- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Fwd: Estonian IPv6 deployment report
by Brian E Carpenter 23 Dec '14

23 Dec '14

An example from far away... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Estonian IPv6 deployment report Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 17:27:23 +0200 From: Tarko Tikan <tarko(a)lanparty.ee> To: IPv6 Ops list <ipv6-ops(a)lists.cluenet.de> hey, Some time ago, many people noticed rapid IPv6 deployment growth in Estonia (from 0% to 5% in 4 weeks). We at 3249/Elion/Estonian Telecom were behind this, other operators don't have any serious IPv6 deployments at the moment. We rolled out v6 to everyone (both business and residential customers) with last-gen CPE, there was no hop-in our hop-out program - aim was to do it perfectly and without customers even noticing. I'm happy to say that we achieved this goal :) To satisfy general interest, I promised small (somehow it turned out longer than I expected) technical writeup how we enabled v6 for our subscribers. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask and I do my best to answer them. You can also skip the technical content and there are some statistics below. Our access network is mix of DSL/GPON/wimax/p2p-ETH and broadband service is deployed in shared service vlans. IPv6 traffic shares vlan with IPv4. Service vlans are transported over MPLS metro network using pseudowires and terminated in geo-clustered Alcatel 7750 BNG routers. Each subscriber is allocated up to 4 mixed v4 and v6 IP hosts. For v4 we are using the usual DHCP, for IPv6 we are using DHCPv6 with IA_PD only, no IA_NA is provided. Unfortunately DHCPv6 provides no way to signal IPv6 default-route thus we have to fall back to RA for default-route. RA does not include any on-link prefixes or DNS information. RAs are L2 unicasted to CPE MAC so no other CPE in service vlan picks up those RAs. To ensure rapid switchover between BNG routers, we are signalling virtual link-local address as default-route. We are using ALU internal DHCP/DHCPv6 servers to allocate leases but we also signal IP information from radius (in such case BNG "fakes" DHCP server) for static IP customers. Provided IPv6 prefix is always /56 and we keep the old lease for 24h even if the CPE is turned off (actual lease time is 30min). Unfortunately, IPv6 LDRA is not available on most of our access platforms so we have to rely on IPv4 session information for authentication. This linking is done in the radius server during subscriber authentication (excellent radiator + quite awful SQL queries :) - if subscriber has IPv4 session (that has been authenticated using DHCP opt82), same MAC address is allowed to have IPv6 session on exactly the same virtual BNG port. IPv4 and v6 session are both tied to same subscriber and share shapers, QOS etc. We were able to enable IPv6 only on our last-gen Inteno CPEs. They run modified OpenWrt and because it's linux - everything is possible :) In CPE, /56 is divided up to /64s, first one is currently reserved but we will configure it on loopback interface and use it for CPE management. Second /64 is configured on LAN and third is configured on public wifi SSID (if you choose to enable this option). In the LAN, IPv6 config is provided by RAs, we also support RDNSS and stateless DHCPv6 for DNS. There is also ingress IPv6 firewall in the CPE and configuration is modifiable by user. To make deployment as smooth as possible, we rolled out IPv6 capable CPE software first. Then, during the BNG platform refresh, we deployed L2 ACLs that dropped all IPv6 traffic based on 0x86dd ethertype. We then deployed IPv6 config to all BNGs and could verify everything before single v6 lease was handed out to the subscribers. Then, interface by interface, we replaced L2 ACL with one that only allowed 0x86dd for certain, supported, OUIs. This is the current situation and we are investigating ways to support 3rd party CPEs - main problem is unreliable IPv6 config in CPEs. Many don't enable DHCPv6 (or enable NA but no PD) but still pick up default-route from RA and happily signal it to LAN. Some others hammer our BNGs with NA request every 0.1 seconds etc. As statistics go, there are 30000+ active IPv6 subscribers (almost 15% of our customer base, based on our public numbers), 81% of them have have at least one IPv6 enabled device in the LAN, 70% have more than one. Most IPv6 traffic is generated by Google+Youtube, Facebook and Akamai. Not bad for a country with 1.3M people. Next up: mobile network :) -- tarko

