"Craig Whitmore" writes:

...

ISC is ready to peer over v6 at the APE, just as soon as there's a /64 there to number an interface in (and, preferably, at least one other router attached to the APE to peer with :)

f.root-servers.net is reachable as 2001:500::1035.

Has Citylink got a IPv6 Peering Range for APE? WIX?

What other Providers are "thinking" about IPv6 (and multicast)

Anyone know roughly how long this will take to filter down into ipv6 transport or tunnels for say people sitting on a jetstart connection? -- Geoff Cant

I have the tunnel, but I dont see the purpose in going international to connect to a NZ server. If I was to use the ISC f root server with ipv6, my ping times would be higher than if I were to use the root server in Asia because it would be routing back to NZ after the international hops. B.m ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Abley" To: "Geoff Cant" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 6:09 PM Subject: Re: [nznog] IPv6

On Wednesday, Jul 16, 2003, at 02:06 Canada/Eastern, Geoff Cant wrote:

...

"Craig Whitmore" writes:

...

...

ISC is ready to peer over v6 at the APE, just as soon as there's a /64 there to number an interface in (and, preferably, at least one other router attached to the APE to peer with :)

f.root-servers.net is reachable as 2001:500::1035.

Has Citylink got a IPv6 Peering Range for APE? WIX?

What other Providers are "thinking" about IPv6 (and multicast)

Anyone know roughly how long this will take to filter down into ipv6 transport or tunnels for say people sitting on a jetstart connection?

You can't plumb tunnels right now, today? Or is the problem that there's just no local place to plumb a tunnel to?

(see http://ipv6tb.he.net/ for a tunnel broker run by clueful people in the US).

Joe

_______________________________________________ Nznog mailing list Nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

I have ipv6 through freenet and I have a box housed at orcon who peer to ape. Whats involved with the metanet installation on a freebsd box? Barry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Abley" To: "Barry Murphy" Cc: "Geoff Cant" ; Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [nznog] IPv6

On Wednesday, Jul 16, 2003, at 02:14 Canada/Eastern, Barry Murphy wrote:

...

I have the tunnel, but I dont see the purpose in going international to connect to a NZ server. If I was to use the ISC f root server with ipv6, my ping times would be higher than if I were to use the root server in Asia because it would be routing back to NZ after the international hops.

OK. We have a strong preference not to use tunnels to talk v6 to people, but we will happily peer with anybody who can talk to us directly over the APE.

Perhaps this is the point where someone offers to run a MetaNet-connected box attached to the APE, or some other APE-connected tunnel broker.

Joe

On Wednesday, Jul 16, 2003, at 02:52 Canada/Eastern, Barry Murphy wrote:

I have ipv6 through freenet and I have a box housed at orcon who peer to ape. Whats involved with the metanet installation on a freebsd box?

Note that the orcon router sitting on the APE will need v6 transport, and routing back to the freenet box, if you want to be able to reach F locally over v6.

Nathan Ward wrote:

Alternatively, I'm /sure/ the community can donate some hardware to put a box /at/ APE. So we aren't reliant on any ISP. And we don't cause any unneeded traffic for them either.

Infact I've got a box right here. And I'd even be willing to find some cash to get hold of one of those rack cases from Roger.

I will donate cases to this worthy cause, in the same manner as the root servers. As everyone else contributes along the way, we can get this done.... R

Of course, such a box would probably have to have a 'geek project' disclaimer on it so that people don't do anything remotely critical. And all kinds of things like that.

Nathan Ward Esphion Ltd.

-- \_ Roger De Salis rdesalis(a)fx.net.nz

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:42:09 +1200, Steve Phillips wrote:

Part of the idea would be to build a native IPv6 network in New Zealand, as such - the ISP's will need to be reasonably heavily involved as they will have issues they will need to sort out.

I have a native v6 network. The issue is connecting that to other native v6 networks to get some usage out of it. ISPs sit around talking about doing native v6 end to end. I am proposing that while we wait for that to happen on a large scale, we go and setup a peering/tunnel point for those of us at the end of v4 only networks.

