Top Banner
Deploying IPv6 Across the Internet2 Infrastructure Rick Summerhill Associate Director, Backbone Network Infrastructure, Internet2 North American IPv6 Global Summit San Diego, CA 24 June 2003
31
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: [PPT]

Deploying IPv6 Across the Internet2 Infrastructure

Rick Summerhill

Associate Director, Backbone Network Infrastructure, Internet2

North American IPv6 Global Summit

San Diego, CA

24 June 2003

Page 2: [PPT]

04/07/23 2

Outline

General Internet2 Infrastructure• Internet2 Goals• Abilene Partners • Abilene Backbone• Connectors• Peers• Focus

IPv6 Deployment• Goals• History• Backbone• Measurement• Support

Page 3: [PPT]

04/07/23 3

Internet2 Goals

Create a leading edge network capability for the national research community

Enable revolutionary Internet applications

Ensure the rapid transfer of new network services and applications to the broader Internet community.

Page 4: [PPT]

04/07/23 4

Partners

Internet2Cisco SystemsIndiana UniversityJuniper NetworksNortel NetworksQwest CommunicationsNorth Carolina, Ohio, San Diego ITECs

Page 5: [PPT]

04/07/23 5

Abilene Backbone

Abilene backbone – OC-192c over unprotected DWDM waves with SONET framing

In final stages of an upgrade to OC-192c

Often easier to deploy advanced services on a backbone network than at the edges

• Multicast

• IPv6

Topology

Page 6: [PPT]

04/07/23 6

Abilene Backbone(Late Summer 2003)

Page 7: [PPT]

04/07/23 7

Abilene Backbone(Early Summer 2003)

Page 8: [PPT]

04/07/23 8

Abilene scale(April 2003)

48 direct connections (OC-3c 10-Gbps)• 2 10-Gbps connections (both 10-Gigabit Ethernet)• 6 OC-48c• 1 Gigabit Ethernet• 23 connections at OC-12c (622 Mbps) or higher

221 participants – universities and labs• All 50 states, District of Columbia, & Puerto Rico• Recently: Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Expanded access• 85 sponsored participants• 28 state education networks

Page 9: [PPT]

04/07/23 9

09 January 2002

Abilene Federal/Research Peering (Late Spring 2003)

Last updated: 17 January 2003

Page 10: [PPT]

04/07/23 10

09 January 2002

Abilene International Peering (Late Spring 2003)

Page 11: [PPT]

04/07/23 11

Internet2 Infrastructure

The Full Internet2 infrastructure is diverse and complex

• Backbone is relatively simple– Management provided by Indiana Global NOC– Testing by Internet2 Test and Evaluation Centers (ITECs)

• Connectors often exhibit a complicated hierarchy– Some research institutions connected directly– Some are connected through regional networks, state

networks, and some have complex campus networks– Land Grant institutions often have county extension offices– Diversity/Complexity increases as one gets closer to the edges

of the network

Influences the way IPv6 is implemented• Consider the classic IPv6 addressing/routing plan, with

potentially multiple connections, in this diverse infrastructure

Page 12: [PPT]

04/07/23 12

Internet2 Infrastructure

Simple to Complex Hierarchies within the Internet2 Infrastructures

DNS and multi-homing issues within these types of hierarchies

Page 13: [PPT]

04/07/23 13

Abilene Focus Areas - 2003

Advanced Services• IPv6 and Multicast (and IPv6 Multicast)• All the following include both IPv4 and IPv6 – the common

bearer service for Abilene is both IPv4 and IPv6

Facilitating end-to-end performanceSupporting network research – Abilene Observatory

Experimenting with MPLS/VPN on backboneSupporting large MTUsSecurity and the REN-ISAC

Page 14: [PPT]

04/07/23 14

Internet2 IPv6 Goals

Support and encourage development of advanced applications using IPv6Create a national infrastructure to support IPv6

• Implement IPv6 on Abilene Backbone• Encourage deployment of IPv6 throughout the Internet2

infrastructure• Support end-2-end transparency for IPv6 advanced applications

– Important issue for high performance applications– High performance applications often have trouble with NATs– Provide a more robust infrastructure to provide security

Educating the Internet2 IPv6 user baseSupport interconnectivity and transit during the initial stages of IPv6 deployment

Page 15: [PPT]

04/07/23 15

Abilene IPv6 History

Substantial input from the Internet2 IPv6 working group

Initial Tunnel Approach• At the beginning stages, code was not available for

backbone routers• Cisco donated four 7200 routers for a tunnel deployment,

originally located in gigapops• Tunnels across the IPv4 backbone, and to IPv4 connectors• Gigapops used tunneled connections to this “tunnel

backbone”, and connected universities also using tunnels• Routing – BGP and RIP-NG (later ISIS)• Relatively simple process – tunnel interfaces with v6

addresses

Page 16: [PPT]

04/07/23 16

Abilene IPv6 History

Page 17: [PPT]

04/07/23 17

Abilene IPv6 History

Transition to native dual stack backbone• Found we couldn’t do high-bandwidth applications across

the tunnel backbone.– DVTS video application from Japan to DC stressed tunnel

approach

• Major concern was the effect of IPv6 on IPv4 performance• IPv6 configured on backbone routers – originally Cisco

GSRs, now Juniper T-640s• Tunnel backbone and dual stack backbone connected

together – Internal BGP and IS-IS.• Connectors transitioned to native dual stack mode• Tunnel backbone gradually replaced and reduced – now

down to one router to support legacy tunnel connectors. Router is located at Indiana NOC.

Page 18: [PPT]

04/07/23 18

Abilene IPv6 Backbone

Currently a native IPv6 Dual Stack implementationFully deployed on all Abilene RoutersRouting is BGP and ISIS (for both IPv4 and IPv6)Peering and connectivity does not fall under the Abilene CoU

• Is there interest in Abilene IPv6 connectivity?

