data center could reach their Hurricane Electric Tunnel >>>>> networks at home (and vice versa), I stopped looking at our >>>>> backbone and started looking at Google. >>>>> It appears that the squabble started in 2009 between Cogent and HE >>>>> is still in progress. I was wondering if anyone on this list had >>>>> any "inside" information about the problem and whether or not >>>>> there was an end in sight. It seems to me that having a disconnect >>>>> between two major players is going to hinder IPv6 adaptation. >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> *Kerry L. Kriegel* >>>>> Network Operations Engineer >>>>> Cyberlynk Network, Inc. >>>>> Office: 414-858-9335 >>>>> Fax: 414-858-9336 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>> ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >>>>> ). >>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ARIN-Discuss >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the >>>> ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>>> Please contactinfo at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Tim St. Pierre >>> System Operator >>> Communicate Freely >>> 289 225 1220 x5101 >>> tim at communicatefreely.net >>> www.communicatefreely.net >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the >>> ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> -- >> >> Jawaid Bazyar >> >> President >> >> ph 303.815.1814 >> >> fax 303.815.1001 >> >> Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net >> >> Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.