2011-08-08 00:33:29, Source: http://www.ipv6tf.org/news/newsroom.php?id=7903
2011-08-08 00:21:04, Source: http://www.ipv6tf.org/news/newsroom.php?id=7902
2011-08-08 00:19:00, Source: http://www.ipv6tf.org/news/newsroom.php?id=7901
2011-08-07 22:55:23, Source: http://www.ipv6tf.org/news/newsroom.php?id=7900
For me, one of the more interesting sessions at the recent IETF 81 meeting in July was the first meeting of the recently established Homenet Working Group.
Whats so interesting about networking the home?
Well, if you regard challenges as interesting, then just about everything is interesting when you look at networking in the home!
Its been a very long time since the state-of-the-art in home Internet was plugging the serial port of the PC into the dialup modem. Even the ADSL modem, even when combined with some for of WiFi base station, is looking distinctly passé these days. Today the home network is seeing the intersection of a whole set of interests, including the phone service, the TV service, home security services, energy management, utility service metering, possibly other forms of home device monitoring, and, oh yes, connecting the laptops and the mobile devices to the net. And of course its not just a home LAN over a wired network. WiFi home networks are commonplace, and of course there are various Bluetooth devices. Maybe sometime soon it will be common for the home network to also host some form of 3G femtocell as well. But these days even that level of network complexity is not enough.
Increasingly, the home office is part of the work office, and if there are a number of residents at home then the home network may be an endpoint for a number of corporate and institutional Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). Within all this mélange we want sophisticated security. Its not just protecting the home network from the neighbors, but the security requirements include the ability that allows individuals to partition off their work-VPN part of the home network from other home users. Oh, and for resiliency we might want a second provider, such as a mobile service to the home, so we might want to add site-based multi-homing to the mix. And now we need to make all this fly in both IPv6 and IPv4.
Thats a massive agenda of requirements. But to make this situation truly challenging, we cant expect every home to come with an IT Operational Service Manager to ensure that all the various devices you bring into the home and connect to the network all function as required for the homes particular requirements. Indeed, we cant expect any home to be so lavishly supported, nor can we afford to support home networking with a bevy of specialized call centers with on-demand support specialists expert in the panoply of consumer devices that are being sold today.
With home networks the bottom line is that the consumer is effectively on their own, and all this equipment better just work straight out of the box. No configuration, no buttons, it just has to work!
Routing @ Home
The evolution of networking at home has progressed from a single computer to a basic Local Area Network (LAN), and from there to an ether-bridged network with a number of WiFi and wired LAN segments. All these environments have a single common architecture of a single boundary unit that acts as a point of demarcation between the Internet Service Provider (ISP) and the home network. This unit is generally called Customer Premises Equipment (CPE), and typically encompasses the functions of a modem, IPv4 NAT, DHVPv4 server, DHCPv6 server, security firewall, bridge and rudimentary router.
But its unrealistic to assume that home networks will continue to use a centralized model that places the entire management functionality of the home network in a single unit. So how should we view home networks? Should home networks be a single bridged LAN, or are we seeing the evolution of home networks into multiple distinct domains with a routing fabric to glue them together? And if this is the case what routing protocol should be used?
I have noticed in the low end of the CPE market its not uncommon to see a rudimentary routing functionality supported by RIP. Now, thankfully, its RIPv2, so the routing protocol can be configured with variable length subnet masks, but even so, RIP is a very basic and simple routing protocol. But perhaps in this environment that might be a positive factor rather than a liability, in so far as RIP is simple enough to be auto-configurable. On the other hand if there is an emergent need for more complex functions then maybe we need to look a little harder at what options are available.
One of these more complex functions is the issue of subnet management. In IPv6 the CPE will collect an IPv6 address prefix. This differs from the conventional IPv4 environment where the CPE is typically assigned a single IPv4 address. So the ensuing question is: Is it possible to automate the distribution of IPv6 subnets across the entire home network? What form of management protocol is appropriate for this role.
