Hi,
Please see below for the minutes of the ipv6 wg session from the last
RIPE meeting.
The minutes will be declared final by Januari 5 if I don't receive any
comments other than typographical errors and other minor corrections.
I would like to thank Vesna for taking the minutes.
Thanks,
David K.
---
IPv6 Working Group
Chair: David Kessens
RIPE 37
Amsterdam, 13 September 2000
Agenda:
A Administrative stuff
- appointment of scribe
Vesna Manojlovic
- list of attendees
- agenda bashing
B Status of 6bone
(David Kessens, http://www.kessens.com/~david/presentations/)
C RPSL & IPv6
(Joachim Schmitz, routing-wg chair)
There is a need to include ipv6 in the routing registries on the
functional level. In the routing-wg , ipv6 is being looked into.
There is still a question of whether we need separate ipv6 Routing
Registry. There are specific issues to be dealt with. There is
RPSL, but it is developed for IPv4. It is suited to describe routing
policies and protocols.
We designed a proposal for RIPE NCC activity plan to take care of RR
for IPv6. Central and structured approach with RPSL are some of the
requirements. Proposal includes development of RPSL definitions and
needs to include them into RIPE database.
I would like to invite you to take part in it.
Q: Was the document sent to the list?
A: Not, so far. I do not see any reason not to do it.
D IP Transition Strategies
Presented by: Alain Durand
Co-chair of the IETF NGtrans WG
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-37/presentations/RIPE37/
Toolbox for transition mechanisms is developed:
- networks
1. ipv6 as layer3 protocol
2. ipv6 over ipv4
3. tunnels (automatic, 60ver4, configured, tunnel broker, 6to4)
- stacks
hybrid, not dual
- applications
- some interoperability is needed
- tools (translators, DSTM)
E - News from IPv6 Forum
(Juergen Rauschenbach)
[presentation]
F - Addressing plan of the real world
F1: (Juergen Rauschenbach)
[presentation]
Q: As a private person, can I participate in the dial-up part of it?
A: We have contractual partners, but for the testing purposes we may
discus it - to allow you to take part.
Q: Native or tunnels?
A: Initially - tunnels, just for universities to try out.
Q: What kind of routing equipment?
A: cisco, and [...] but we want to go for cisco-based solutions.
F2: Deploying a IPv6 Backbone
Bernard Tuy, Renater
[presentation]
Q: Why did you use /126 for tunnel?
A: Cisco.
Q: Question to RIPE NCC: are you going to implement the ipv6 root name
server?
WW: group of people is working on making one of the name servers ipv6
"compatible".. There are still problems with resolver libraries,
clients..
(frustrated comment)
lost capability to use ipv6 transport for DNS.
There is no resolver in bind9.
We have subTLA:s. We want them in the real world. We do need routing
registry.
G - IPv6 connectivity in the terminal room
(Monica Cortes, RIPE NCC)
If you have IPv6 configured on your laptop, and are connected to LAN
here, you can use IPv6.
In September 99 we had tunnel to 6bone. (surfnet)
January: Intel, bsdi, tunnel - straightforward. applications not smooth.
May: In Budapest, moving the box - Solaris 8 , intel; tunnel to ncc, from
there to surfnet. there was a tutorial there, showing the setup of
tunnel. there was an ipv6 only box, able to connect to the internet
through that tunnel.
Next time we will nave nameserver. Now we have web server...
H - v6 native exchange points
- INXS (Muenich)
- AIX
from october 2000
- LINX
plans to provide ipv6 exchange in 2000
- (Bernard) - ask him later!
I - European developments, initiatives...
(input from the audience)
J - Future plans for the working group
(input from the audience)
no input this time
1. Chair: 6over4, 6to4... a lecture
Would people appreciate that? Little tutorial?
Bernard - very good idea.
Chair: OK, one volunteer?!?
2. People who did IPv6 tutorial last time want to do it next time, too
& v6 demo setup in terminal room
Bernard: 50-60 people were attending, and nobody at demo. Disappointing.
Chair: we need more publicity, to let people know what is going on.
Any more topics?
WW: v6 DNS.
Z - AOB
nothing
Hi,
Please see below for the minutes of the joint session of the ipv6 wg
and lir wg regarding ipv6 allocation policies at RIPE37.
The minutes will be declared final by January 5 if I don't receive any
comments other than typographical errors and other minor corrections.
I would like to thank Vesna for taking the minutes.
Thanks,
David K.
---
IPv6 joint policy meeting
RIPE ipv6-wg & lir-wg
Wednesday, 13 September 2000
RIPE 37
Chair: David Kessens
Agenda
i Statement of current policy draft
ii IAB/IESG recommendations
iii Panel discussion
iv AOB
=i= Statement of current policy draft -- Joao Damas, RIPE NCC
One year ago 3 Regional Internet Registries produced document that
outlines allocation of IPv6 address space.
* size of end user assignments
* multihoming considerations
* what is the meaning of 80% usage in ipv6?
We need the clear picture of these issues to move forward.
