problem statement for operational ipv6 ipv4 co existence n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Problem Statement for Operational IPv6/IPv4 Co-existence PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Problem Statement for Operational IPv6/IPv4 Co-existence

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 12

Problem Statement for Operational IPv6/IPv4 Co-existence - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 102 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Problem Statement for Operational IPv6/IPv4 Co-existence' - lola


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
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

current situation

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…
network architecture
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

communication s cenario s
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.
end to end transparency and scalability
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.
addressing and routing
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.
address usage and consumption
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
user management and logging requirement
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
cpe issue
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.
summary
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
summary1
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