However, unlike many of the participants, I will be leaving the v6 support on after midnight.  Other participants, including Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and scores more who have turned on IPv6 support today, are expected to disable it again at midnight tonight, and then paw through the pages of statistics they have collected during the course of the day.  It is hoped that the statistics will prove IPv6 is safe, and the experiment can be repeated – perhaps with permanent adoption next time.

IPv6 is essential to the growth of the internet.  The old method of assigning addresses – IPv4 – permitted for up to around four billion hosts on the internet.  This is not enough to assign an IP address to everyone who wants to use the internet, so a larger address pool (known as IPv6) was created.  To maximise the audience for your website, it is important to today serve the site via IPv4 and IPv6.  Many web hosts have enabled IPv6 today, ask yours for their IPv6 status.  If they have not enabled IPv6, explain that you will move your business if they do not enable IPv6.

I work for Hurricane Electric, the world’s largest IPv6 backbone, with over 1,500 connections to other IPv6 networks.  We offer IPv6 hosting, and connectivity to many thousands of IPv4 and IPv6 networks.  We also offer IPv6 consultancy and professional services – so if you are looking for training, advice, or some hands on help completing your IPv6 migration, then why not get in touch with me?  If you are looking for a free method to get some v6 consultancy for your office or lab, then consider our Tunnelbroker service, which lets you tunnel IPv6 over your existing IPv4 connection.

This happened following an assignment of around half a million addresses to support the users at the Chinanet Fujian Province Network.

The pool of available addresses to the region including some of the world’s largest populations, such as China, India, Indonesia, and some of the world’s largest economies, such as Japan and Australia, has depleted to such low levels, that the registry responsible for distribution of these addresses will now ration them, such that any ISP requesting space will be given a single block of 1,024 addresses, on a single occasion only.

This is enough space to allow the ISP only to host NAT or ipv4 to ipv6 translation technologies.  It is not enough to address a large content infrastructure, hosting environment, or internet access customer-base.

The rules of the game have today changed for 50% of the world’s population, and they will change in Europe too in a few short months too.  If you do not have an IPv6 plan, then this is your new significant business risk – how will users with v6 only connections reach your content?  And if this is through a translation mechanism, how will you ensure quality, or that your end-to-end protocols (like voice, video, etc.) will work ?

Get in touch to continue the conversation!

This news made me want to look at what other top level domains had been proposed.  The ICANN fee to propose a new top level domain is $185,000, so it is clear that there must be an enormous amount of commercial support for any proposal, before it reaches the ICANN process.

The proposed top level domains are normally proposed for the following reasons:

• Specialist language content (e.g. .cymru for Welsh speakers, .ker for Cornish speakers, in the same way that .cat was approved for Catalan content)
• Internationalised top-level domains, permitting non-latin script after the ‘dot’, e.g. .香港 in Hong Kong or ‏امارات.‎ for the UAE.
• Regional (probably PR led!) content, e.g. .berlin or .nyc for new york.
• Social groups, like .gay
• Professional interests, like .wine, or .eco for environmental groups

Not all of these bids will be successful, and many will only be successful bids after many years (.xxx was first seriously proposed around ten years ago).  We are also likely to see consultancies born who specialise in taking new registries through the ICANN processes, and even companies which can host full new-registry systems.

According to the RIPE RIS service, the links between MWEB (AS10474) to Telkom South Africa (AS5713) were disconnected on the November 2nd – Telkom being the original transit provider that MWEB used.

MWEB have detected that congestion reduces, therefore service levels increase when traffic bypasses the incumbent and is delivered directly to other ISPs in their region via peering links.  If a network refuses to peer, MWEB simply deliver the traffic to local providers via their international links – possibly just as congested, but available at a fraction of a cost.  If traffic is then delivered to the incumbents via links they themselves pay for, the incumbents also have a financial incentive to peer.

Peering is the best way to encourage enormous capacities between ISPs and other networks, because a direct one-to-one connection can be monitored and well managed in order to guarantee availability for internet traffic.  Peering therefore increases available bandwidth and reduces bandwidth costs.  This will enable high the sort of services that require high-bandwidth availability, like streaming media and high definition video conferencing.

