September 2001 - eix-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Agendas for IPv6/lir/eix joint sessions RIPE40
by David Kessens 27 Sep '01

27 Sep '01

Hi, Below follow the official agendas for the joint sessions regarding ipv6 allocation policies. We have asked to schedule two seperate sessions, one for discussions regarding the new interim policy for exchange points, and one for discussions regarding the revision of the general allocation guidelines. We would like to limit any discussion to the lir-wg maillist to minimize the amount of duplicate mails. Please let me (and Fearghas&Hans Petter) know if you have any last minute additions that you want to have discussed and we will try to accomodate your request. Please note that the current meeting plan on the website has one extra slot allocated to the lir/ipv6 joint session that will be used by the lir wg and not by the lir/ipv6 joint session. Thanks, David K. --- Agenda for the IPv6/lir joint session RIPE40, Prague Wednesday October 3rd, 2001, 16:00 - 17:30 Topic: Revision of the general ipv6 allocation guidelines Materials to read: - ripe-196: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html - http://www.djp.net/ipv6/proposal.html - http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/RIPE39-IPv6… A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing B. How to proceed for the next iteration of the policy. C. Proposal for the next version of the policy http://www.djp.net/ipv6/proposal.html (Dave Pratt) D. New IPv6 Address Policy Proposal Gerard Ross (APNIC) Takashi Arano (JPNIC/Asia Global Crossing) E. Discussion Z. AOB ------------------------- Agenda for the IPv6/lir/eix joint session RIPE40, Prague Thursday October 4th, 2001, 11:00 - 12:30 Topic: Interim policy for allocation of ipv6 addresses for Internet Exchange Points A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing B. How to proceed for the next iteration of the policy. C. Selection of most important issues that we want to discuss during this session: - how to proceed from the interim policy ?!? - default /64 or /48 allocation size - do we want to have this space allocated from a special block, may be even block that is used by all RIRs for this purpose - what documentation is needed to get an allocation - is there any need to document allocations in the RIPE database, and if so, how ?!? - general wording of the policy D. Discussion of the issues Z. AOB ---

2 1

1st Euro-IX General Meeting in Prague
by Serge Radovcic 13 Sep '01

13 Sep '01

Dear Euro-IX members, I would like to remind all members of the 1st Euro-IX General Meeting: Time: 17.30 - 20.00 (hopefully an earlier finishing time) Date: Monday the 1st of October 2001 Venue: Meeting Hall IV on the 2nd floor of the Prague Congress Centre (RIPE40) Location: Trida 5 Kvetna 65, Prague 4, Czech Republic (please look at www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/current/ripe-40/ for further details on the venue) There will also be a Euro-IX presentation at the EIX WG meeting on Tuesday afternoon, the exact time and location is still to be announced. As far as nominations go, the current Executive Board has so far received the following nominations: Arnold Nipper DE-CIX Germany Christian Panigl VIX Austria Fearghas McKay United Kingdom Jan Torreele BNIX Belgium Job Witteman AMS-IX The Netherlands John Souter LINX United Kingdom Valeria Rossi MIX Italy please submit additional nominations to board(a)euro-ix.net (Note: The newly elected board will need to convene shortly after the General Meeting to appoint the President, Treasurer and Secretary. This may be on Monday night or Tuesday morning, so if you are one of the nominees please keep these dates in mind!) The Agenda for the 1st General Meeting: 1. Opening - Agenda revue 2. Euro-IX status 3. Latest policies - Overview of minutes from the 1st Euro-IX Executive Meeting 4. Budget - 2001 - 2002 - Membership fees - Board member allowances 5. Election - Final call for nominees - Address to members by nominees - Election of new Euro-IX Board - Counting/announcement of votes 6. Web site overview 7. Suggestions for future plans (open discussion) 8. Presentation at EIX WG RIPE40 9. PoA and next General Meeting 10. Close Note: The General Meeting is for the members of Euro-IX but is open to all who are interested. However the voting will be strictly controlled to 1 vote per Euro-IX member. Hope to see you all in Prague, Serge Radovcic Euro-IX Secretariat info(a)euro-ix.net www.euro-ix.net

