Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
[PPT]
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
513
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • This is a general overview presentation about Internet2. Internet2 is a consortium, led by US universities, which is recreating the partnership among academia, industry and government that fostered today’s Internet in its infancy.
  • Partnerships are the foundation of how the Internet developed and they are also a part of the foundation of Internet2.
  • Partnerships are the foundation of how the Internet developed and they are also a part of the foundation of Internet2.
  • Transcript

    • 1. 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
    • 2. Outline
      • General Internet2 Infrastructure
        • Internet2 Goals
        • Abilene Partners
        • Abilene Backbone
        • Connectors
        • Peers
        • Focus
      • IPv6 Deployment
        • Goals
        • History
        • Backbone
        • Measurement
        • Support
    • 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.
    • 4. Partners
      • Internet2
      • Cisco Systems
      • Indiana University
      • Juniper Networks
      • Nortel Networks
      • Qwest Communications
      • North Carolina, Ohio, San Diego ITECs
    • 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
    • 6. Abilene Backbone (Late Summer 2003)
    • 7. Abilene Backbone (Early Summer 2003)
    • 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
    • 9. Abilene Federal/Research Peering (Late Spring 2003) 09 January 2002 Last updated: 17 January 2003
    • 10. Abilene International Peering (Late Spring 2003) 09 January 2002
    • 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
    • 12. Internet2 Infrastructure Simple to Complex Hierarchies within the Internet2 Infrastructures DNS and multi-homing issues within these types of hierarchies
    • 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 performance
      • Supporting network research – Abilene Observatory
      • Experimenting with MPLS/VPN on backbone
      • Supporting large MTUs
      • Security and the REN-ISAC
    • 14. Internet2 IPv6 Goals
      • Support and encourage development of advanced applications using IPv6
      • Create 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 base
      • Support interconnectivity and transit during the initial stages of IPv6 deployment
    • 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
    • 16. Abilene IPv6 History
    • 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.
    • 18. Abilene IPv6 Backbone
      • Currently a native IPv6 Dual Stack implementation
      • Fully deployed on all Abilene Routers
      • Routing 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 Indianapolis
      • Successful Tests:
        • 8 Gbps across backbone
        • IPv6 only and mixed IPv6/IPv4
    • 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 space
      • Some universities attempting to obtain space – could satisfy current ARIN guidelines
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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 environments
      • Problems 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • 27. Internet2 IPv6 Deployment Issues – The Multi-homing Problem
    • 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 deployment
      • Does 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?
    • 29. Internet2 IPv6 Deployment Issues
      • Routing databases – are these useful?
          • Should we deploy an IPv6 RADB database?
          • Experimental at first, production later?
    • 30. Internet2 IPv6 Deployment Issues
      • References
        • http://www.internet2.edu
        • http://abilene.internet2.edu
        • http://ipv6.internet2.edu
        • [email_address]
      • Questions?
    • 31.  

    ×