And of course the world gets a whole lot more complicated if the home network has two (or more) service providers. In the IPv6 environment this starts to become a challenging task, not only with the distribution of multiple subnets across the home network, but also in the issue of exit path selection. If the home network is exercising due diligence to prevent source address spoofing it is also necessary for the homes routing infrastructure to deliver an outgoing packet to the right exit ISP, where the source address of the outgoing packet needs to match the address prefix provided by the corresponding ISPs service. In other words there is a requirement for source address routing in the home. This is a challenge that was not really addressed by the Site Multi-Homing Working Group (SHIM6), despite the best of intentions, and it represents an even greater challenge if the intent is to provide mechanisms that can achieve this in an unmanaged home network environment.
I must admit to some concern here. Weve managed to keep routing work by using two principles. The first is to try and keep the routing task as simple as possible. Routing propagates a single best path to a destination. It does not necessarily do this quickly, nor necessarily does it carry around with it a whole set of alternatives. It does just one job. And with that weve been able to keep routing working. The second principle is to admit the that we have never really succeeded with the first principle of functional simplicity and we have always had expertise at hand to oversee the routing function and apply manual patches as required! The specialized requirements for the home network appears to be breaking both principles. The requirements are certainly not simple and I see a mix of routing techniques, including various forms of policy-based routing requirements entering the discussion. Secondly, there is no assurance that if things fail there is expertise at hand to mend the failure. Indeed the more complex the routing environment the greater the potential for complex forms of failure. Indeed as we contemplate ever more complex requirements in the home network, the greater the risk of encountering failure by design where it is just not possible to design products for this environment that can just work.
Names @ Home
What should I call my printer? More to the point, how should I identify my WiFi printer to all those devices at home that want to use it to print. Im sure that I would not like to use a proprietary naming scheme that requires me to add additional name resolution software to every device at home that wants to print something, nor do I want to transcribe IP addresses into everything. Id like my printer to get dynamically assigned IPv4 and IPv6 addresses when the device is plugged in and switched on, and have the printers name published via a generic name resolution mechanism, namely the DNS.
But most of the time the rest of the world has no need to know the name of my printer at home, and Im not sure that its a good move, security wise, to gratuitously publish information in the public DNS. So what I would like for my printer is some form of local or scoped DNS, where I can name my printers, my disk servers, and other devices that I have at home in the context of my home and not have this information leak further afield. Is this scoped form of name resolution possible in the context of the DNS?
Multicast DNS (mDNS) is perhaps one of the strongest candidates for this role. In essence mDNS replaces the explicit server / client structure of the DNS with a scoped name subdomain of .local that is inherently scoped to the scope of the associated multicast domain. This allows a client to perform DNS-like name resolution functions on a local network without the need to configure a conventional DNS server environment, and without the need to obtain global delegation of a site name in the global DNS.
An alternative approach is to use a conventional DNS delegation
and conventional unicast DNS queries and responses. Clients are
able to use DNS Dynamic Updates to update the local DNS server with
their details as they come online. The DNS server itself can be
advertised to all clients via the Simple Service Discovery Protocol
(SSDP), as part of the larger Universal Plug and Play (UPnP)
framework.
Sensing and Serving @ Home
Where too from here? Its certainly the case that electronics has managed to pervade just about every device at home. Electricity meters are morphing into household energy management systems, and many other household appliances are now controlled by internal processors. But individually configuring each of these devices is a forbidding task. Even adding an interface to allow manual configuration can often be a challenging objective.
So the objective here is to define a standard mechanism to allow sensors to sense their local environment when powered up, obtain an IP address, advertise their existence and capabilities to the network, and, as appropriate, rendezvous with the sensors controller or controllers across the home network.
This is another instance of a more generic class of automating the installation and use of services in lightly managed or even unmanaged networks, and intersects significantly with the objectives encompassed with SSDP and uPNP. The potential volume of such devices places this more squarely into a class of IPv6-only services, I suspect, which is a significant extension to the existing IPv4-centric uPnP frameworks.
What is needed here is a bootstrap protocol that can provide a connecting device with:
Securing @ Home
One of the most significant issues with home networks lies in the area of security management. Host computers in a home network often want to place a very high level of implicit trust in their immediate network neighbours at the same home. Its not unusual for hosts in a home network to share printers, file servers, data, and even user profiles. Indeed, its probably commonplace. But beyond this local security domain a host should become paranoid and treat all connection attempts with suspicion. But where does the local trust domain start and stop? What is the local security boundary?
This is difficult to answer in an automated fashion. Its no longer the local LAN, particularly as as home network transition into routed networks. Its something to do with a local multicast scope, but that assumes that its possible to define a multicast scope that encompasses the local trust domain of the home network, and to do that we are back at the same question.
