Category: IPv6

Till a few weeks ago, you could get provider-independent (PI) IPv6 address space in RIPE region only if you “demonstrated that you’ll be multihomed”, which usually required having nothing more than an AS number. With the recent policy change, anyone can get PI address space (and this is why you should get it) as long as they have a sponsoring LIR, and the yearly fee for an independent resource (RIPE-to-LIR) is €50.

A while ago I described the pre-standard way Cisco IOS used to get delegated IPv6 prefixes from a RADIUS server. Cisco’s documentation always claimed that Cisco IOS implements RFC 4818, but you simply couldn’t get it to work in IOS releases 12.4T or 15.0M. In December I wrote about the progress Cisco is making on the DHCPv6 front and [email protected] commented that IOS 15.1S does support RFC 4818. You know I absolutely had to test that claim ... and it’s true!

IPv6 hosts can use stateless or stateful autoconfiguration. Stateless address autoconfiguration (SLAAC) uses IPv6 prefixes from Router Advertisement (RA) messages; stateful autoconfiguration uses DHCPv6. The routers can use two flags in RA messages to tell the attached end hosts which method to use:

• Managed-Config-Flag tells the end-host to use DHCPv6 exclusively;
• Other-Config-Flag tells the end-host to use SLAAC to get IPv6 address and DHCPv6 to get other parameters (DNS server address, for example).
• Absence of both flags tells the end-host to use only SLAAC.

One might assume that setting managed-config-flag in RA messages forces IPv6 hosts to use DHCPv6. Wrong, the two flags are just a polite suggestion.

I got a follow-up question to the Should I use 6PE or native IPv6 post:

Am I remembering correctly that if you run IPv6 native throughout the network you need to enable BGP on all routers, even P routers? Why is that?

I wrote about BGP-free core before, but evidently wasn’t clear enough, so I’ll try to fix that error.

Imagine a small ISP with a customer-facing PE-router (A), two PE-routers providing upstream connectivity (B and D), a core router (C), and a route reflector (R). The ISP is running IPv4 and IPv6 natively (no MPLS).

One of my students was watching the Building IPv6 Service Provider Core webinar and wondered whether he should use 6PE or native IPv6 transport:

Could you explain further why it is better to choose 6PE over running IPv6 in the core? I have to implement IPv6 where I work (a small ISP) and need to fully understand why I should choose a certain implementation.

Here’s a short decision tree that should help you make that decision:

Aleksej sent me an intriguing question: “Can the /48 PI block that a global company is assigned be attached to any region, or it is region-specific?”, or, more specifically:

Imagine a company with major DC with public services in EMEA. Centralized internet break-out in Europe fails and this DC must be reachable from Asia or America - but with the same IPv6 address? That would require Asia or America's ISPs to accept injection of this same subnet in their region. Do they do that?

In theory, the answer is yes. In practice, some global organizations are hedging their bets.

Every time I write about IPv6 multihoming issues and the need for NPT66, I get a comment or two saying:

But I thought this is already part of IPv6 stack – can’t you have two or more IPv6 addresses on the same interface?

The commentators are right, you can have multiple IPv6 addresses on the same interface; the problem is: which one do you choose for outgoing sessions.

The source address selection rules are specified in RFC 3484 (Greg translated that RFC into an easy-to-consume format a while ago), but they are not very helpful as they cannot be influenced by the CPE router. Let’s look at the details.

DHCPv6 server on Cisco IOS got several highly useful enhancements since the first time I started looking into its behavior. Seems like most of them are implemented only in 15.xS trains (where they are most badly needed one would assume), but there’s hope those changes will eventually trickle down into mainstream IOS.

My friend Tom Hollingsworth has written another NAT66-is-evil blog post. While I agree with him in principle, and most everyone agrees NAT as we know it from IPv4 world is plain stupid in IPv6 world (NAPT more so than NAT), we just might need NPT66 (Network Prefix Translation; RFC 6296) to support small-site multihoming ... and yet again, it seems that many leading IPv6 experts grudgingly agree with me.

You’re probably tired of this story by now: public IPv4 addresses are running out, lots of content is available only over IPv4, and so the service providers use NAT to give new clients (with no public IPv4 address) access to old content. It doesn’t matter which NAT variant the service provider is using, be it Carrier Grade Nat (CGN), NAT64, DS-Lite or A+P, the crucial problem is always the same: multiple users are hidden behind a single source IP address.

Yesterday’s 6th Slovenian IPv6 Summit was (as always) full of awesome presentations, this time coming straight from some of the IPv6 legends: check the ones from Eric Vyncke (and make sure you read his IPv6 Security book), Randy Bush and Mark Townsley. The epic moment, however, was the “I was getting bored” part of Eric’s presentation (starts around 0:50:00). This is (in a nutshell) what he did:

Did you ever want to have a high-level overview of how 3G/4G mobile networks work? Where GGSN and SGSN fit in? What the PDP contexts are ... and why you need two for dual-stack connectivity? All that (and a lot more) is explained in very well written IETF draft IPv6 in 3GPP Evolved Packet System. Reading highly recommended.

Finally someone decided to make IPv6 flow label useful. First they had to justify why they want to change it, and then modify the definition (way too much work for a field nobody ever used). Planned use is to enhance ECMP load balancing, both in native IPv6 environments (where using the flow label is faster than digging deep into variable-length IPv6 extension headers) and (even more importantly) in tunneled environments, where the flow label propagates the entropy from the tunnel payload into the envelope header.

One of the areas where IPv6 sorely lacks feature parity with IPv4 is user authentication and source IP spoofing prevention in large-scale Carrier Ethernet networks. Metro Ethernet switches from numerous vendors offer all the IPv4 features a service provider needs to build a secure and reliable access network where the users can’t intercept other users’ traffic or spoof source IP addresses, and where it’s always possible to identify the end customer from an IPv4 address – a mandatory requirement in many countries. Unfortunately, you won’t find most of these features in those few Metro Ethernet switches that support IPv6.

While preparing for my Rome IPv6 seminar, I had to reinvent a few wheels, including slides explaining IPv6 addressing and host behavior ... giving me a perfect reason to study the RFCs and figure out how exactly IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration (RFC 4862) works.