Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPV6 in enterprise best practices/white papaers
From: Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:42:02 -0600

On 01/29/2013 01:09 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Barton" <dougb () dougbarton us>

IPv4 is mature enough that for small to medium sized networks,
the answer is "you plug everything in".

My appraisal of v6 is that it's an order of magnitude (or two)
more complex than that, both in 'attack' surface and
interoperability issues.

But, I suppose, it took me a couple years to really learn IPv4
well.

That said, *having* learned IPv4 relatively well, I remain
surprised that there's as much additional (perceived) complexity
in v6.

You have perfectly illustrated one of the largest barriers to IPv6 
adoption. You of course know that if you were to go into a
greenfield IPv4 deployment the answer would not be "just plug
everything in."

Depends on how big your "deployment" is.  For a small office -- say,
100 PCs or less; something that will fit in what I will catch schidt
for referring to as a "Class C" :-) -- with a single current
generation consumer market edge NAT router, then yes, in fact, you
Just Plug It All In.

Well sure, but the same would be true for the equivalent IPv6 deployment.

Yes, I realize, that approach does not apply to "being Road Runner".
:-)

You'd have to figure out how to split your allocated space (and/or
1918 space) into reasonable networks, decided which networks get
DHCP, assign IP helpers, carve out p-t-p links, etc. etc. But
because you've done that a million times, and all the terminology
and factors to consider are well known to you, in effect it amounts
to, "just plug everything in."

Well, no, not really.  As you note, of course, most of those things 
are reflexes for most network engineering types, but certainly they 
took a while to get there.

Yes, that's precisely my point. :)  No one learned IPv4 networking
overnight. But people who already know IPv4 are complaining that they
can't magically come to the same degree of competence with IPv6 without
spending any time to learn it. The irony is that people who already know
"networking" will have a much easier time learning IPv6, with a minimal
amount of extra work, but minimal != zero.

Whereas, with IPv6 you have most, if not all of the same factors
to consider, but there is some marginal added complexity around
things like SLAAC/RA, some different terminology, binary math in
hex instead of octal, network sizes are many orders of magnitude
larger, etc. So the net effect is that even though "under the hood"
it's not all that different, it all feels new and strange. And we
all know how humans react to things that are new and strange. :)

I think "marginal added complexity" is probably a polite
understatement;

No, it really isn't. I realize that the IPv6 zealots hate it when I say
this, but in many ways you can treat IPv6 just like IPv4 with bigger
addresses.

1. Don't filter ICMPv6.
2. Treat a /64 roughly the way you'd treat a /24 in IPv4.
3. Put SLAAC on the networks you have DHCPv4 on.
4. Statically assign addresses and networks for v6 on the systems you
statically assign them on v4 (servers, etc.)
5. Neighbor Discovery (ND) replaces arp, but mostly you don't every need
to worry about it (just like you hardly ever need to worry about arp).

Voila! You've just learned 80% of what you need to know to be successful
with IPv6.

my apprehension of IPv6 is that they decided they had
to fix *lots* of problems which almost nobody actually had, *in
addition* to fixing the one which actually was a problem: address
length.

In consequence of that, IPv6 feels to me like it has a bad case of
what Fred Brooks would call Second System Syndrome.

Your assessment is correct, but the good news is that you can ignore
almost all of it. The "SLAAC vs. full-featured DHCPv6" thing is still
kind of a PITA, but it's working itself out. Beyond that, if there is a
feature of IPv6 that you're not interested in, don't use it. :)

My point in asking you to provide the equivalent link for IPv4 is
to show that there isn't one, nor could there be. You can't give
someone a cookie-cutter IPv4 network layout because the unique
factors that they have to consider will prevent that. The same is
true for IPv6. What you _can_ do, for both protocols, is to teach
people best practices around the key issues, and help and guidance
along the way. There are lots of lists that exist to do this with
v6. One of the best is ipv6-ops () lists cluenet de  If people are
interested in learning more about v6 by osmosis that's a good list
to lurk on. It's medium traffic, but high signal::noise, and any
discussions you are not interested in you can just delete.

You seem to be suggesting, though, to drag the conversation back
where I started it, that there is *so much new stuff* with IPv6 that
it's difficult *even for old hats with IPv4* to learn it by analogy.

No, quite the opposite. What I'm saying is that if you already
understand how to run a network with v4 that learning the v6 terminology
and equivalent concepts, plus the few extra things that you actually do
need to manage for v6, is not that difficult. It just *seems* hard
because before you tackle it, it's all new and strange.

If that's what you mean, then I agree with you. :-)

(Yes, yes, I am coming late to this argument; the networks I'm
responsible are historically relatively small.  IPv6 connectivity has
been troublesome to acquire except at the last couple.)

Roger that. Not that I'm trying to toot my own horn, but most of my
experience has been with large enterprise networks, often spanning
multiple continents, so I tend to think in those terms. The good news
for smaller shops is that if you can get it, IPv6 is pretty much "just
plug it in," very similar to how you described IPv4 for a smaller shop
above.

Doug


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]