November 2002 - ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Action points from the RIPE 43 meeting
by Andrei Robachevsky 03 Jan '03

03 Jan '03

Dear Colleagues, Please find below a report regarding the status of the action point from the RIPE 43 ipv6-wg meeting. Regards, Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC E. IPv6 capable RR DNS servers ============================== RIPE NCC will provide IPv6 access to the ns.ripe.net by the end of November. D. Action point 42.1: ===================== Investigate the CNAME and other solutions for v6-reverse delegation. This action point came up from the request for support a smooth transition from ip6.int to ip6.arpa. To be done in consistent manner this is being coordinated with other RIRs. Also a technical discussion is planned at the IETF-55 in November. We'll let the community know about the outcome of these discussions. F. Action point 42.2: ===================== Give an overview of 6-to-4 reverse delegation issues This issue requires coordination between the RIRs and is being discussed. More information can be available after the IETF-55 meeting in November.

8 23

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] posting privileges
by David Kessens 27 Nov '02

27 Nov '02

Hi, As you all know, something called Jim Fleming has been sending off-topic mails to our mailing list for a while. Earlier last month, I was intent on asking the RIPE NCC to revoke his posting privileges. However, after some private consultations, I decided not to ask for that just yet. Due to his continuous abuse on our mail list earlier this month, and no signs of diminishing activity on other RIPE maillists, I would like to propose that I ask the RIPE NCC to remove posting privileges for Jim Fleming. I plan to request this on Friday December 6 if I don't receive input from the community that this is not desirable. David K. ---

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] resolv problem
by Max Gargani 15 Nov '02

15 Nov '02

Hi all, maybe this is not the right place or maybe I wrong something but since RIPE NCC gave to my company the reverse delegation for the allocated /32 ip6.arpa, all protocols such ssh, ircd etc etc, can't resolve the addresses. >From named log I see ssh & co ask to resolve i.p.v.6.a.d.d.r.e.s.s.ip6.int but all RIRs allocations are ip6.arpa. Anyone with same problem? Thanks, Max

1 1

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [6bone] resolv problem
by Jeroen Massar 15 Nov '02

15 Nov '02

Max Gargani wrote: > Hi all, > > maybe this is not the right place or maybe I wrong something but since > RIPE NCC gave to my company the reverse delegation for the > allocated /32 ip6.arpa, all protocols such ssh, ircd etc etc, can't resolve the > addresses. > > From named log I see ssh & co ask to resolve > i.p.v.6.a.d.d.r.e.s.s.ip6.int but all RIRs allocations are ip6.arpa. You might start updating your resolver libraries to use ip6.arpa which now the defacto standard. Notez bien that only 6bone space (3ffe::/16) isn't delegated to ip6.arpa (yet). But that will likely be happing really soon now after some political issues are burried. Most _current_ resolver libraries will currently try: ip6.arpa. ip6.int. The second one only when the first one fails ofcourse. Thus you should at least make reverse entries in ip6.arpa and you could add ip6.int entries. Ask RIPE NCC to delegate either of them to your dnsservers if you want so. Greets, Jeroen

2 1

RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 TLAs for mobile operators
by Andreas.Schmid1＠swisscom.com 15 Nov '02

15 Nov '02

> > On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Arash Ashouriha wrote: > > A single terminal or mobile device should get /127 and not /64 ! > > /64 is for 1 network. If the customer need more than 1 > Network, he may get /48. > > Where did you get that idea? > > Please have a look at RFC3314 (Recommendations for IPv6 in Third > Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Standards) and RFC3177 > (IAB/IESG > Recommendations on IPv6 Address Allocations to Sites). RFC3314 says on page 14: "Because multiple IPv6 hosts may attach through a 3GPP handset, the IPv6 WG recommends that one or more /64 prefixes should be assigned to each primary PDP context." But I really don't want to concentrate on that discussion. I want to know if RIPE NCC accepts IPv6 TLA requests from mobile operators only having GPRS/UMTS/WLAN customers - and therefore not providing connectivity to organisations with a /48. -> if anybody can clarify this, I would be very happy! > > Of course, anyone can build the networks as they want, but > assigning /64's > to mobile customers is something that must be supported by RIR's. > > > > I am new to this list - hope I do not touch a topic that > has been discussed different times in here.... > > > > > > I wonder how mobile operators receive IPv6 address > allocations from RIPE NCC? The IPv6 policy paper > (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html) includes 4 conditions: > > > a) be an LIR; > > > b) not be an end site; > > > c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to > organisations to which it will assign /48s, by advertising > that connectivity through its single aggregated address > allocation; and > > > d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 > assignments to other organisations within two years. > > > > > > Mobile operators fulfill a) and b). But since mobile > operators will probably give /64 addresses to their users (a > single mobile terminal), they don't fulfill c) and d) - if > they are not a traditional ISP in parallel. > > > > > -> how does RIPE treat IPv6 TLA requests from pure mobile > operators? > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for any answer > > > Andreas > > > > > > PS: one might argue that the mobile operators will give a > /48 for each mobile terminal. But this would mean that a /32 > gives them only 65k mobile terminals to address! A large > mobile operator haveing more than 10 Mio customers would need > 2^24 addresses resulting in a /24! Is this what is intended > to be given to a mobile operator from RIPE? I don't think so.... > > > > > > > > -- > Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, > Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" > Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords > >

