August 2001 - ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
by James Aldridge 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

"Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" wrote: > I think we were talking about increasing the size of a sTLA (when the > requirement for that can be documented), rather than allocating another > sTLA?! OK, my last mail was maybe a bit terse. Some background might help. We (KPNQwest, formerly EUnet) are a "supernational" registry. In the IPv4 world this is much like having 6 individual large registries with the corresponding number of open allocations that implies. Now, in the IPv6 world I'm told that we can't get an IPv6 sTLA for our direct backbone customers or for any of our other national networks because KPNQwest Finland (covered by the eu.eunet supernational registry) already has our one sub-TLA. Of course, that one sub-TLA gives us a total amount of address space which is adequate for our current requirements for the whole network but once this is split over each of about 20 separate autonomous systems, each with their own routing policy, this is hardly going to result in optimally aggregatable routing... James > Also, I seem to remember that the NCC reserves some space in the address > tree for that, so you might be able to obtain a "2nd" sTLA back-to-back > with the original one, which is equivalent to decreasing the prefix > length. > > I guess you would be free to structure that (combined/extended) address > space internally (for distribution to customers by more than one > operational unit). > > But probably I am missing something essential here. > > Wilfried. > ______________________________________________________________________ > > Of course, there would be at least one more sub-TLA allocated if the IPv4 > rules for supernational registries were to be applied to IPv6 instead of > restricting these to only having a single sub-TLA allocation... :-( > > James > > -- > James Aldridge, Senior Network Engineer (IP Architecture) > KPNQwest, Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, NL > Tel: +31 70 379 37 03; GSM: +31 65 370 87 07 > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- > _________________________________:_____________________________________ > 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....

3 2

WG: I-D ACTION:draft-engelstad-ngtrans-mipv4-over-mipv6-01.txt
by Thomas Trede 14 Aug '01

14 Aug '01

FYI. Regards, Thomas Trede -----Ursprï¿½ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com [mailto:owner-ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com]Im Auftrag von Internet-Drafts(a)ietf.org Gesendet: Montag, 13. August 2001 13:05 An: IETF-Announce: Cc: ngtrans(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com; ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com; mobile-ip(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com Betreff: I-D ACTION:draft-engelstad-ngtrans-mipv4-over-mipv6-01.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Transitional Integration of Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6 Author(s) : P. Engelstad Filename : draft-engelstad-ngtrans-mipv4-over-mipv6-01.txt Pages : 21 Date : 09-Aug-01 This draft outlines how a dual stack mobile node can be reached and communicate by means of both IPv4 and IPv6, even in situations where the mobile node is in reach of only either IPv4 or IPv6 networks. A Dual Stack Mobility Agent accommodates mobility and translates between IPv4 and IPv6 traffic. It may operate as a mobility agent in its own right or as a module that relays traffic between existing single stack Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6 home agents. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-engelstad-ngtrans-mipv4-over-mipv6 -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-engelstad-ngtrans-mipv4-over-mipv6-01.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-engelstad-ngtrans-mipv4-over-mipv6-01.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. ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-engelstad-ngtrans-mipv4-over-mipv6-01.txt

1 0

RE: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
by stuart.prevost＠bt.com 13 Aug '01

13 Aug '01

David, Whilst I agree with what you are saying in that the RIPE community has identified issues, and that it is time to go into more detail to define a workable allocation policy. It would help if we had insight into what the 3 RIR thoughts are regarding these issues. I know that a new policy document will be published very shortly, and we should hopefully see what progress has been made towards a workable allocation policy. Personally I feel that it has taken far to long for a revised allocation policy to materialize, since review of the current document started in October 1999. Almost two years on we don't have new draft-policy we can even discuss let alone implement. Anyway I'll stop going on about it and look forward to reading the new draft :) Regards, Stuart > -----Original Message----- > From: David Kessens [mailto:david@IPRG.nokia.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 4:46 PM > To: BIDRON Alain BRX/DAP > Cc: Stephen Burley; lir-wg(a)ripe.net; ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made > > > > Alain, > > On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 04:45:24PM +0200, BIDRON Alain > BRX/DAP wrote: > > > > Do we really need to explore solutions again or do we need > a new Draft > > from the RIRs taking into account those proposals and the consensus > > expressed around, and able to be approved by the community ? > > I think that the problem description is quite clear. I think that it > is also clear that a majority of the people would like to have a > larger initial allocation. > > However, it is not clear how big such an allocation should be, whether > there should be a uniform size of the initial allocation, whether > multi-national registries should be able to get more than one > allocation etc. > > Next, we will also need to take a look at the definition of 80% > utilization, when people can come back to the regional registries for > more address space and how much address space they will get when they > come back and qualify for more address space. > > It's up to us as the RIPE community to identify these issues and to > advise the RIPE NCC on how to fix the current policy. So far, we have > done quite a good job in identifying the issues, it's now time to go > in more detail in order to define a workable allocation policy. > > David K. > --- >