1 0

The IX assignment Issue
by David Gethings 12 Sep '01

12 Sep '01

Hi All, I know RIPE NCC has already published is policy on assigning IX's with IPv6 address space, so apologies for coming in late on this issue. I've recently came across RFC 2928 (Initial IPv6 Sub-TLA ID Assignments). The last paragraph of Section 3 of this informational RFC says: "The block of Sub-TLA IDs assigned to the IANA (i.e., 2001:0000::/29 - 2001:01F8::/29) is for assignment for testing and experimental usage to support activities such as the 6bone, and for new approaches like exchanges." Does the RIPE NCC policy follow this RFC? It was written in Sept 2000, and could be out of date. I'm just looking for clarification. Regards -- David Gethings Worldcom, Network Activation Engineer Internet House, 332 Science Park, Email: davidg(a)uk.uu.net Cambridge, CB4 0BZ, United Kingdom. Phone: +44 (0)1223 581515 http://www.uk.uu.net/

1 0

draft agendas (v1) for IPv6/lir/eix joint sessions RIPE40
by David Kessens 11 Sep '01

11 Sep '01

Hi, Below follow the first drafts of the agendas for the joint sessions regarding ipv6 allocation policies. We have asked to schedule two seperate sessions, one for discussions regarding the new interim policy for exchange points, and one for discussions regarding the revision of the general allocation guidelines. We would like to limit discussion to the lir-wg maillist to minimize the amount of duplicate mails. Please let me know if you have any other topics that you want to have discussed and we will try to accomodate them in the agenda. Thanks, David K. --- Agenda for the IPv6/lir joint session RIPE40, Prague Topic: Revision of the general ipv6 allocation guidelines Materials to read: - ripe-196: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html - http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/ipv6develop… - http://www.djp.net/ipv6/proposal.html - http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/RIPE39-IPv6… A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing B. How to proceed for the next iteration of the policy. C. Status of the draft currently being discussed between the RIRs (Presentations from RIRs) D. Proposal for the next version of the policy http://www.djp.net/ipv6/proposal.html (Dave Pratt) E. Discussion Z. AOB ------------------------- Agenda for the IPv6/lir/eix joint session RIPE40, Prague Topic: Interim policy for allocation of ipv6 addresses for Internet Exchange Points A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing B. How to proceed for the next iteration of the policy. C. Selection of most important issues that we want to discuss during this session: - how to proceed from the interim policy ?!? - default /64 or /48 allocation size - do we want to have this space allocated from a special block, may be even block that is used by all RIRs for this purpose - what documentation is needed to get an allocation - is there any need to document allocations in the RIPE database, and if so, how ?!? - general wording of the policy D. Discussion of the issues Z. AOB ---

1 0

Exchange point interim policy
by David Kessens 10 Sep '01

10 Sep '01

The final date for comments on the proposed interim policy for ipv6 address allocations for Internet exchange points has passed. Since posting the interim conclusions, the direction of the discussion has not fundamentally changed. Therefore, we believe that we can ask the RIPE NCC to publish the proposed policy now, to clearly mark it as an interim policy and to start making the first allocations (with /64 allocations made out of fully reserved /48's and all allocations made out of one common block of address space). We would like to emphasize that this is the first version of the policy. It's pretty clear from the discussions on the list that though the policy is approved, there are still some issues that need more discussion. It looks like that many people felt that it was more important to get a policy in place rather sooner than later despite that they might not agree with all details in the policy. We have asked the RIPE NCC to reserve a slot at the next RIPE meeting to discuss the remaining issues and make recommendations to the RIPE NCC for improvements to the interim policy. Issues that we currently have on our list include: - how to proceed from the interim policy ?!? - default /64 or /48 allocation size - do we want to have this space allocated from a special block, may be even block that is used by all RIRs for this purpose - what documentation is needed to get an allocation - is there any need to document allocations in the RIPE database, and if so, how ?!? - general wording of the policy Don't hesitate to contact us if you want to have other issues discussed as well. For discussions on the maillist, we suggest that you post your mail only to the lir-wg list. Thanks, Fearghas McKay David Kessens EIX-WG Chair IPv6 wg Chair ---

1 0

RE: Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy fo rInternet Exchange Points
by paul.mylotte＠bt.com 07 Sep '01

07 Sep '01

All, YES - and I am hoping that the WGs will reach consensus at the Prague meeting that the interim policy-based allocations will permit extension to a /48 allocation. Paul P. S. Mylotte IP Addressing & Naming BTexact Technologies Adastral Park 01473 606333 / + 44 1473 606333 paul.mylotte(a)bt.com BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British Telecommunications plc Registered office 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ Registered in England no. 1800000 This electronic message contains information from British Telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the number or address above) immediately. > -----Original Message----- > From: David R Huberman [SMTP:huberman@gblx.net] > Sent: 04 September 2001 17:57 > To: lir-wg(a)ripe.net; eix-wg(a)ripe.net; ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment > Policy forInternet Exchange Points > > > So I ask: > > > > In lieu of any other policy changes, are you, as a RIPE member and > > participant in the LIR, EIX, and IPv6 WGs, in favor of the interim > policy > > proposal for IPv6 address assignment policy for internet exchange > points? > > To answer my own question, I support the interim policy proposal and hope > it is ratified by the WGs as soon as possible. > > /david