2 1

Primary access method
by Brian E Carpenter 21 Dec '14

21 Dec '14

Hi, In answer to a ticket entitled "Not getting an IPv6 prefix today", here is what the help desk told me: > Currently XXX have IPv6 services turned off due to some ongoing investigations > with this service. > > Once this is turned back on you will be able to get an IPv6 address again. and in response to my follow-up bleat > As IPv6 is not the Primary access method we offer on our connections this does > not need to be updated on the network status page. > > IPv6 is not a fully released product therefore it is still going through testing > and this is why we are currently unable to apply static IPv6 address (I didn't ask about a static address and don't want one.) This morning, I still have no IPv6 service and the XXX status page still says "OK - No Known Network Problems". Now, since I've had stable IPv6 service for a long time and it often gives me better response times than IPv4, I was a bit annoyed by this. Isn't it time that people consider IPv6 to be the primary access method, and IPv4 to be a legacy solution? Grumble. I need to fire up SixXs again, then. Brian

9 14

Akamai at APE
by Scott Pettit 19 Dec '14

19 Dec '14

Hoping someone knows/can share more info about the Akamai APE peer. It's been there a couple of months now but I can't find any announcement or info in regards to what those caches are serving. I'm seeing a small amount of largely corporate-ish content coming off it (e.g. Cisco.com content seems to come from there) but wondered whether it also provides media content like iTunes movies? Does anyone have detail on how large it is and what it's there for? -Scott

2 1

Multicast traffic replication issue
by Ben Cornish 18 Dec '14

18 Dec '14

Hi All, Curious if anyone has seen this issue previously or could offer any advice on the issue: We have a VLL/EOMPLS with Pipe from Sydney to NZ which then utilises a City Link QinQ service across town in Auckland. We've had an issue ongoing for some time and it only relates to multicast traffic traversing the path. Essentially this issue started when we couldn't establish a OSPF session over the link - yet all other traffic flows as expected. When we broke this link down to basics (laptop either end) we send one multicast packet in the Sydney end - we then receive that same packet 97 times out the Auckland end. (Over the Pipe and City link path) We see this issue when we ping 224.0.0.5 over the link and get that same exact packet 97 times on the other end. We've seen this when doing WireShark captures on the port. The captures show the exact same packet 97 times (ie same payload/sequence number). Pipe seem to be running out of ideas to track the issue. Being a EoMPLS circuit I doubt the issue is on the Pipe side but more on the City Link side. When CityLink were engaged in the issue they did what they referred to as an RFC test - as I understand it, unicast testing only and never engaged further. This issue only seems to effect link local multicast traffic - ie 224.0.0.x/24 All other traffic appears to flow normally/as expected. Obviously we are chasing pipe to test each side individually to work out who is doing the packet replication - however I am curious if anyone has had issues forming OSPF sessions over a City link service ?? Or if anyone can offer advice or seen a similar issue ? My brain boggles thinking how this is even possible or what would cause it. Ben Cornish General Manager [Description: Description: cid:image001.png(a)01CCB4C2.B40A97F0] Over the Wire Pty Ltd - An Impirical Company Level 3, 24 Little Edward St, Spring Hill QLD 4000 t +61 7 3847 9292 m +61 417 617 204 e ben.cornish(a)overthewire.com.au<mailto:ben.cornish(a)overthewire.com.au> www.overthewire.com.au<http://www.overthewire.com.au/>

3 4

Call for Presentations - DNS-OARC Spring Workshop, May 2015
by Sebastian Castro 18 Dec '14

