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

draft agenda (v1) for IPv6 working group RIPE40
by David Kessens 09 Sep '01

09 Sep '01

Hi, Below follows the first draft of the agenda for the ipv6 wg. We will only meet for one meeting slot for the regular working group session due to all the attention for ipv6 in other (joint) sessions. There will be an ipv6 tutorial on monday, and two joint sessions on ipv6 allocation policy. One session will be used to discuss the interim policy on ipv6 assignments for exchange points and the other session will be used to make progress on the revision on the general allocation guidelines of ipv6 adresses. Separate agendas will be published regarding these sessions. Please let me know if you have any other topics that you want to have discussed and I will try to accomodate them in the agenda, Thanks, David K. --- Agenda for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE40, Prague A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Status of the 6bone (David Kessens) C. Addressing on cable systems (Pascal Julienne) D. Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering & input of the audience requested) E. Euro6IX: The Pan-European IPv6 IX Backbone (Jordi Palet Martinez) F. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience) Z. AOB ---

1 0

RE: Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy fo rInternet Exchange Points
by Randy Bush 07 Sep '01

07 Sep '01

you have sent a message to me which seems to contain a legal warning on who can read it, or how it may be distributed, or whether it may be archived, etc. i do not accept such email, and have therefore deleted it. do not expect further response. randy

2 1

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

1 0

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 Randy Bush 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. >>> 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. we all think we're special. but we're all just funny monkeys. an ix has a perfectly normal way to get infrastructure space now. the exchanges you mention have such (v4) space now. i am not aware of anyone suggesting to remove those policies. what we're trying to do here is to let those ixs who are now throwing up v6 peering meshes get the address space for those meshes. we are not trying to change the world, annoint ixs over isps, web hosters, ... life can be simple if we let it. randy

11 23

WG: I-D ACTION:draft-ramki-multi6-nlmp-00.txt
by Thomas Trede 05 Sep '01

05 Sep '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, 5. September 2001 12:45 An: IETF-Announce: Cc: ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com; multi6(a)ops.ietf.org Betreff: I-D ACTION:draft-ramki-multi6-nlmp-00.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : A proposal for scalable network-level multihoming Author(s) : R. Gummadi Filename : draft-ramki-multi6-nlmp-00.txt Pages : Date : 04-Sep-01 This document proposes two extensions to BGP4+ to provide scalable multihoming in IPv6. The first is a new well-known and mandatory 'TunneL (TL)' BGP path attribute that allows a multihomed enterprise to maintain global connectivity in the presence of network outages within a direct provider Autonomous System (AS) without adding any global forwarding overhead. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ramki-multi6-nlmp-00.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. 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-ramki-multi6-nlmp-00.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-ramki-multi6-nlmp-00.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-ramki-multi6-nlmp-00.txt

1 0

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

Re: Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy forInternet Exchange Points
by Gert Doering 04 Sep '01

04 Sep '01

Hi, On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 09:47:39AM -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > 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. 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: Interim Policy proposal for IPv6 Address Assignment Policy forInternet Exchange Points
by Randy Bush 04 Sep '01

04 Sep '01

> 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

1 0