The exhortations about the Internet’s prolonged transition to version 6 of the Internet Protocol continue, although after some two decades the intensity of the rhetoric has faded and, possibly surprisingly, it has been replaced by action in some notable parts of the Internet. But how do we know there is action? How can we tell whether, and where, IPv6 is being deployed in today’s Internet?
It was about one year ago that the RIPE community reached consensus on a policy proposal that introduced additional criteria for initial IPv6 allocations. We thought it was time to look back at the origins of this proposal and see how the change has worked out since.
In 2016, IPv4 exhaustion is on everyone’s lips: four out of five Regional Internet Registries have run out of freely available address space.
Until now, native IPv4 and IPv6 has been one of the conditions of hosting a RIPE Atlas anchor. However, we realise that IPv6 simply isn't available in some would-be anchor hosts' ASNs. As a result, we've decided to support IPv4-only anchors.
Large scale IPv6 deployments suggest that IPv6 is at least a technical success - the technology works. Now it's time to visit the other important question: does it work commercially? Does IPv6 really come with a positive business case? We are about to find out, if you help us... (for instance by filling in the poll next to the article)
What makes the Internet of Things (IoT) different from the Internet as we know it? Today's Internet connects people, while the Internet of Things connects... things. What are these things? In the case of IoT, it means embedded computer chips that are attached to some physical device with networking capability.
The issue of the relative sizes of the IPv4 and IPv6 Internet in BGP came up during discussion at the APNIC/APRICOT meeting held in Auckland, New Zealand earlier this year.
After 15 years conducting training on IPv6 in over 110 countries, I’ve been asked all sorts of questions. “How do I use my IPv6 addressing space?” “What prefix size should I provide to customers?” Although I have answers to these and many other best practice related questions, the one question, which I have not been able to answer to the best of my ability, is “What is the approach of other ISPs?”. So I decided to find out.
The design of IPv6 represented a relatively conservative evolutionary step of the Internet protocol. Mostly, it's just IPv4 with significantly larger address fields. Mostly, but not completely, as there were some changes. IPv6 changed the boot process to use auto-configuration and multicast to perform functions that were performed by ARP and DHCP in IPv4. IPv6 added a 20-bit Flow Identifier to the packet header. IPv6 replaced IP header options with an optional chain of extension headers. IPv6 also changed the behaviour of packet fragmentation. Which is what we will look at here.
Please read this guest post by Byron Ellacott, Senior Software Architect at APNIC: The Internet of Things without the Internet is just things, and we’ve had things since the first caveman used a pointy stick to draw on a wall. What then does the Internet bring to things to justify a capital T?
In the past few months, we've added some new features and functionality to RIPE Atlas, including making the DNSMON code available on GitHub for personal use, displaying IPv4 vs IPv6 comparisons in LatencyMON, new credit sharing options, and new limits on probes per measurement and results per day. Learn more about the latest updates - and don't forget to tell us what you think.
This week, the RIPE NCC saw a milestone as the 10,000th Local Internet Registry (LIR) received IPv6 addresses. The first block of IPv6 addresses was allocated from IANA to the RIPE NCC in 1999, so we have been distributing IPv6 addresses for 17 years. In those years we have seen interesting policy developments, making it easier for LIRs to obtain enough IPv6 to satisfy their needs. In this article we track the policy developments that have made it progressively easier for LIRs to get the IPv6 they need.
We tend to make a number of assumptions about the Internet, and sometimes these assumptions don’t always stand up to critical analysis. We were perhaps ‘trained’ by the claims of the telephone service to believe that these communications networks supported a model of universal connectivity. Any telephone handset could establish a call with any other telephone handset was the underlying model of a ubiquitous telephone service, and we’ve carried that assumption into our perception of the Internet. On the Internet anyone can communicate with anyone else – right?
One of the more difficult design exercises in packet-switched network architectures is that of the design of packet fragmentation. In this article, I’d like to examine IP packet fragmentation in detail and look at the design choices made by IP version 4, and then compare that with the design choices made by IP version 6.
Wouldn’t it be nice if turning on IPv6 really was ‘press one button and the rest is magic’ easy?
The holiday season is rapidly approaching and this year is coming to a close, another one done and another one that seen some great and wonderful and also unfortunately some sad moments. One of those key moments was the depletion of the IPv4 pool in the ARIN region, which for some probably means the sad realisation that their business models will hit a growth barrier.
Every so often I hear the claim that some service or other does not support IPv6 not because of some technical issue, or some cost or business issue, but simply because the service operator is of the view that IPv6 offers an inferior level service as compared to IPv4, and by offering the service over IPv6 they would be exposing their clients to an inferior level of performance of the service. But is this really the case? Is IPv6 an inferior cousin of IPv4 in terms of service performance?
One of the measurements that we have been running for a long time is IPv6 RIPEness, where we measure the IPv6 activity of our members. We award our members with stars if they (for example) announce their IPv6 allocation in the global routing table.
We look at the RIPE NCC in terms of growth, geographic distribution and IPv6 deployment. We find that recent RIPE policy changes have had an impact on membership statistics and development trends.
Tony Smith from APNIC is looking at the increase in IPv6 deployment now ARIN depleted their free pool of IPv4 addresses.