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

Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
by Gert Doering 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

Hi, On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 03:39:56PM +0100, Stephen Burley wrote: > Will the new draft include the priciple of MIR's which i detailed on the > list (which stangly got no negative response) and will it also understand > the concept of sub-allocation? Without knowing anything about that draft :-) I can only speculate. On the concept of MIRs - I don't think they are necessary. This is something that a LIR should do internally - and this means the concept of sub-allocation should be legalized (and formalized) now. LIRs already do sub-allocations, because it's necessary. The hostmasters know this, but frown on it, because it's not in the official policies. So let's change 'em (at least for IPv6, where aggregation is MUCH more important than conservation). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299

1 0

Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
by Joao Luis Silva Damas 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

At 15:39 +0100 15/8/01, Stephen Burley wrote: >Will the new draft include the priciple of MIR's which i detailed on the >list (which stangly got no negative response) and will it also understand >the concept of sub-allocation? I can't answer this directly as I haven't seen the latest version, but Mirjam's keyboard is on fire from all the typing going on, so I think the new draft is coming real soon now. Joao >Regards, >Stephen Burley >UUNET EMEA Hostmaster > --

1 0

Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
by Joao Luis Silva Damas 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

Hi, I think the RIR staff working on the new policy draft understand the issue. I believe the new draft will reflect this by moving away from a fixed percentage to using the huitema/durand ratio which is meant to give a consistent view of space utilization when using variable levels of hierarchy. Joao Damas RIPE NCC At 17:27 +0100 14/8/01, Peter Willis wrote: >Colleagues, > >I've just done some calculations that shows the maximum theoritical >utilisation that can be achieved is 75% whilst maintaining the minimum size of >routing table. That is if you take a large number of subnets, each subnet > containing a random number of hosts, and assign to each subnet the nearest > power of 2 larger than the number of hosts, the utilisation you get is 75%. > >This is a 75% utilisation per level of network hierarchy. > >So if we assume 3 levels of network hierarchy and each level doing perfect > routing aggregation and perfect address allocation we will get an overall > utilisation of > 0.75^3 = 0.422 == 42% overall utilisation for the TLA. > >I'd like to bet that if we have a network with enough hosts to justify 64 bits >of address space it'll also be large enough to require more than 3 levels of >network hierarchy. Any requirements to get high address space utilisation out >of IPv6 can simply be demonstrated to lack scaling qualities. > >Regards, > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Peter Willis | E-mail: peter.j.willis(a)bt.com >IP Technology Strategist | Phone: 01473 645178 Fax: 01473 644506 >BTexact Technologies CTO | >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --

2 1

Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made
by Gert Doering 15 Aug '01

15 Aug '01

Hi, On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 09:36:15AM +0100, Stephen Burley wrote: > I would like to add although we are not a supernational registry and all > that implies ;) we have the same issue. We have been allocated our start up > space in IPv6 which is fine for now but would it not be better to be more > forward thinking when allocating IPv6 space and allocate enough space to > aggregate fully throughout the EMEA region and so implement the best > possible aggregation. This is not just a cry for more space because we are > big so we deserve it, we are seriously looking to a time when IPv6 is used > in anger and we have to do real aggregation throughout EMEA. We do not want > to assign IPv6 on a per LIR basis, rather sub-allocate IPv6 space to our > current LIR structure since we are all in the same network it makes sense. > BTW we are currently writing our internal IPv6 deployment policy. As far as I remember the IPv6 policy discussions on the last RIPE meetings, one thing that was voiced repeatedly was "if we have to hand out /48's to customers, a /35 for the LIR itself is not enough" (considering hierarchical strutures - either due to multinational networks, or due to hierarchies of resellers having re-selling customers themselves - 13 bits to work in is just not enough). Also, it hasn't really been shown why we need slow-start *in slow-start space*(!). It's not like we want our own TLA, but I think the RIRs are being way too conservative. Old IPv4 habits...? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299

8 11

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 09 Aug '01

09 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