1 / 12

Problem Statement for Operational IPv6/IPv4 Co-existence

Problem Statement for Operational IPv6/IPv4 Co-existence. Chongfeng Xie (xiechf@ctbri.com.cn) Qiong Sun (sunqiong@ctbri.com.cn). 3/31/2011. ICP. Service Platform. Network Management System. PC. CPE. BRAS/SR/PDSN. Access Network. MAN. Mobile device. AAA. Current Situation.

lola
Download Presentation

Problem Statement for Operational IPv6/IPv4 Co-existence

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Problem Statement for Operational IPv6/IPv4 Co-existence Chongfeng Xie (xiechf@ctbri.com.cn) Qiong Sun (sunqiong@ctbri.com.cn) 3/31/2011

  2. ICP Service Platform Network Management System PC CPE BRAS/SR/PDSN Access Network MAN Mobile device AAA Current Situation • ISP: facing the biggest pressure of IPv4 address shortage • ICP: lacking of enough motivation to migrate to IPv6 • Manufacture: wondering what to do next…

  3. Network Architecture • The placement of AS (Address Sharing) Router has different impacts: • Centralized : reduce cost, easy to manage and traffic LAES, performance bottleneck • Distributed : high cost, hard to manage and traffic LAES, less performance requirement • AS Router would be suitable for centralized placement Service Platform BRAS/SR/PDSN PC CPE Backbone Network Access Network Metro Network DNS Mobile device AS Router AS Router Log server LAES AAA AS Router Optional Placement Address Sharing Router AS Router

  4. Communication Scenarios • IPv6 is a final way to solve address shortage; however, there is not much IPv6 content. • IPv4/IPv6 will co-exist for long period. • Two major scenarios: IPv4IPv4 for most current applications and IPv6IPv4 for P2P applications and future IPv6-only ones.

  5. End-to-End transparency and Scalability • It is important to keep the simplicity in core network and leave the intelligence to end systems. • It should be scalable, easy for new applications to deploy in operational network. • CGN would bring much complexity to the core of Internet, which includes transport-layer port mapping and ALG. • CGN would also bring a lot of cost for ISPs.

  6. Addressing and Routing • Existing ISPs who adopt PPPoE/PPPoA need to allocate PD-prefix and WAN-interface address, and CPE would re-allocate IPv6 addresses to end systems. • Address allocation system would setup the corresponding routing entries for a given customer. • ISPs may adopt flexible address rules, no extra requirements on address format and address allocation, etc.

  7. Address usage and consumption • IPv4/IPv6 transition solutions would need address sharing, including dynamic and static ones. • Nowadays, most applications consume many concurrent sessions, • With address multiplexing, IPv4 address shortage problem could already be largely released. • Static sharing is generally sufficientin the near future

  8. User management and logging requirement • User management system, e.g. AAA , etc., to implement accounting and billing. • Transition period would have multiple types of users, e.g. IPv4-only, IPv6-only, or dual stack, etc. • ISPs and ICPs have the requirements of lawful interception and surveillance. • Session-based logging would bring a great burden to existing software-based logging system. +IPv6 • User type: • IPv6-only • Add IPv6 feature • Logging: • Session-based • User type: • IPv6-only • Add IPv6 feature • Logging: • No binding table • User type: • IPv6-only • Add IPv6 feature • Logging: • No binding table • User type: • IPv6-only • Add IPv6 feature • Logging: • Session-based • User type: • Dual-stack • Add dual stack feature • Logging: • Session-based

  9. CPE issue • CPE is more than a technical issue, but rather a business strategy. And different ISPs have their own situations. • CPEs in routed mode have to be upgraded to support IPv6. And cost is extremely huge due to the large number of customers. • Most IPv6 transition solutions would need to take additional modifications to CPE, apart from native IPv6 support. • ISPs sometimes could not fully control customer’s CPEs.

  10. Summary • There is a set of operational requirements related to complexity and as a result of scalability • Existing solutions for IPv4 address sharing is operationally complex • We need more scalable address sharing mechanism to reduce the state, cost and complexity of core network • There are alternatives that make life a lot easier for operators

  11. Summary • We prefer a solution with • Good IPv6 support and be helpful for IPv6 development • Better scalability • Stateless ones without address constraint should be our direction • Keep state as few as possible in core network, only maintain per-subscriber state entries in core network, and state should be stable. • Flexible addressing • Little modification to existing addressing and routing system • Define flexible addressing plan for different purpose

  12. Thank you

More Related