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

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: [6bone] RIPE and IPv6 ASN
by Weinberger Andreas 04 Nov '02

04 Nov '02

hi nicolas, hi 6bone ml and ripe stuff, > Hello, [snipp] > Very stupid reply, for do BGP peering, request a pTLA to > 6bone and peer > on FNIX6, we need a public ASN. > > There isn't IPv6 documentation for ASN on > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6.html > > => How get an ASN for our new IPv6 network ? > (we don't want do IPv4 network) well, - is ndsoftware a multihomes isp? - is ndsoftware a ripe member? - does ndsoftware has a lir status? - does ndsoftware have production, 2001:: ipv6 space? i dont know why you are crying around, but it seems that ndsoftware isnt any kind of an isp. and for just playing around with ipv6 (3ffe::) there is no reason for a public asn. use your current private asn. its enough. > Thanks > > Best Regards, > > Nicolas DEFFAYET my 2 (euro) cents, bye, :::: :: andreas 'randy' weinberger :: networking group :: ebv elektronik gmbh&co. kg :: mail: a.weinberger(a)ebv.com :: phone: +49 (0)8121 774-508

5 4