Forum - sixxs with native IPv6 :: SixXS - IPv6 Deployment & Tunnel Broker

sixxs with native IPv6

Carmen Sandiego on Monday, 17 February 2014 23:23:41

Today my ISP doesn't do IPv6 at all. That's why I use sixxs and aiccu to connect. One day I will get native IPv6 by my provider of course. I imagine the connection is IPv6 only. So will I be able to continue using my sixxs IP address ranges over that native IPv6 only Internet uplink? Any hints? Thank you!

sixxs with native IPv6

Jeroen Massar SixXS Staff

on Tuesday, 18 February 2014 09:45:13

One day I will get native IPv6 by my provider of course. I imagine the connection is IPv6 only.

There are, especially in Germany, already a few ISPs doing either DS-lite or AFTR style deployments, these give you native-IPv6 along with NATted IPv4 connectivity. People from these ISPs are thus punching through those NATs with AYIYA.

So will I be able to continue using my sixxs IP address ranges over that native IPv6 only Internet uplink?

Not at this moment, as we do not provide IPv6-in-IPv6 tunnels yet. Technically it is possible and sixxsd already is able to do it, in theory at least, and should not be too tricky to change to make it work; for the time being though there are higher priorities to resolve. (For one releasing a new AICCU.... but other things keep on getting in the way, eg the upcoming move of all the backend SixXS infrastructure, news thingies will follow of those soon)

sixxs with native IPv6

Carmen Sandiego on Tuesday, 18 February 2014 11:05:05

Jeroen Massar wrote:

> One day I will get native IPv6 by my provider of course. I imagine the connection is IPv6 only. There are, especially in Germany, already a few ISPs doing either DS-lite or AFTR style deployments, these give you native-IPv6 along with NATted IPv4 connectivity. People from these ISPs are thus punching through those NATs with AYIYA.

So will I be able to continue using my sixxs IP address ranges over that native IPv6 only Internet uplink?

DS-Lite is nothing I would use at all. This is broken by design since everyone's traffic will run through that NAT Gateway. That's crap. Regarding the IPv6-in-IPv6 I really hope that this will be available any time soon. When you look at what german ISPs do when introducing IPv6 it's really a shame because most of the time you get a dynamic /64 prefix. Which is fine while you want to be as anonymous as possible but on the other hand it doesn't give you static IPs which I need. Some ISP even doesn't let incoming traffic pass through the router. They simply don't let you configure the paket filter firewall. :-(

sixxs with native IPv6

Jeroen Massar SixXS Staff

on Tuesday, 18 February 2014 11:33:16

DS-Lite is nothing I would use at all. This is broken by design since everyone's traffic will run through that NAT Gateway. That's crap.

There are a few German providers (and others in the world) who already went there; in quite a few cases you will not have a choice if they are one of the sole providers for your location.

Regarding the IPv6-in-IPv6 I really hope that this will be available any time soon.

It is definitely on the menu.

When you look at what german ISPs do when introducing IPv6 it's really a shame because most of the time you get a dynamic /64 prefix.

It is a way to make you want to pay for a better service. The 24-hour disconnect thing used to be so that you had more "privacy" due to the changing IP, though actually it was because their accounting system needed it to count bits per day.

Which is fine while you want to be as anonymous as possible

It does not help you in anyway with the amounts of meta-data going out of the network.

but on the other hand it doesn't give you static IPs which I need

There are lots of ISPs that do, but you will need to get a business level contract, which will cost you lots more too.

Some ISP even doesn't let incoming traffic pass through the router. They simply don't let you configure the paket filter firewall. :-(

It does not sound like that is even remotely connected to providing "Internet Service".

sixxs with native IPv6

Carmen Sandiego on Wednesday, 20 August 2014 21:36:04

Jeroen Massar wrote:

Wouldn't it be easier to use LISP (not the programming language but rather: Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol) instead of "developing" a own SIXXs IPv6 over IPv6-protocol? I admit to not having read all the relevant RFCs, but at first glance it seems to solve the "static vs dynamic" prefix problem (along with a few others ...) Also, if I understand it correctly, if enough edge-routers support LISP the amount of traffic having to pass through the SIXXs POPs would also go down (but I could be wrong here). I just started playing around with it (luckily, FritzBox supports it "out of the box") as I just received native IPv6 from my provider - with a dynamic prefix of course ...

sixxs with native IPv6

Jeroen Massar SixXS Staff

on Thursday, 21 August 2014 07:08:49

Wouldn't it be easier to use LISP (not the programming language but rather: Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol) instead of "developing" a own SIXXs IPv6 over IPv6-protocol?

There is no "own protocol" in that, IPv6-in-IPv6 is just a IPv6 packet with a Next Header with value 41 (IPv6) or AYIYA with a Next Header of 41 (IPv6). Nothing special/difficult about that. Only thing to do is one day find time to implement the few changes that would be needed. LISP is also intended to solve a different problem altogether, and still requires one to receive a prefix from somebody and being allowed to route that prefix to the Internet (read: BGP transit) and/or route your traffic to the owner of that prefix.

I admit to not having read all the relevant RFCs, but at first glance it seems to solve the "static vs dynamic" prefix problem (along with a few others ...)

While it does that, it does it in an overly complex way, compared to just a simple tunnel to a trusted endpoint. LISP in that way has similar problems to 6to4, that a Tunnel Broker does not have.

Also, if I understand it correctly, if enough edge-routers support LISP the amount of traffic having to pass through the SIXXs POPs would also go down (but I could be wrong here).

And who provides those Edge Routers, they are just equal to the SixXS PoPs: boxes that can route a prefix onto the Internet and receive the return traffic.

sixxs with native IPv6

Carmen Sandiego on Thursday, 11 September 2014 12:50:34

Jeroen Massar wrote:

> Also, if I understand it correctly, if enough edge-routers support LISP the amount of traffic having to pass through the SIXXs POPs would also go down (but I could be wrong here). And who provides those Edge Routers, they are just equal to the SixXS PoPs: boxes that can route a prefix onto the Internet and receive the return traffic.

Sorry for not responding so long - I was out of office. By edge routers I really meant edge-routers at "end-customer-sites" (so: roughly equivalent to "my" tunnel-endpoint). If they understand LI/SP, they can directly route the traffic for the static destination net/EID to the respective dynamic endpoint that registered it. Only traffic from devices that do not understand LI/SP has to go through "central" routers which are the equivalent of the SIXXs POPs. But you are right - while it also provides a solution to the "static/dynamic" problem, LI/SP generally aims to solve other problems and potentially causes asynchronous routing - so, sorry for the "interruption".

sixxs with native IPv6

Jeroen Massar SixXS Staff

on Friday, 12 September 2014 07:28:46

Hence why I noted that it has similar problems to 6to4: it is nondeterministic where your packets go and you have very little control over it. Note also, that while LISP is intended to solve the "Provider Independent prefix" and "routing table explosion" issue, the latter is just moved to a different table that not everybody will see. Hence, it is not really solving anything, thus I am actually wondering how long such an infrastructure will stay in place.

Please note Posting is only allowed when you are logged in.