18 Dec '14

NOTE: Previous message contained the right information, but with the subject referring to the wrong year. Apologies for the noise. The next OARC Spring Workshop will take place in Amsterdam on May 9th and 10th, the weekend before RIPE70. OARC is requesting proposals for presentations, with a preference for DDoS attack reports and mitigation techniques. Reports and field stories can cover DNS-based DDoS attacks, attacks to DNS infrastructure or side effects suffered by cache resolver operators. This workshop intends to build from previous strong OARC workshops, where operational content and research is welcome. Presentations from DNS operators are particularly welcome, as well as from DNS researchers. All DNS-related subjects are accepted, introduction to new tools, visualizations, DNSSEC and novel uses of the DNS. If you are an OARC member, and have a sensitive topic you would like to present for members-only, we will accommodate those talks too. Adopting practice from other conferences, a timeslot for lighting talks will be available for short presentations (5 to 10 minutes). Workshop Milestones * 18 December 2014, Call for Presentations posted * 8 January 2015, Open for submissions * 5 March 2015, Deadline for submission * 26 March 2015, Final Program published * 7 May 2015, Final deadline for slideset submission Details for abstract submission will be published here: https://indico.dns-oarc.net//conferenceCFA.py?confId=21 The workshop will be organized on different tracks, depending on the topics and the timing of each presentation. If you are interested in a lightning talk, let us know at the time of submission. You can contact the Programme Committee: https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/programme via <submissions(a)dns-oarc.net> if you have questions or concerns. Sebastian Castro, for the OARC Programme Committee OARC is also seeking sponsorship for this workshop, please contact <sponsor(a)dns-oarc.net> if your organization is interested in becoming a sponsor. (Please note that OARC is run on a non-profit basis, and is not in a position to reimburse expenses or time for speakers at its meetings.) -- Sebastian Castro Technical Research Manager .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 495 2337 mobile: +64 21 400535

1 0

Call for Presentations - DNS-OARC Spring Workshop, May 2014
by Sebastian Castro 18 Dec '14

18 Dec '14

The next OARC Spring Workshop will take place in Amsterdam on May 9th and 10th, the weekend before RIPE70. OARC is requesting proposals for presentations, with a preference for DDoS attack reports and mitigation techniques. Reports and field stories can cover DNS-based DDoS attacks, attacks to DNS infrastructure or side effects suffered by cache resolver operators. This workshop intends to build from previous strong OARC workshops, where operational content and research is welcome. Presentations from DNS operators are particularly welcome, as well as from DNS researchers. All DNS-related subjects are accepted, introduction to new tools, visualizations, DNSSEC and novel uses of the DNS. If you are an OARC member, and have a sensitive topic you would like to present for members-only, we will accommodate those talks too. Adopting practice from other conferences, a timeslot for lighting talks will be available for short presentations (5 to 10 minutes). Workshop Milestones * 18 December 2014, Call for Presentations posted * 8 January 2015, Open for submissions * 5 March 2015, Deadline for submission * 26 March 2015, Final Program published * 7 May 2015, Final deadline for slideset submission Details for abstract submission will be published here: https://indico.dns-oarc.net//conferenceCFA.py?confId=21 The workshop will be organized on different tracks, depending on the topics and the timing of each presentation. If you are interested in a lightning talk, let us know at the time of submission. You can contact the Programme Committee: https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/programme via <submissions(a)dns-oarc.net> if you have questions or concerns. Sebastian Castro, for the OARC Programme Committee OARC is also seeking sponsorship for this workshop, please contact <sponsor(a)dns-oarc.net> if your organization is interested in becoming a sponsor. (Please note that OARC is run on a non-profit basis, and is not in a position to reimburse expenses or time for speakers at its meetings.) -- Sebastian Castro Technical Research Manager .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 495 2337 mobile: +64 21 400535