3 2

Re: Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy for Internet Exchange Points
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 06 Sep '01

06 Sep '01

=>What I believe is needed is an allocation for IXP service networks as well =>as for the IX mesh, which is globally routable. I'd like to propose this =>alongside the existing proposal we have on the table. => =>Comments? = =I agree with you Mike, I think this is the only way an IXP can show its =independence from any one of its members (connected ISPs, carriers or =whatever) = = - Henk This "independence" argument is completly off-topic for this discussion. "Independence" can mean too many different things to too many different people. Usually you deal with that by making contingency plans or by building redundancy (or by defining procedures for the management plane ;-). Wilfried.

1 0

Re: Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy forInternet Exchange Points
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 06 Sep '01

06 Sep '01

>The chairs put forth this interim policy proposal to these lists hoping to >garner consensus or judge that consensus does not exist. > >The ensuing discussion, while not unuseful, does not appear (to me) to be >helping the chairs and the wg membership from gauging the extent to which >there is consensus for this interim policy proposal. > >So I ask: I think it was your intent to separate discussion/improvement from "tallying" pro.s and com.s - so I4ll summarize my comments in a separate message... >In lieu of any other policy changes, are you, as a RIPE member and >participant in the LIR, EIX, and IPv6 WGs, in favor of the interim policy >proposal for IPv6 address assignment policy for internet exchange points? YES. >/david Wilfried. _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy for Internet Exchange Points
by Henk Steenman 06 Sep '01

06 Sep '01

At 07:19 PM 9/3/2001, Randy Bush wrote: > >> What I believe is needed is an allocation for IXP service networks as well > >> as for the IX mesh, which is globally routable. I'd like to propose this > >> alongside the existing proposal we have on the table. > > I agree with you Mike, I think this is the only way an IXP can show its > > independence from any one of its members (connected ISPs, carriers or > > whatever) > >s/ixp/small isp/ > >i.e. the small isps want to appear independed from their upstream(s). >the discussion over this has been going on nigh a decade. so what makes >an ixp's business so special they warrant special treatment? I believe there is a difference, An IXP is a facilitating infrastructure delivering services to all ISPs connected or to be connected. Linkage in any way to one or more of its members might harm the neutrality of the exchange towards its other members. For AMS-IX: > AMS-IX is a non-profit, neutral and independent association, meaning > that it has no bias as to who connects For LINX > A neutral, not-for-profit partnership between Internet Service Providers > globally, LINX provides a physical interconnection for its members to > exchange Internet traffic through co-operative peering agreements I believe that in both cases "neutral" and "no bias to.." will be harmed if IXP address space (in any way, for the exchange infrastructure as well as for the services infrastructure like web server, e-mail etc) is related to a limited set of its customers. - Henk

14 28

Re: Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy for Internet Exchange Points
by Chris Fletcher 05 Sep '01

05 Sep '01

One of the points that has been raised a couple of times is... There is a lot of IPv6 address space - why not just give IXP's a sub TLA. The argument against this seems to be - if IXP's are treated as a special case then there is a precedent for every other 'special case' to justify their case. ... but there is still *lots* [1] of address space so why not give everyone who wants one a sub TLA? AIUI the reason for restricting who gets sub TLAs is... In the current IPv4 world (multiprovider) multihomed customers have their own address space and AS number this fills the default-free routing table and won't scale. In IPv6, addressing is hierarchical and multihomed customers have multiple addresses, this keeps the default-free routing table small and scalable. If everyone (multihomed customers) gets a sub TLA then the default-free routing table fills up with multihomed customer sub TLAs and IPv6 routing tables are as cluttered and unscalable as IPv4. Is this the issue? If not, why not give out sub TLAs to all who want them? Chris - LINX [1] There are 2^32 (~ 4,000,000,000) /35s available... +--+-----+-----+---+-----+------+------------------+ |-3|--13-|--13-|-6-|--13-|--16--|------64 bits-----| +--+-----+-----+---+-----+------+------------------+ |FP|-TLA-|-sub-|Res|-NLA-|--SLA-|---Interface ID---| |--|-ID--|-TLA-|---|--ID-|--ID--|------------------| +--+-----+-----+---+-----+------+------------------+

5 5