7 6

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Creating a route object in the database for IPv6: not possible yet?
by Stephane Bortzmeyer 12 Nov '02

12 Nov '02

I certainly missed something in the discussion but I cannot register a route object for my new sTLA. Apparently, the proposals described in <URL:http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/presentations/apricot0202-extending-r… /> were not implemented (the database keeps telling me ***Error: Syntax error in "afi inet6 2001:0910::/32" or "class invalid" if I try a route6 object). Is there a proper way to register route objects for IPv6? How people who built BGP filters from the database do?

2 2

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] New IPv6 block allocated to RIPE NCC
by Sabrina Wilmot 08 Nov '02

08 Nov '02

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2001:0A00::/23 from the IANA in November 2002. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found on our web site at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/smallest-alloc-sizes.html> Kind regards, Sabrina Wilmot -- o------------------------------------------o | Sabrina Wilmot 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

1 0

Re: 0:0 .ARPA...summary...Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Action points from the RIPE 43 meeting
by Jim Fleming 07 Nov '02

07 Nov '02

> > > We need to have reverse delegation for the 3FFE space, under ip6.arpa, > > > and this has to happen *now*, not "at some point far away to the > > > future when 6bone has ceased to exist and everybody is living peacefully > > > under the RIR's hoods". To summarize... 3FFE was supposed to be "experimental" but now it appears people want to change that... IPv6 is supposed to use A6 DNS RRs but now people appear to want to change that... .INT was supposed to be used by IPv6 but now people are demanding putting load on .ARPA servers... ...and of course, no one wants to pay for any of these demands...and the cost of the changes is viewed as non-important... ...and to really sum it up...the claim is made that the U.S. is not needed, yet the demands are sent to the U.S.

5 5

Re: 0:0 .ARPA...Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Action points from the RIPE 43 meeting
by Jim Fleming 07 Nov '02

07 Nov '02

----- Original Message ----- From: "Gert Doering" <gert(a)Space.Net> Subject: Re: 0:0 .ARPA...Re: [ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net] Action points from the RIPE 43 meeting > On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:55:13PM -0600, Jim Fleming wrote: > > If that is the case, then why do you need this *now* ? > > > We need to have reverse delegation for the 3FFE space, under ip6.arpa, > > > and this has to happen *now*, not "at some point far away to the > > > future when 6bone has ceased to exist and everybody is living peacefully > > > under the RIR's hoods". > > This is necessary to make reverse resolving with standard-compliant > programs work. > What happened to using the .INT TLD ?...for your IPv6 experiments.... Isn't 3FFE some sort of "experimental prefix" ? Why do you think experimental systems should be converted over-night (*now*) when production-grade operations have no time for that ?...or no one to apparently pay for it...

2 3

Re: 0:0 .ARPA...Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Action points from the RIPE 43 meeting
by Gert Doering 06 Nov '02

06 Nov '02

Hi, On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:55:13PM -0600, Jim Fleming wrote: > If that is the case, then why do you need this *now* ? > > We need to have reverse delegation for the 3FFE space, under ip6.arpa, > > and this has to happen *now*, not "at some point far away to the > > future when 6bone has ceased to exist and everybody is living peacefully > > under the RIR's hoods". This is necessary to make reverse resolving with standard-compliant programs work. This is completely unrelated to the location or number of root name servers. > Also, do you really think control of .ARPA will move outside of the U.S. ? Control of .ARPA is a completely unrelated topic, but if necessary, I'm sure it would be possible. > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > > At $168,000,000 per /8 per year, that is a nice revenue stream to have. > How can RIPE pay that ? I have no idea why you keep repeating those figures again and again, but as I have told you in a private mail already today: this is pure nonsense. The RIRs and ccTLDs do participate in IANA funding, but the amount of money is in no way related to the amount of address space issued. Straighten your facts, and stop spreading FUD. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48540 (48282) 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