1 0

Re: [nznog] New IXs in NZ - discussion
by Stu Fleming 17 Dec '14

17 Dec '14

Coming very late to the party on this, but I wanted to wait until announcements (both press and BGP) were out there: On 11 November 13:18, Tim Hoffman <tim(a)hoffman.net.nz> >We've had some interesting announcements of Megaport and IX Australia building internet >exchanges into NZ over the last week or so. I've been a bit surprised at how little chatter there >has been around this on the list. I've just completed standing up our (WICNZ AS38437) peering with APE and hope to complete megaport IX peering in the next couple of days. We're peering IPv4 and IPv6 on both. Our peering record is at http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=38437 NOC contact: Stu 021 993 125 stewart(a)wic.co.nz I've noted with interest the migration away from Sky Tower to 220 Queen St in particular and the healthy participation by a large number of operators on APE. See below for how you can help me :-) >It's interesting looking at the differences between the 3 IXs we're about to have. >Citylink, who have the critical mass of all the peers, are in the most locations, and are the most >expensive. They've also got a product set around metro ethernet, dark fibre, and have a CDN >running. And they're doing some interesting things around a "SDN driven IX". An announcement in the last few days which seems to have been overlooked on NOG is the relaunch of the Dunedin Peering Exchange: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1412/S00637/citylink-tech-boost-for-dunedi… As you will probably all know (to varying degrees of snark), Dunedin won the Chorus Gigatown competition, providing gigabit speeds on UFB at the retail level. As such, we're expecting higher than normal traffic volumes and hopefully an associated increase in exchanges between providers. I would strongly encourage any operator with a presence in Dunedin to connect to the Dunedin Exchange when it becomes available. We're committed to peering there and hope to see others connecting! Regards, Stu

1 0

Re: [nznog] FW: Primary access method
by Scott Pettit 17 Dec '14

17 Dec '14

> On 17/12/14 11:20 pm, "Joel van Velden" <joel(a)tpnz.co.nz> wrote: >There is no NZ ISP that fully supports IPv6 on DSL/UFB that I am aware >of. We (vorco.net) do support IPv6 on all connections and it's on by default. All customers are assigned a static /56 via DHCPv6 PD, so all that's required is enabling it on the CPE and it is a "production" feature. We officially test and support it on Cisco 867VAE, all 880's, 890's and anything upwards of that and provide template config for these. We have also tested and know it works with Netcomm NF4V (on firmware RB017 and RB019) but don't provide support for those. We've gone to great lengths to pester anyone we connect to with broken IPv6 and as at right now are not aware of any outstanding issues. -Scott

1 0

Re: [nznog] Primary access method
by Pete Mundy 17 Dec '14

17 Dec '14

On 18/12/2014, at 12:20 PM, Joel van Velden <joel(a)tpnz.co.nz> wrote: > There is no NZ ISP that fully supports IPv6 on DSL/UFB that I am aware of. Let's change that awareness then! :) http://www.sinch.co.nz/support-centre.html Very first question on their list: "Can I get IPv6?" Answer: "I'm so glad you asked, yes all our plans are IPv6 enabled." That statement makes me think they seem pretty supportive. *disclaimer - I am not a customer of Sinch, nor have I ever used their products. I simply had their service pointed out to me recently, and I think I maybe I'll get a test circuit from them sometime next year. Pete

1 0

AKL-IX and domestic vs. international
by Dave Mill 11 Dec '14

11 Dec '14

Hi all (Note, I'm not trying to place blame at any party here. Just interested in people's thoughts on this situation) We, Inspire/AS17705, recently peered at AKL-IX. I was interested in using this peering exchange as much as possible so we have tended to prefer AKL-IX routes over any other peering exchange (though we still prefer bi-lats, private interconnects, etc, over AKL-IX). Simple stuff.. We learnt a lot of routes off AKL-IX. We started sending traffic out via. AKL-IX. Cue customer complaints. In general, we were sending all traffic to AS4826/Vocus out via AKL-IX. I believe if another ISP had Vocus as an international provider the traffic would ingress that ISP via their international pipe. This led to one customer having packet loss over a VPN (I'd assume the far end had congested international) and another customer getting billed for this traffic as international. We ceased learning Vocus routes from the AKL-IX. Problem solved... Except, this doesn't really sound ideal to me. If Vocus are announcing routes to AKL-IX (their choice) I would like to be free to use them. What should we be doing in a situation like this? What should Vocus be doing? Am I just making a mountain out of a molehill here and should I just shut-up and leave my current fix in place? Cheers Dave

6 12