February 2000 - ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Fw: FYI - 4 week IETF Last Call on endpoint MIB
by Thomas Trede 28 Feb '00

28 Feb '00

FYI. Regards, Thomas Trede ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bert Wijnen" <WIJNEN(a)vnet.ibm.com> To: <ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 3:06 PM Subject: FYI - 4 week IETF Last Call on endpoint MIB > Sorry, normally these get posted to the WG list too, but since > this was a Design Team effort... oh well, you have 3+ weeks left. > > Since this is related to how IPv6 addresses get represented in MIBs > (in fact any IP address), it is of relevance to this WG. Your ADs > plust some WG members have been involved in the discussions. > I assume they did represent your WG well, but this is your chance > to read and comment. > I am not subscribed to this list. I would prefer that if any > discussion takes place, that the mibs(a)ops.ietf.org list is the > place to do that. If you do it here, then I hope that your ADs > or other WG members will pass it on to me or the mibs list. > > Thanks, > Bert > ------------- following is a copy ---------------- > Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 10:30:17 -0500 > From: The IESG <iesg-secretary(a)ietf.org> > To: IETF-Announce: ; > SUBJECT: Last Call: Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses > to Proposed Standard > Reply-to: iesg(a)ietf.org > > The IESG has received a request to consider Textual Conventions for > Internet Network Addresses <draft-ops-endpoint-mib-07.txt> as a > Proposed Standard. This has been reviewed in the IETF on the > mibs(a)ops.ietf.org mailing list, but is not the product of an > IETF Working Group. > > This was produced by a Design Team that was formed by the Internet and > Operations and Management ADs. > > This MIB module defines textual conventions to represent commonly > used Internet network layer addressing information. The intent is > that these definitions will be imported and used in MIBs that would > otherwise define their own representations. > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the > iesg(a)ietf.org or ietf(a)ietf.org mailing lists by March 21, 2000. > > Files can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ops-endpoint-mib-07.txt > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > Direct all administrative requests to majordomo(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >

1 0

Fw: Use of IP6.INT
by Thomas Trede 24 Feb '00

24 Feb '00

FYI. Regards, Thomas Trede ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Deering" <deering(a)cisco.com> To: <ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com> Cc: "Bob Hinden" <hinden(a)iprg.nokia.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 7:15 PM Subject: Re: Use of IP6.INT > Based on the email exchange a couple weeks ago, regarding placing the new > bitstring-based reverse DNS lookup tree under .arpa instead of .int, we > appear to have rough consensus that such a change would create no technical > problems and negligible deployment or operational impact at this point. > Therefore, the chairs propose to tell the IAB and IESG that we are willing > to make such a change in draft-ietf-ipngwg-dns-lookups-nn.txt, if they > request it. If there are any previously unvoiced (un-emailed?) objections > to doing that, please speak up *now*. > > By the way, of the two proposed suffixes (.ip6.arpa or .in6-addr.arpa), > are there any good reasons to prefer one over the other? > > Bob and Steve > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > Direct all administrative requests to majordomo(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >

1 0

Fw: KAME 03/2000 -> 03/2002
by Thomas Trede 24 Feb '00

24 Feb '00

FYI. Regards, Thomas Trede ----- Original Message ----- From: <kame(a)kame.net> To: <kame-related-people:;> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 3:25 AM Subject: KAME 03/2000 -> 03/2002 > We are glad to announce the extension of the term of the KAME project > to March 2002. The KAME project originally planned to close its > activities in March 2000. Since the next two years are very important > for deployment of IPv6 and the responsibility of the KAME project has > become larger, we have negotiated the sponsor companies of the KAME > project for the extension and reached consensus. For the next two > years, the KAME project will continue the current coding > activities. We will also concentrate on the deployment of IPv6. > > // The KAME project > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > Direct all administrative requests to majordomo(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >

1 0

Re: agenda (v2) for IPv6 working group RIPE35
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 18 Feb '00