1 0

RE: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
by stuart.prevost＠bt.com 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

Sabrina, It would be nice if the new draft could be mailed to the relevant lists before the RIPE 40 meeting so people can have a meaningful discussion. Please can you indicate if/when a new version of the policy document will be published? Thanks, Stuart > -----Original Message----- > From: Sabrina Waschke [mailto:sabrina@ripe.net] > Sent: 09 August 2001 17:16 > To: James Aldridge > Cc: lir-wg(a)ripe.net; ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made > > > > James, > > Your request for a subsequent sub-TLA allocation was evaluated > according to the Provisional IPv6 Assignment and Allocation > Policy (4.2.5. Criteria for Subsequent Sub-TLA Allocations). > Please see: > > http://www.ripe.net/ipv6 > > As you know this policy is under revision and the current > discussions on these two mailing lists are encouraged. > > All three Regional Internet Registries receive input from their > communities and based on this a new draft of the policy document > will be presented at the upcoming RIPE 40 meeting in Prague. > > The presentation "IPv6 Bootstrap Phase" given at the last RIPE > meeting in Bologna can be found at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentation s/ipv6develop/ A Supernational Registry is a special case. You may want to use this presentation as a starting point to discuss the minimum allocation size. Kind regards, Sabrina Waschke -- o------------------------------------------o | Sabrina Waschke sabrina(a)ripe.net | | Registration Services Operations Manager | | | | RIPE NCC tel +31 20 535 4444 | | www.ripe.net fax +31 20 535 4445 | o------------------------------------------o

2 1

Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
by Sabrina Waschke 10 Aug '01

10 Aug '01

James, Your request for a subsequent sub-TLA allocation was evaluated according to the Provisional IPv6 Assignment and Allocation Policy (4.2.5. Criteria for Subsequent Sub-TLA Allocations). Please see: http://www.ripe.net/ipv6 As you know this policy is under revision and the current discussions on these two mailing lists are encouraged. All three Regional Internet Registries receive input from their communities and based on this a new draft of the policy document will be presented at the upcoming RIPE 40 meeting in Prague. The presentation "IPv6 Bootstrap Phase" given at the last RIPE meeting in Bologna can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/ipv6develop/ A Supernational Registry is a special case. You may want to use this presentation as a starting point to discuss the minimum allocation size. Kind regards, Sabrina Waschke -- o------------------------------------------o | Sabrina Waschke sabrina(a)ripe.net | | Registration Services Operations Manager | | | | RIPE NCC tel +31 20 535 4444 | | www.ripe.net fax +31 20 535 4445 | o------------------------------------------o

2 1

Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
by David Kessens 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

Alain, On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 04:45:24PM +0200, BIDRON Alain BRX/DAP wrote: > > Do we really need to explore solutions again or do we need a new Draft > from the RIRs taking into account those proposals and the consensus > expressed around, and able to be approved by the community ? I think that the problem description is quite clear. I think that it is also clear that a majority of the people would like to have a larger initial allocation. However, it is not clear how big such an allocation should be, whether there should be a uniform size of the initial allocation, whether multi-national registries should be able to get more than one allocation etc. Next, we will also need to take a look at the definition of 80% utilization, when people can come back to the regional registries for more address space and how much address space they will get when they come back and qualify for more address space. It's up to us as the RIPE community to identify these issues and to advise the RIPE NCC on how to fix the current policy. So far, we have done quite a good job in identifying the issues, it's now time to go in more detail in order to define a workable allocation policy. David K. ---