I am a little confused how "having a box sitting at APE" will actually assist toward anything with respect to IPv6 networks in New Zealand.

It will get people using and learning v6 on a larger scale, and having the box at APE will allow ISPs to turn on native v6 and still talk to everyone already using this tunnelled network.

In order to access this box (not using tunnels) one would assume that the link terminating equipment at APE for [insert company name here] would support IPv6 and be able to do peering with another peer on APE, hence negating the requirement for a 'box sitting at ape' all together..

Even if said box doesn't peer with anyone to start with, its still progress. It allows us to use v6 now, and it provides a very simple migration path to native v6 for APE connect ISPs. For non APE connected companies, ISPs etc, they can 'upgrade' now without having to wait for thier upstream providers first.

I would assume we could get this done initially with private v6 ranges and then look toward getting a publicly routable range. However, in order to link back into the rest of the world someone would be required to put up bandwidth to do this and as such, it would be unfair to expect them to carry all the costs for everyone (hence a system to apportion cost, i.e - a billing system)

This is a peering point to improve national v6 speed/RTTs. Users of the system provide thier own address space from (insert tunnel broker here) or APNIC. Such a box would only provide free fast national v6 connectivity. Put it at APE so that NZ ISPs currently talking about rolling out v6 can have thier shiny new v6 networks accessable via this v6 IX. -- Nathan Ward Esphion Ltd.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:30:47 +1200, Steve Phillips wrote:

At 13:05 17/07/2003 +1200, Nathan Ward wrote:

...

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:42:09 +1200, Steve Phillips wrote:

...

Part of the idea would be to build a native IPv6 network in New Zealand, as such - the ISP's will need to be reasonably heavily involved as they will have issues they will need to sort out.

I have a native v6 network. The issue is connecting that to other native v6 networks to get some usage out of it. ISPs sit around talking about doing native v6 end to end. I am proposing that while we wait for that to happen on a large scale, we go and setup a peering/tunnel point for those of us at the end of v4 only networks.

It would be better to pressure your ISP into doing something about IPv6 even if this is simply "please setup a tunnel end point for people to use !"

How is that better? That doesn't allow people from different ISPs to communicate unless there is inter-ISP tunneling going on as well. And again, it relies on the ISP doing something. I am thinking ISP independant, they can't charge for it, they can't turn it off, they can't neglect it because it doesn't make them money.

Putting the tunnel endpoint on APE would potentially cause issues (routing could be fun if it was not to have access internationally - and even the "citylink local to NZ" ranges cause problems for the large majority of NZ)

I don't follow.. How will that cause issues? (I'm not aware of this 'citylink local to nz' range issue you speak of)

As previously stated, I have been looking as the "second step" to putting a local tunnel endpoint in New Zealand somewhere that will be open to people wanting to peer with it via tunnels, this would simply be a normal box housed at some shonky ISP that didn't mind forking out small amounts for international bandwidth and was still connected reasonably well in New Zealand nationally so as not to worry about national capacity.

Why does there have to be this international thing? Sure, a .nz tunnel provider with international connectivity would be nice, but is it really useful if we have a 'local addresses only' tunnel endpoint? There are already international tunnel brokers around.. Any who do you suggest? I don't see any hands being raised. And if lots of people start using it, is it going to stay there?

This still does not address the main issue, and that is - ISP's are not moving to IPv6 because /insert latest reason not to here/

It may address some of these issues. For instance - Users, there will now be people using v6 in NZ. Waiting for upstream providers, there are many non-APE connected ISPs. They can now offer v6 ( and are more likely to than larger providers, because upgrading a smaller network is alot easier and cheaper ). Who cares? If we want to do it, lets just do it. As I said, its a geek project for the moment, but when the time eventually comes that the ISPs get over all those reasons, there will be people using v6 in New Zealand already who will want to sign up for connectivity/services with native v6. -- Nathan Ward Esphion Ltd.