And even if you thought you might have a clean answer to that question, you need to remind yourself about telecommuting. With telecommuting there is a requirement to partition out an entire local network segment and lift it out of the home environment and the home security domain and transplant it into the work security domain.
Everything @ Home
Home is certainly the new field of engagement for networked good and services. But its certainly the most challenging environment. Its an environment where out-of-the-box interoperability is of paramount importance, and therefore its an environment where standards really matter. And, perhaps surprisingly, its one of the networking environments that appear to raise the most challenges. Its an unforgiving environment where there is no real substitute for simplicity and reliability in a plug and play world. And for the IETFs Homenet Working Group, there is really a lot of work to do to take a diverse set of approaches used today, add a bucketful of IPv6, and produce a coherent set of outcomes in the form of standards that support robust capable home networks that work in an unmanaged environment. By any metric thats a big ask.
Ahhh home! There really is no place quite like it!
Written by Geoff Huston, Author & Chief Scientist at APNIC
2011-08-05 09:44:29, Source: http://www.fix6.net/archives/2011/08/03/the-rising-technical-challenges-of-networking-at-home-by-geoff-huston/http://www.ipv6news.info
Juniper Networks and Telecom Italia today announced that they received Global Telecoms Business’ IP Transformation award for their IPv4 Depletion & IPv6 Migration joint project. The project was designed to manage the parallel tracks of IPv4 and IPv6 seamlessly within a single architecture. The award was presented at the recent Global Telecoms Business (GTB) Innovation awards ceremony in London.
Complete info at 4-traders.
2011-08-02 13:10:55, Source: http://www.fix6.net/archives/2011/08/02/telecom-italia-and-juniper-networks-win-award-for-ipv6-migration-innovation/http://www.ipv6tf.org
The active measurements the RIPE NCC carried out on World IPv6 Day on 8 June 2011 included ICMP (Internet Control Message Protocol) and ICMP6 (ICMP for IPv6) measurements from our vantage points to selected hostnames of World IPv6 Day participants and other dual-stacked parties. We used these measurements to determine the performance of IPv4 versus IPv6 connections.
The figure below shows a histogram of all relative IPv4 versus IPv6 performance data points collected during World IPv6 Day. A single data point consists of the ratio of IPv4 and IPv6 performance from a single vantage point to a single destination during a 10-minute interval.
The image shows that while this distribution has a bell shape, it is a little fatter on the IPv4 side. This means that IPv4 is faster more often than IPv6. What this tells us is that you are slightly better off in an IPv4-only environment than in an IPv6-only environment. On a dual-stack client that unconditionally prefers IPv6 to IPv4, IPv4 is more often the faster protocol, but this is far from a universal truth. There is also a significant chance that IPv6 is faster, since the IPv6-is-faster part of the histogram also has a significant volume.
Note that we measured ICMP and ICMP6, and not HTTP performance. Also, the IPv4 and IPv6 end points for a given hostname may be topologically and/or geographically in (very) different places, especially when proxies are used for IPv6 to IPv4 translation. In cases where the IPv4 and IPv6 destination end points are not at the same location, the distance between a vantage point and either the IPv4 or IPv6 destination end point has a large influence on the measured performance.
In conclusion, we can say that comparable IPv4 and IPv6 performance can be seen as an indication of a mature deployment of both IPv4 and IPv6 in a network. In the data we analysed, we see that IPv4 is still generally faster then IPv6, but for a significant fraction of measurements IPv6 is the faster protocol.
For more detailed information, please refer to the background article on RIPE Labs: Measuring World IPv6 Day Comparing IPv4 and IPv6 Performance.
Written by Mirjam Kuehne
2011-08-02 13:09:09, Source: http://www.fix6.net/archives/2011/08/01/comparing-ipv4-and-ipv6-performance/http://www.ipv6news.info
2011-08-01 19:34:43, Source: http://www.ipv6tf.org/news/newsroom.php?id=7899
2011-08-01 19:32:47, Source: http://www.ipv6tf.org/news/newsroom.php?id=7898
2011-08-01 13:09:22, Source: http://www.ipv6tf.org/news/newsroom.php?id=7897
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432
Your address is 38.107.179.230 .