1 0

Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
by James Aldridge 08 Aug '01

08 Aug '01

David R Huberman wrote: > > > Of course, that one sub-TLA gives us a total amount of address space which is > > adequate for our current requirements for the whole network but once this i s > > split over each of about 20 separate autonomous systems, each with their ow n > > routing policy, this is hardly going to result in optimally aggregatable > > routing... > > And when you explain this to RIPE, how do they respond? If you can make a > bona fide engineering argument for obtaining more than one sub-TLA, it > seems to me that any RIR is obliged to seriously consider that argument. The last reply from the RIPE NCC hostmasters said, "Because Supernational Registries may not receive multiple IPv6 allocations you would need to have allocated 80% of the networks in your current sTLA before we could issue more address space." So we can have a /35 fragmented among something like 20 different networks but can't get any additional address space until 80% of the current /35 is used. James -- James Aldridge, Senior Network Engineer (IP Architecture) KPNQwest, Singel 540, 1017 AZ Amsterdam, NL Tel: +31 70 379 37 03; GSM: +31 65 370 87 07

2 2

Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
by David R Huberman 08 Aug '01

08 Aug '01

To: lists-lir-wg-out(a)lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1(a)wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out(a)lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1(a)wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out(a)lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1(a)wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out(a)lists.ripe.net To: postmaster1(a)wplus.net To: lists-lir-wg-out(a)lists.ripe.net To: James Aldridge <jhma(a)KPNQwest.net> Reply-To: <E15UUhh-0001m9-00(a)aegir.EU.net> > The last reply from the RIPE NCC hostmasters said, "Because Supernational > Registries may not receive multiple IPv6 allocations you would need to have > allocated 80% of the networks in your current sTLA before we could issue more > address space." Please forgive my ignorance and allow me to ask, "where is it written that Supernational Registries may not receive multiple sub-TLAs?" Is this a RIPE NCC interpretation of the bootstrap criteria or is it actually written down somewhere? /david

1 0

90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
by leo vegoda 06 Aug '01

06 Aug '01

Dear Colleagues, In 1999 The RIPE NCC and the other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), ARIN and APNIC, began allocating IPv6 sub-TLAs. According to current policy[1] the bootstrap phase "will only apply until 100 requesting organisations have received allocations of sub-TLA address space". To date, the three RIRs have made 90 sub-TLA allocations[2]. At RIPE 39 in Bologna it was suggested to prolong the bootstrap phase until RIPE 40 if 100 allocations are reached. We will inform the community as soon as 100 IPv6 allocations have been made. Other IPv6 information is available on our web site at <http://www.ripe.net/ipv6>. Regards, -- leo vegoda Senior Hostmaster RIPE NCC [1] The Global Provisional IPv6 Assignment and Allocation Policy document is available at <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html> [2] Details of the allocations are available from the IPv6 section at <http://www.ripe.net/cgi-bin/ipv6allocs>.

2 1

WG: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-name-lookups-08.txt
by Thomas Trede 03 Aug '01

03 Aug '01

FYI. Regards, Thomas Trede -----Ursprï¿½ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com [mailto:owner-ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com]Im Auftrag von Internet-Drafts(a)ietf.org Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2001 12:32 An: IETF-Announce: Cc: ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com Betreff: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-name-lookups-08.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 : IPv6 Node Information Queries Author(s) : M. Crawford Filename : draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-name-lookups-08.txt Pages : 15 Date : 24-Jul-01 This document describes a protocol for asking an IPv6 node to supply certain network information, such as its hostname or fully-qualified domain name. IPv6 implementation experience has shown that direct queries for a hostname are useful, and a direct query mechanism for other information has been found useful in serverless environments and for debugging. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-name-lookups-08.t xt 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-icmp-name-lookups-08.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-icmp-name-lookups-08.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. ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-name-lookups-08.txt

1 0