On Wednesday, Jul 16, 2003, at 21:14 Canada/Eastern, James Spooner wrote:

A point to consider here is that there _is no such thing_ as a 'private' IPV6 range in my understanding.

There are link-local addresses, which are somewhat similar in concept. There was a proposal to specify a site-local address format too, but that got shot down at the v6ops meeting in San Francisco earlier this year. If MetaNet provides a single-subnet, multi-access shared medium abstraction, then a link local addressing scheme might be good for something. Bill Manning once popularised a scheme for using link-local addressing at exchange points in order to avoid RIR policy, to the point of running code even, but it was not widely adopted for reasons that escape me. Joe

At 13:14 17/07/2003 +1200, James Spooner wrote:

...

I would assume we could get this done initially with private v6 ranges and then look toward getting a publicly routable range. However, in order to link back into the rest of the world someone would be required to put up bandwidth to do this and as such, it would be unfair to expect them to carry all the costs for everyone (hence a system to apportion cost, i.e - a billing system)

A point to consider here is that there _is no such thing_ as a 'private' IPV6 range in my understanding. When we began peering over MetaNet we used Freenet as an address broker, whether or not we intended on keeping our links to freenet active, as it was the only (somewhat) permenant way of getting addresses that other people arn't using.

the fe{c,d,e,f}x are reserved as site-local ranges and (according to the FAQ) were likened to the RFC1918 address space. [quote] 3.2.2. Site local address type These are addresses similar to the http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1918.htmlRFC 1918 / Address Allocation for Private Internets in IPv4 today, with the added advantage that everyone who use this address type has the capability to use the given 16 bits for a maximum number of 65536 subnets. Comparable with the 10.0.0.0/8 in IPv4 today. Another advantage: because it's possible to assign more than one address to an interface with IPv6, you can also assign such a site local address in addition to a global one. It begins with: fecx: <- most commonly used. fedx: feex: fefx: (where "x" is any hex character, normally "0") [/quote] taken from: http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Linux+IPv6-HOWTO/x479.html as such, I'd suggest possibly playing with these for a start and then working upward once people are familiar with the fact that a 128bit IP address is pretty much the same as a 32 bit one with more bits.. -- Steve.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:42:09 +1200, Steve Phillips wrote:

I think it is hard enough to just get people to support the idea of IPv6 let alone starting to talk about donating equipment and the like. I think InternetNZ was also looking at putting together a komittee of some form to investigate IPv6 in New Zealand and assist in rolling it out ? possibly this would be a good place to start and get interested (and in some cases not so interested) parties involved.

Can anyone comment on where things are with respect to this komittee that was mentioned a while back on NZNOG and how one could express an interest in sitting in on it ?

INZ has just had its AGM and in the next week will be finalising its committee memberships, including that of Technical Committee which this falls under. The plan as I understand it is for Technical Committee to setup and support a number of Taskforces (or Tiger Teams as Keith calls them) in areas such as IPv6, Enum, Broadband, DNSSEC etc. Offers to help out will be warmly welcomed I am sure. I suspect a general call for interested persons will happen sometime in August - but that's up to the Chair of Technical. DPF -- E-mail: david(a)farrar.com ICQ: 29964527 MSN: dpf666(a)hotmail.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

You can't plumb tunnels right now, today? Or is the problem that there's just no local place to plumb a tunnel to?

(see http://ipv6tb.he.net/ for a tunnel broker run by clueful people in the US).