Legacy tunnel connections still supported on single router at IndianapolisSuccessful Tests:

• 8 Gbps across backbone• IPv6 only and mixed IPv6/IPv4

Page 19: [PPT]

04/07/23 19

Abilene IPv6 Backbone

Addressing Plan• Currently have /32, originally was a /35• Allocate a /40 to a gigapop or a /48 to a university

– Some gigapops have 12 member universities and had to allocate their /40 to those universities plus state networks

• Universities immediately felt constrained by this– Recall that some universities have locations in potentially 200

counties within a state (i.e. Land Grant Institutions)

WiscREN and Pittsburgh gigapops have obtained their own spaceSome universities attempting to obtain space – could satisfy current ARIN guidelines

Page 20: [PPT]

04/07/23 20

Abilene IPv6 Backbone

Current IPv6 Connectors• Front Range Gigapop• Great Plains Network• Indiana Gigapop• Intermountain Gigapop• MAGPI• MREN• Merit• Mid-Atlantic Crossroads• NYSERNet• North Texas Gigapop• Northern Crossroads• Northern Lights• OneNet• Oregon Gigapop• Pittsburgh Gigapop• SDSC/UCSD• University of Memphis• WiscREN

Current IPv6 Peers• ASNet• CUDI• CA*net• ESnet• GEANT• HARnet• HEAnet• Hurricane Electric• Kreonet• NORDUnet• Surfnet• WIDE

Other Peers• DTF• vBNS

Exchange Points:• 6Tap (StarTap)• StarLight• PacWave

Page 21: [PPT]

04/07/23 21

Abilene IPv6 Backbone

Current Connectors/Peers• 18 native connections• 17 native peers

IPv6 Multicast• Testing at North Carolina ITEC• Internet2 consensus is that SSM is the appropriate

direction for multicast under IPv6• Need layer 2 devices to do the correct thing

DNS• Production type server for reverse lookups at NOC – points

to gigapop servers for details• Connectors/members handle there own forward lookups• Simple implementations right now

Page 22: [PPT]

04/07/23 22

Abilene IPv6 Backbone

Will provide an IPv6 Measurement Infrastructure

• Attempt to perform measurements using IPv4 and IPv6

• Need for MIBs for basic measurements via SNMP

• Types of data collected–One way latency tests–Throughput measurements–Netflow measurements–Routing–End-2-end performance testing

Page 23: [PPT]

04/07/23 23

IPv6 in Gigapops, Campus

Implementing IPv6 in gigaPoPs is similar to implementing on backbone, although there are different approaches

• Most are native connections now• Some tunnels persist back to the campus or even to individual

departments

Campus implementations vary, but are gradually progressing, and are migrating deeper into the campus environmentsProblems include:

• Older equipment in locations where there is reluctance to upgrade because of a production environment

• DNS – often done on separate servers• Deploying other applications

– Fear of deploying IPv6 servers in dual stack mode– Naming issues

Page 24: [PPT]

04/07/23 24

Internet2 Support for IPv6

Tutorials• Two day workshops, hands-on experience• Descriptions and planning guides

–http://ipv6.internet2.edu/workshops/index.shtml

• Alternate discussion/lecture with hands-on work• Slides are available

–http://ipv6.internet2.edu/fiu/presentations/

• Very popular events

Page 25: [PPT]

04/07/23 25

Internet2 Support for IPv6

Topics• Addressing • Allocation Schemes • Router Configuration • Basic Functionality • Multi-homing • Multi-homing Lab • Provider Independent Addressing • Provider Independent Addressing Lab • Under the Hood • Stateless Autoconfiguration • Neighbor Solicitation • Transition and Tunnels • DNS • Unix Hosts • Microsoft Windows • DVTS • ISIS • GigaPoP Implementations

Page 26: [PPT]

04/07/23 26

Internet2 IPv6 Deployment Issues

Addressing and routing – multi-homing• Abilene currently has a /32, allocates /40 prefixes to large

connectors, /48 prefixes to universities• The classic model for IPv6 is PA addressing, to contain the

size/stability of the global routing table – potentially very large if using PI addressing.

• Recall the complicated hierarchy within our infrastructure• Within the next 6 months, we expect member institutions to

inherit multiple prefixes, potentially from 2 or more research networks and 2 or more commodity networks

• Policy requirements complicate the multi-homing problem

Page 27: [PPT]

04/07/23 27

Internet2 IPv6 Deployment Issues – The Multi-homing Problem

Page 28: [PPT]

04/07/23 28

Internet2 IPv6 Deployment Issues – The Multi-homing Problem

How should we deal with this problem? We have to make this work.

• Should we allow others to punch holes in the Internet2 prefix?• Should we punch holes in the prefixes of other research

networks?• Should we encourage all connectors to obtain their own space?

– At some point in the hierarchy, this solution doesn’t work

How to deal with multiple addresses is very important to our deploymentDoes the punching of holes in PA space make sense?

• Would it make more sense to allocate some PI space, make it work for now, allowing time for development of a solution to the multi-homing problem? Use some scheme, possibly one geographically based, to allow for a few years of development?

Page 29: [PPT]

04/07/23 29

Internet2 IPv6 Deployment Issues

Routing databases – are these useful?–Should we deploy an IPv6 RADB database?–Experimental at first, production later?

Page 30: [PPT]

04/07/23 30

Internet2 IPv6 Deployment Issues

References• http://www.internet2.edu• http://abilene.internet2.edu• http://ipv6.internet2.edu• [email protected]

Questions?

Page 31: [PPT]

04/07/23 31