18 Feb '00

Dear IPv6 WG! >Below follows the second version of the IPv6 wg agenda. [ snip ] >B. Comments on the Provisional Assignment on Allocation of IPv6 > addresses document (ipv6-wg & lir-wg) > - Why is a dial-up link treated differently - should > such users get a /48 or a /64 ?!? > - Public or private addresses recommendation for point-to-point > links > - What constitutes 80% utilization ?!? I'd really like to recommend to all of you to review the message with feedback from the Co-Chairs of the IETF IPng Working Group and the NGTrans Working Group chairs. as distributed on Mon, 31 Jan 2000 15:27:47 +0100 by Mirjam Kuehne <mir(a)ripe.net> to ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net subject: FYI - Re: IPv6 Policy Document Review Regards, 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ First things first, but not necessarily in that order....

1 0

agenda (v2) for IPv6 working group RIPE35
by David Kessens 16 Feb '00

16 Feb '00

Hi, Below follows the second version of the IPv6 wg agenda. The first time slot for the wg meeting will be used for a joint lir-wg and ipv6-wg session. We will use the time slot to discuss policy issues for IPv6, and in specific people will have a chance to discuss the current allocation of IPv6 addresses document. I would also like to draw your attention to the agenda of the European Operators Forum Session which will take place on Tuesday 22nd February: In the morning (9:30 - 12:30) 'First real life experiences with IPv6' 1. Wilfried Woeber, Aconet, Vienna, AT 2. Stuart Prevost, BT, UK I am also still looking for volunteers to cover some of the topics as proposed in the agenda. Please let me know if you are willing to take care of one of those. Thanks, David K. --- Agenda (v2) for the IPv6 Working Group Meeti RIPE35, February 2000, Amsterdam A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Comments on the Provisional Assignment on Allocation of IPv6 addresses document (ipv6-wg & lir-wg) - Why is a dial-up link treated differently - should such users get a /48 or a /64 ?!? - Public or private addresses recommendation for point-to-point links - What constitutes 80% utilization ?!? (I am looking for a volunteer from the RIPE NCC for an introduction on the issues - other speakers are also welcome to volunteer) C. Status of 6bone (David Kessens) D. Issues with filtering of 'IPv6 in IPv4' packets (Thomas Trede) E. IPv6 forum progress (I am looking for a volunteer) F. Quick summary of EOF morning session (I am looking for a volunteer) G. European developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 (input from the audience) H. Reports on on-going projects, success & failures stories on IPv6 (I am looking for volunteers who are willing to share their experiences) Z. AOB ---

1 0

draft agenda (v1) for IPv6 working group RIPE35
by David Kessens 08 Feb '00

08 Feb '00

Hi, Below follows the first version of the IPv6 wg agenda. I have tried to incorporate suggestions that I got from people on the mail list or privately. Please let me know if you have any additions that you would like to have discussed or if you have other comments on this first draft of the agenda. I am also looking for volunteers to cover some of the topics as proposed in the agenda. Please let me know if you are willing to take care of one of those. Thanks, David K. --- Proposed Agenda (draft v1) for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE35, February 2000, Amsterdam A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Comments on the Provisional Assignment on Allocation of IPv6 addresses document (ipv6-wg & lir-wg) - Why is a dial-up link treated differently - should such users get a /48 or a /64 ?!? - Public or private addresses recommendation for point-to-point links - What constitutes 80% utilization ?!? (I am looking for a volunteer from the RIPE NCC for an introduction on the issues - other speakers are also welcome to volunteer) C. Status of 6bone (David Kessens) D. Issues with filtering of 'IPv6 in IPv4' packets (Thomas Trede) E. IPv6 forum progress (I am looking for a volunteer) F. European developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 (input from the audience) G. Reports on on-going projects, success & failures stories on IPv6 (I am looking for volunteers who are willing to share their experiences) Z. AOB ---