Interestingly, thirty minutes after the adjacency with Telkom was severed, it appeared that MWEB picked up a new transit customer – Yebo, AS12258, with Yebo’s prefixes being advertised to Interoute (again, according to RIPE RIS).  The commercial nature of this downstream relationship is, however, not revealed by the routing table.

The incumbent is perfectly entitled to – and well placed to – sell excellent transit links into the local market, but their strategy to do that, as I explained in my last article, must be to make the transit product in their key regions excellent – this means to peer with the key other local providers (not all providers) in the market, and to ensure that capacities across their backbone and to customers are well managed and available for traffic.

It demonstrates clearly that deregulated markets offer enormous advantages over controlled ones, and should serve well as a reminder to operators and policy makers that simply getting out of the way could be the best way to further their aims for industry in any given region.  This is mainly because:

• Allowing networks to interconnect freely (calculated as number of active ASNs in a region), and the size of the market (calculated from the pool of announced ip addresses in a region) are strongly correlated (slide 8).  My guess is that more organisations get online, because competition leads to price falling, whilst the versatility and relevance of services offered increases.
• When there are a larger number of networks in a region, the global carriers have a greater incentive (more customers!) to run diverse connectivity into the region.  This leads to a huge advantage to firms in a region, their connectivity carries on despite local major fibre breaks. (slide 25, 36)
• Content moves out of the US/Western Europe and into the local market place, creating opportunity (and jobs) for local players, and improving the performance of services for local users.

Incumbent networks in this region have a huge opportunity to grow revenues, as the market expands, as long as they are willing to interconnect widely in this region.  As the number of providers in a region expands, customers will be able to (and, according to this research, actually do) pick between innovative and disruptive new providers with excellent regional (via peering), and international (via transit) capacities.  Peering also makes capacity cheap, because traffic can stay local to the ISP.  An incumbent provider that refuses to peer in order to retain market share will not be able to compete in quality terms with the new providers.  Defending a 100% market share is impossible in a competitive market, so the strategy must change, the aim must become enjoying the fruits of a booming market instead of monopoly.  As the Renesys slides say, there is no dominent IXP in this region yet, with many networks dragging traffic to London, Amsterdam or Frankfurt to exchange, but this will change as the density of providers in the Middle East reaches a critical mass.

Setting up an Internet Exchange point is simple from a technology point of view, but requires significant planning, and community support for the plans.  Read the slides to find out more about what must be planned.

Download:  [Slides + Notes (recommended)] ~ [Slides alone]

View directly from Slideshare (requires flash):

A route-server is a fantastic way for networks to start to peer (swap internet traffic) at Internet Exchanges, and results in instant success after connection.  A network with an open peering policy can connect to the internet exchange, and then get peering with more than half of all the other networks on the exchange by bringing up a single pair of BGP sessions.

When a route-server peering is established, a BGP session is setup between your router and LONAP’s route database.  LONAP advertise all of the prefixes of the other connected members to you, but the traffic between you and the other members flows between you and your peer directly (it does not need to traverse the route-server.)  Members do not need to open their network to their own customers at the route servers, they can send special messages to the route-servers to prevent certain networks from seeing prefixes.

Route-servers are not new, but have had a bad reputation for stability for several years.  With our colleagues at several other community exchanges, including the LINX, we shared bugs, workarounds, and feature requirements with each other and the main open-source route-server vendors.  Eventually, we were able to report considerable improvement in stability last December.  As a result, we at LONAP selected BIRD and OpenBGPd as our route server vendors, and built a support framework to link our configuration with the LONAP configuration system.

Since then we have been advocating the route-servers to our members, and the fact that they are now providing a stable stepping-stone to more than half of our peers shows that this effort was worthwhile.  If you would like to start to peer, but need to be assured of instant success and results, then contact Andy for information about how the route-servers at LONAP can help.

Solving this bandwidth starvation is the role of fibre optics and next-generation broadband.  A relatively simple way to roll out fibre backed technology is to use VDSL – service providers run high capacity fibre optic networks to distribution boxes in streets (FTTC – Fibre to the Cabinet), and utilise the existing copper infrastructure between street and house or business carries high speed internet.  The shortness of the copper run enables higher speeds. This is increasingly available from companies such as Digital Region Broadband, who offer 40Mbit broadband at consumer prices, but is obviously only available in specific neighbourhoods where the streetboxes have been rolled out.