[chair: Bob Hinden tries to present the opinion of the IAB/IESG as closely as
possible, but he is not the official spokesman of those bodies]
= ii = IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address Allocation - Bob Hinden
URL: http://www/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-37/presentations/ripe-ipv6-hinden/
We do not have real issue on service provider allocations size.
Our recommendation is: /48 fixed boundary for all subscribers.
This is consistent with responsible stewardship of the IPv6 Address space.
Reasoning:
- allocation policies influence the deployment; policies should make
deployment easy, not slow
- renumbering is (still) not painless or automatic
Exceptions:
- very large subscribers should get multiple /48:s, or /47
- transient nodes (roaming, dial-up) (/64)
- explicitly no interest in subnetting
Justifications for fixed boundary:
- easy to change ISP:s (does not require restructuring of subnets)
- straightforward renumbering
- compatible with current multihoming proposals
- allows easy growth of subscribers
- reduces burden of ISP:s and RIR:s to judge customers' needs
- no need for details of customers' networks
- no need to judge rates of consumption
- no scarcity of subscriber's space: no need for NAT
- allows single reverse DNS zone (for all prefixes)
Conservation:
- does this waste IPv6 address space? No.
- this distribution had better H ratio (RFC1715) then many others today
- still, only one of the Format Prefixes (001) is going to be used; it
leaves 85% of total IPv6 space for future usage and possible stricter policy
Multihoming: IETF is still looking for input on this issue.
= iii= Panel discussion:
1. Stephen Burley (UUNET)
2. Steve Deering (ipng)
3. Joao Damas (RIPE NCC)
4. Bob Hinden (ipng)
5. Randy Bush (ngtrans)
6. Juergen Rauschenbach (ipv6 forum)
Q: What is criteria for ISP allocation? How much IPv6 address space does
an ISP get?
A: (Randy) This proposal is not changing other parts of policy. All will
still get a /35. Normal slow start.
Q: (Dave Pratt) Could you clarify what is meant by the 80% rule?
A: (Bob) 80% of number of customers (ISP needs to allocate 80%, not the
subscribers)
Q: (Dave) I guess what I really mean is to do with ISP/LIR addressing
hierarchy. It's difficult to build in hierarchy if aiming for 80%
utilisation before more addresses will become available.
Steve: H-ratio may be more appropriate rather than a percentage.
A: I would suggest 20%. For example with 20% you can reserve addresses
for 8 regions, and not worry if 6 of the 8 sites have small take up rates.
A: (Steve) "you can start without hierarchy, and then add it later when
the need arises".
A: We could add hierarchy later, but maybe not really ***(same
problems later as at start)***. We should be designing our networks
correctly from the beginning.
A: Discussion of possibility of H ratio's also being applied also to
the LIR/ISP address range.
Randy points out that with allocating /48s in a /35, the H ratio might
be different, but the principle still holds, and there is a believe
that there are enough addresses in IPv6 (also mentions in passing that
the same believe existed in the early days of IPv4)
Q: (Wilfred Woeber) Thank you for the clear document and clarification.
Remaining issue: number of bits available for infrastructure. There should
be a recommendation to start with the least significant bits.
A: (Steve) We need an analysis regarding building an efficient hierarchy
in the top 8 bits. If the community agrees on the /48 boundary, we
may have to review the size of the initial allocation (/35 subTLA size).
Joao explains why the /35 has been chosen. One gets 8192 NLA ranges,
which can each by itself be structured and managed. This means it is
actually more than if one gets a /19 in IPv4.
Randy wonders why WW thinks one has a different problem in v than
today in v4. The ISP he works for aggregates per pop, very strict and
successful about it, but announce a /19 or shorter per pop. /35 feels
as comfortable. Tries to understand if people don't feel comfortable
with that and why.
A: 13 bits (/35) is fine, it allows for aggregation per pop, the problem
is the 80% usage rate.
Randy: isn't the problem the percent, not matter how much it is?
A: Problem is if the pops grow at different speed.
A: Gert Doering, space net, Germany: We started with /19. by now, we have
/16 and few /19:s, and they are not aggregated. We have resellers, and they
have theirs. It fragments awfully. i am in favour of /56; or, i do not
mind /48 if we can get bigger prefix (more bits) in the front. I do not
need more space, but more possibility to build the hierarchy and aggregate.
Joao: You have /29 contiguous block reserved to grow into.
Gert: I don't see the need for slow start. There are a so many /29s the
routing tables would explode before the /29s were exhausted.
Bob suggests that might be solvable by rethinking the 80% usage rate (so
that ISPs are not penalised for taking a long-term view from the start).
Randy: He is in Frankfurt and Bon, and peers with Jurgen at both places,
and announces same /35 at both places and Jurgen does not know to which
one to send traffic.
Chair: Want to refocus back on the recommendations of the draft. People
seem to be OK with the /48. Let's move on. Need to come up with something
to put in the multihoming section.
For now, IPv4 method of multihoming should be used, as a short term
recommendation. There is also the option to use multiple prefixes.
The philosophy should be that addresses are cheap, so if
someone wants to experiment with the multi address multihoming, let
them and give them the addresses.
Q: (Dave Pratt) Present PI space is authorised by RIPE and does NOT come
from provider assigned space. I think this is a good rule *** (until
better multihoming techniques are developed)*** that should be continued
for IPv6.