ahh, but tunnels to the US mean that you have the irritating problem that pinging someone on the same ISP as you can give you up to 3,000ms of latency as it transits from here to the US and back again. You have issues when they are overloaded, or down. You have issues if the internet between here and there decides that packets should be routed via darkest peru. IPv6 was designed to work in the situation where you have to bridge large IPv4 clouds. A much better solution for people in New Zealand is to use 6to4 addressing, especially if you're on the end of ADSL or similar and don't have native transport. 6to4 addressing means that whatever device(s) have non-RFC1918 IPv4 addresses can have a /48 assigned to them. 2003:<high two octets of IPv4 address>:<low two octets of IPv4 address>::/48. To route to another 2002::/16 address over IPv4 you just take the packet, encapsulate it in IPv4, and send it to the embedded IPv4 address. Linux and FreeBSD both support this. Latency to other 6to4 addresses is about the same as IPv4, avoiding the entire US round trip. To talk from a 6to4 address to a non-6to4 IPv6 address you route via ::192.88.99.1 which is an AnyCast address. Unfortunately, last time I looked the nearest 192.88.99.1 AnyCast announcement appeared to be in Germany. Is there any chance of someone putting forward 6to4 anycast gateway in the APE and/or the WIX? Of course the problem here is that probably 50% of it's traffic will be international. In an unrelated note, the MetaNet has been used by several people in NZ who are interested in playing around with more interesting networks without breaking things that people pay to use. We use it for peering IPv6 without having to go via the US and we'd be interested in organising IPv6 tunnels with like minded people (either using wand, gre, or 6in4 tunnels) Unfortunately the MetaNet wouldn't handle multicast very well (or we'd be having a good tinker with it) Resources: * http://www.wlug.org.nz/DancingPenguin (A IPv6 enabled website in New Zealand which is useful for testing with) * http://www.wlug.org.nz/IPv6LessonsLearnt (For some random things we've discovered about IPv6 the hard way, so you don't have to) * http://www.wlug.org.nz/6to4 (Information about 6to4 under Linux) * http://www.wlug.org.nz/IPv6 (Information about IPv6 on the wiki) * http://www.nevada.net.nz/~pmurray/6to4.html (6to4 under FreeBSD) If you want to chat about it, we're usually hanging around in #wlug on Undernet. irc://undernet/%23wlug - -- <f00Dave> Look, rejects, this is #OpenGL, not #GEEKSEX. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Only when you are sure they have you, can you stop being paranoid iD8DBQE/FQ0TcAgRpy8z8UQRAhadAJ4gAGn+YRABqt6A7X58K73hBQPNugCgy3ie 05qO9xRxAXyaG1K5EElVfAY= =+lkH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wednesday, Jul 16, 2003, at 05:42 Canada/Eastern, perry(a)deeper.co.nz wrote:

To talk from a 6to4 address to a non-6to4 IPv6 address you route via ::192.88.99.1 which is an AnyCast address. Unfortunately, last time I looked the nearest 192.88.99.1 AnyCast announcement appeared to be in Germany. Is there any chance of someone putting forward 6to4 anycast gateway in the APE and/or the WIX? Of course the problem here is that probably 50% of it's traffic will be international.

... in which case it makes more sense for individual ISPs to install their own 6to4 gateways for the use of their customers, and not announce it to peers or transit providers, so that the international traffic it sinks or generates is attributable to a paying customer. This still relies on some v6 infrastructure to be deployed in the ISP, and the general domestic traffic issue (for all v6 destinations) remains unless there's some domestic v6 peering. Joe

At 21:58 16/07/2003 +1200, Simon Blake wrote:

Not right now, we don't, and unfortunately, unlike IPv4 we don't have convenient unused allocations laying about looking for a good home on an exchange, so I suspect we're going to have fess up with some cash.

If my reading of the APNIC site is correct, the smallest allocation we can get will cost us US$1250. I have no problem with spending such a sum - if a few ISP's say "yes, we're want to peer with IPV6, and we'll pay some $ for the facility", then we'll go out and get an allocation tomorrow.

I know of at least three ISP's that are actively looking into IPv6 but the main issue they face is router upgrades to support it and currently the "looking" involves things such as "wtf ?? thats an IP address ??" (along with another two following the 'but no one wants it' scenario) Today I was looking at setting up a 6to4 relay router and the steps involved but no one seems to know anyone that can help from an ISP perspective and no one so far has been able to give any pointers toward this end effect (its only been a day tho so there is still hope ! :-) ).

Realistically, the $ are actually going to be pretty small - $50/month from five ISP's would cover the APNIC cost, doubtless we'll find some other reason to make it a more worthwhile sum :-).