Removing the copper element will enable much higher speeds and new products like premise-to-premise connectivity.  FTTP – Fibre to the Premises opens up a world where connectivity between service provider and your office can run at 100Mbit or Gigabit speeds.  Office-to-home or Office-to-office connectivity that runs at Gigabit or even 10Gigabit would be possible too. This would make remote-working via high definition video conferencing, ultra high speed access to company resources and files, and also better quality and more interactive entertainment services a normal thing for everyone.

However, a national – even urban wide – fibre rollout project is expensive because of the construction (civils) costs, legal costs, and impact on neighbourhoods.

Earlier this month, Ofcom released a statement on wholesale access products, explaining that they were planning to require BT to make access to their existing ducts, intending to make fibre rollout cheaper.  The two key mechanisms are:

• Virtual Unbundled Local Access – BT offer other service providers access to existing fibre.
• Physical Infrastructure Access – BT offer service providers space in their fibre ducts, allowing service providers to run their own fibre.

I welcome this development, but hope that the regulation framework mandated by Ofcom does not remove the incentive BT to roll out new ducts and fibres.  The regulation will be a success if it enables more regional FTTC broadband schemes like the one cited in South Yorkshire, and also if it makes new FTTP the ‘norm’ for all new housing developments and telecoms upgrades.  Further, another huge disincentive from rolling out fibre based services — the UK fibre tax — must also be repealed in order to achieve the typical 30Mbit/sec broadband that the EU wish to see for all citizens by 2020.

When firms avoid fibre, it hurts us all.  When fibre is cheap, firms can use it to roll out super-fast broadband to their users, using the sort of technology that facilitates connections tens or hundreds of times faster than a typical UK home enjoys.  It also allows service providers to increase the capacity of their network edge, and to improve the robustness of their network – for instance by building more links between their network points.  Improved robustness also means better business continuity planning options, improving the availability of their services.  This tax kills faster access, and better services.

The fibre tax also worsens the conditions for international networks looking to build into the UK, for instance in order to bring their content and services to the UK market .  This is not a hypothetical risk, it is a game-changer that has destroyed the business cases of several projects that we have been contributed to last year.

This morning, George Osborne was on BBC TV explaining that he saw an advancement in next-gen broadband (based on fibre optic cabling) as a priority. If this is the case, then he must commit to repealing the 21st Century Window Tax. To date, they have only considered repealing the 50p per month tax on telephone lines that has been suggested by the hugely flawed Digital Britain study.

We are just not competitive with this tax.

On Nanog, Owen DeLong and Larry Sheldon were discussing the relative size of the IPv6 address space:

>> 64 bits is enough networks that if each network was an almond M&M,
>> you would be able to fill all of the great lakes with M&Ms before you
>> ran out of /64s.
> Did somebody once say something like that about Class C addresses?

Well, this seemed like a challenge for Maths, and the answer is:

No. There are only 2,097,152 Class C networks.

Assuming all M&Ms are spheroids of uniform oblate nature, radius major axis=6mm, minor axis=3mm. Volume is (4/3)Pi (Major²) Minor

They will be poured into a great lake of your choice, and we will assume random close packing (agitation mechanisms are probably best discussed off-list) and a (generous, but this Wikipedia article insists) void fraction of 32%.

Volume of m&m = 0.452cm³, occupies 0.665cm³.

Lake Erie is 484km³ – See: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/factsheet.html

1 km³ = 1,000,000,000,000,000 cm³

484,000,000,000,000,000 * 0.665 = 321,860,000,000,000,000 m&ms needed to
fill this lake.

There are 4,294,967,296 /64s in my own /32 allocation. If we only ever use 2000::/3 on the internet, I make that 2,305,843,009,213,693,952 /64s. This is enough to fill over seven Lake Eries. The total amount
of ipv6 address space is exponentially larger still – I have just looked at 2000::/3 in these maths.

THE IPv6 ADDRESS SPACE IS VERY, VERY, VERY BIG.

Can we please now just go ahead and roll out some ipv6 services?