Alain Durand: Wants to emphasise that it's early in deployment and we
need lots of feedback regarding whether multihoming techniques etc work.
Be generous with /48s.
Randy: From the proposal "if they need more address space, they get
multiple /48:s". I would suggest /47.
Steve: Looking to create a team to investigate how to measure usage.
Maybe find a H ratio measure to apply instead of the 80% rule.
Joao: the conservation is not the only issue here.
WW: We want to keep the routing table small. (...)
Randy: Small number of providers having TLA does not look good from the
market point of view and it would create the small club who owns the
Internet.
A: The requirement is not only to aggregate well (shrinks the table),
but also to find neutral mechanism of allocation; how to get into that
club.
Chair: Do you have enough info on /48 proposal?
(yes)
Chair: OK recommendations of this group are that /48 assignments are to
go ahead. This will be taken to ARIN and APNIC.
hope Siemens will follow..... ;-)
------------------------------------
Koos Varkevisser
Energis (Netherlands) N.V.
Data Center Services / datacom engineer
K.P. van der Mandelelaan 130-144
3062 MB Rotterdam
the Netherlands
Tel. +31.10.8803922
Fax. +31.10.8803901
Mob. +31.6.54353064
XOIP. +31.20.8680628
-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Petter Holen [mailto:hph@online.no]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 3:59 PM
To: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net
Subject: Good news: IPv6 & GPRS
Ath the last couple of RIPE meetings IPv6 seemed not to be a
realistic option for GPRS. Now at least one vendor seems to
do something about that:
http://press.nokia.com/PR/200011/798516_5.html
-hph
Ath the last couple of RIPE meetings IPv6 seemed not to be a
realistic option for GPRS. Now at least one vendor seems to
do something about that:
http://press.nokia.com/PR/200011/798516_5.html
-hph
FYI.
Regards,
Thomas Trede
----- Original Message -----
From: <Internet-Drafts(a)ietf.org>
To: <IETF-Announce: ;>
Cc: <ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 12:29 PM
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipngwg-addrconf-privacy-04.txt
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
> This draft is a work item of the IPNG Working Group of the IETF.
>
> Title : Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address
> Autoconfiguration in IPv6
> Author(s) : T. Narten, R. Draves
> Filename : draft-ietf-ipngwg-addrconf-privacy-04.txt
> Pages : 17
> Date : 30-Nov-00
>
> Nodes use IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration to generate
> addresses without the necessity of a DHCP server. Addresses are
> formed by combining network prefixes with an interface identifier. On
> interfaces that contain embedded IEEE Identifiers, the interface
> identifier is typically derived from it. On other interface types,
> the interface identifier is generated through other means, for
> example, via random number generation. This document describes an
> extension to IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration for interfaces
> whose interface identifier is derived from an IEEE identifier. Use of
> the extension causes nodes to generate global-scope addresses from
> interface identifiers that change over time, even in cases where the
> interface contains an embedded IEEE identifier. Changing the
> interface identifier (and the global-scope addresses generated from
> it) over time makes it more difficult for eavesdroppers and other
> information collectors to identify when different addresses used in
> different transactions actually correspond to the same node.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-addrconf-privacy-04.tx
t
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the
username
> "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
> type "cd internet-drafts" and then
> "get draft-ietf-ipngwg-addrconf-privacy-04.txt".
>
> A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
>
> Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
>
> Send a message to:
> mailserv(a)ietf.org.
> In the body type:
> "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-addrconf-privacy-04.txt".
>
> NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
> MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this
> feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
> command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
> a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers
> exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
> "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
> up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
> how to manipulate these messages.
>
>
> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
> Internet-Draft.
>
FYI.
Regards,
Thomas Trede
----- Original Message -----
From: <Internet-Drafts(a)ietf.org>
To: <IETF-Announce: ;>
Cc: <ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 12:29 PM
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipaddressassign-01.txt
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
> This draft is a work item of the IPNG Working Group of the IETF.
>
> Title : A method for flexible IPv6 address assignments
> Author(s) : M. Blanchet
> Filename : draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipaddressassign-01.txt
> Pages : 13
> Date : 30-Nov-00
>
> This document presents a method that helps organisations that makes
> addressing plan for IP addresses. The flexibility enables the
> organisation to postpone the final decision on the number of bits to
> partition in the address space they have. It does it by keeping the
> bits around the borders of the partition to be free as long as
> possible. This scheme is applicable to any bits addressing scheme
> using bits with partitions in the space, but its first intended use
> is for IPv6. It is a generalization of RFC1219 and can be used for
> IPv6 assignments based on RFC2373 and RFC2374.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipaddressassign-01.txt
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the
username
> "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
> type "cd internet-drafts" and then
> "get draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipaddressassign-01.txt".
>
> A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
>
> Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
>
> Send a message to:
> mailserv(a)ietf.org.
> In the body type:
> "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipaddressassign-01.txt".
>
> NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
> MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this
> feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
> command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
> a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers
> exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
> "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
> up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
> how to manipulate these messages.
>
>
> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
> Internet-Draft.
>