Had not looked at the costings so far but apparently you need to prove that there is enough interest such that you would hand out at least 200 /48's worth of space within the next two years - It may pay to hold back until the equipment is enabled and possibly practice with some equiv. RFC1918 type space first and then look toward a neutral party applying and acting as an LIR initially. Billing may end up being a rather big part of this as well and there are a lot of "eek !" type things when one starts looking into this from an IP billing perspective, and this could end up being a big part of things were 6to4 gateways provided for much of New Zealand.

...

What other Providers are "thinking" about IPv6 (and multicast)

When yawl progress beyond thinking and actually want to do it, sing out. Despite what I've said above, it's likely that'll we'll have allocation available for APE and WIX reasonably soon regardless. Serious requests for peering will simply escalate the process.

I'll add you to my list :-) only been looking for two weeks now and already have 3 ISP's that are making serious noises about it. I think part of the issue is that people see it as a rather almighty big step to take in learning new things [tm] and this puts a lot of people off.. I went from knowing nothing over a weekend to having established a tunnel to my mates place and having two subnets of three machines each talking to each other, doing DNS, web, ssh and e-mail quite happily and with a mixture of Win2k, Linux and WinXP boxes and I'm not even a routing guy, so it cant be that hard ! (took around a day in total) If more people start looking into the requirements at least to ensure their core network will support it (IOS versions, switch and router upgrades etc) then we may be in a better position to gauge what is involved in getting some rudimentary peering working. -- Steve. PS: Anyone got any jobs going ? :-)

On Wed, 2003-07-16 at 21:58, Simon Blake wrote:

On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 05:30:26PM +1200, Craig Whitmore said:

...

...

ISC is ready to peer over v6 at the APE, just as soon as there's a /64 there to number an interface in (and, preferably, at least one other router attached to the APE to peer with :)

f.root-servers.net is reachable as 2001:500::1035.

Has Citylink got a IPv6 Peering Range for APE? WIX?

Not right now, we don't, and unfortunately, unlike IPv4 we don't have convenient unused allocations laying about looking for a good home on an exchange, so I suspect we're going to have fess up with some cash.

We've applied for IPv6 space for both APE and WIX. I'll report back here once it's been approved. andy

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:23:58 +1200, Barry Murphy wrote:

Hey Antonia,

Just on that note, I will be adding ipv6 to the site sometime soon, when i'm not busy. I have the IP addresses, but was wondering if anyone would be interested in peering.

Barry

<rant> Insert generic chicken egg story here. (1) If we all start tunnelling, there may be a bit more of the learning taking place that would be needed for said ISPs to roll out v6. Perhaps WLUG's metanet(2) could be utilised here? Thier v6 support is progressing it seems. However, the metanet requires a proprietary piece of software that AFAIK is better optimised for a emulating a single ethernet broadcast domain. (ie peer to peer, stuff like that) ie. it doesn't talk to your Cisco's, or your Junipers(3). However. with a number of geeks running on metanet, perhaps machines could be put at APE and WIX to translate between metanet and native. There are a few technical issues to sort out here but most of them are trivial. Perhaps these machines could also terminate GRE tunnels or , so that companies/people that can't either get there natively, or don't have linux routers things, can. This kind of scenario would allow many of the geeks around to get onto v6, and get learning it in a 'read world' (4) environment whilst ISPs and so on talk about doing it. When they get around to it, there will already be a (small) userbase. And because Craig brought it up, multicast. Multicast gateways from APE/WIX onto the metanet. Sure, it makes it being multicast somewhat pointless (4), but again, its to build a userbase, and get some 'real world' (4) learning done. -- Nathan Ward (1) We've heard it all before. 'no address space problem' 'no userbase' (2) I'm not part of metanet or WLUG, so take this all as 42'nd hand information (3) WAND will run on FreeBSD AFAIK... (4) Chaotic, changing, non-controlled environment. (5) Actually, a little less, as there are some providers who have 'native' multicast to thier customers.