1 0

final version of the minutes of RIPE 34
by David Kessens 08 Feb '00

08 Feb '00

Hi, Please see below for the final version of the minutes of our last session. I would like to thank Petra Zeidler for taking and preparing the minutes. Thanks, David K. --- Slides available from http://whois.6bone.net/~david/presentations/ Minutes of the IPv6 WG meeting at RIPE 34 Agenda: A. Administrative Stuff Scribe is Petra Zeidler Agenda got reshuffled, beside that no changes B. Status of 6BONE (David Kessens) see slides for the contents of the presentation no Questions C. Experience from the RIPE NCC with IPv6 allocations (Mirjam Kuehne) http://www.ripe.net/meetings/ripe/ripe-34/pres/ipv6-alloc-experience/index.… Questions: - Does RIPE NCC look at IPv4 allocations when deciding about IPv6 alloc.? - no, one can start out with IPv6 address space - How long does getting an allocation take? - about as long as a large IPv4 assignement now, but in the beginning it took longer due to necessary shakedown of procedures - What about the "exchange points distribute address space" point? - Neither the exchanges nor the registries are particularily keen to see that, maybe clear that up in the documentation - is the problem of how to handle different address spaces at the client site, their upstream and the exchange point worked out? - no. Input from the Exchange people needed, the IX wg is in parallel to this meeting - how does one find IPv6 database objects in the database? - by using whois, the object types are inet6num and ipv6site D. Experience from APNIC with IPv6 allocations (Fabrina Hossain) http://www.ripe.net/meetings/ripe/ripe-34/pres/apnic-ipv6/index.html Questions: - what is a NIR, and what's the IPv6 problem with them? - a national internet registry, an intermediary between RIR and LIR; assigning a block of STLAs is not planned in the current regulations, but would be sensible. This point needs to be cleared up yet. - are there political problems with or for NIRs? - none up to date - what type of IPv6 usage happens in the APNIC region? - tunneled over IPv4 E. Experience from customers of the RIPE NCC with IPv6 allocations (audience) Stephen Burley, UUnet UK: requested at 3 registries due to their international character, got /35. Issues are Aggregation and looking at a whole continent /29 is reserved for them so they can expand contiguously UUnet is still staring up IPv6 operations, they have renumbered from their 6bone addresses and had questions from customers about IPv6, but did no assignments yet. general point: what about company mergers and splits? - renumbering is easy in theory Wilfried Woeber for Vienna Uni, RIPE IPv6 allocation #6: IPv6 requires quite different architecture considerations regarding wether to assign a /64 or a /48 actually using IPv6 found surprising, non-obvious traps (eg DNS) working with RIPE to get the allocation was nice planning for IPv6 is hard to do due to lack of experience on all sides the role of IXes is unclear. Are they to move from being a switch to being a router? How does one build infrastructure for a routed IX? What about the IPv6 multihoming issue? For an IXes own routing infrastructure there are no address issues F. IPv6 forum creation (David Kessens) there has been a mailinglist created ~2-3 months ago with subject deployment of IPv6. It contains technical questions & answers There's a website too, http://www.ipv6forum.com/ It is meant to be a formal organisation to promote IPv6 It currently has 55 members, the membership fee is ~$2500 a year) The IPv6 forum sponsors meetings to spread information about IPv6 It has two main goals: inform and help in deployment by collecting useful information next meeting will be in October near Paris named "Global IPv6 summit" on the 8/9 dec there will be a meeting in Berlin to be help in German language, but translations will be offered too a meeting in Japan is planned, but there's no date yet H. IPv6 test project done by TF-TANT (Simon Nybroe, http://www.tbit.dk/quantum/slides/ripe34qtpv6/index.htm) Questions/comments: DNS still needs IPv4 connectivity to be able to do its "tree walk" There are more applications needed that work with IPv6 A IPv6 routing registry needs to be considered G. European developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 - there's a project to link 6TAP and AMS-IX using a native IPv6 link AMS-IX has IPv6 on the Ethernet and at 6TAP it's available over the peering router. Question: is it an experiment or are there plans to offer "ordinary" transit? - no transit yet, currently it will run in a ~3month test period X. Any Other Business - there's IPv6 in the RIPE terminal room, with www.ipv6.surfnet.nl as tunnel router - IPv6 policies are to be dicussed in the LIR WG, only implementation matters at IPv6 WG, as IPv6 is now in assignment production. Anyone may take part in the LIR WG (only the LIRs really ought to :-) ---

1 0