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

Re: Getting addresses
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 25 Oct '02

25 Oct '02

Hi Rudolf! >I am new to these discussions on the list, so if I am saying something >stupid, please tell me so. Not at all! The worst thing that is happening here is that we re-iterate things. So what.... >>I don't have a point of view. A lot of people are telling me they will >>choose the /48 road. Without a detailed definition of site, almost >>everyone's view will have to be accepted. That's what I am seeing in all >>these discussions. > >That is what has been bothering me the most in the whole discussion about >who gets a /32 assignment and who doesn't. This is one thing that is so surprising for me in these discussions: There seems to be an implicit assumption that we SHOULD come up with all sorts of criteria to BLOCK distributing IPv6 addresses, rather than getting the technology rolled out :-(). As an aside, I still see IPv6 address space as a *global resource*, not something which a (roughly) self-defined group of entities partitions amongst them (tier-X ISPs). Becoming an LIR is possible for (almost) every type and shape and size of organisations (at least in the RIPE region) - but it is not for free. There are quite some good reasons for distributing globally unique IPv6 addresses to entities which would not fit the "classical" ISP (or even tier-X ISP) definition. And those amongst us who worry about end-to-restoration, making things simple(r), looking into the future, should recognize that there is no "rfc1918" space in v6-land. (Yes, I know about the site-local address concept. But why should we plant time-bombs ticking when there are plenty of those magic bit combinations around?). >Both the number of /48 >assignments as well as the determination of what an end-site is, are >completely arbitrary I agree. It's the same level of "arbitray-ness" that is wired into "200 sites", trying to define an ISP, and the like. It's better than nothing at all (i.e. no consensus) - at least for now. >and therefore in the long run unworkable. We'll see. We havent tried yet. And by the way, we have tried to define "ISP" in v4-land for years, and we failed. > Almost >everyone that is an LIR now, is able through one trick or another to >justify an allocation of a /32 Actually, this was the point of view that had emerged in the RIPE region during the Jan'02 meeting. "Every LIR should get an allocation" if they can document the need for 1 address. The "tricking" started to come into the game when we again tried to impose (artificial) criteria/ limits/ restrictions/... Btw, I still do remember the days (around '93) when a LIR was allowed to give away a /23 to every "site", no questions asked. And it didn't *break* the Internet, it made it *succeed*! In the end every policy is a compromise. Some of us don't like the version we do have on the table right now because we think it is too restrictive. Some of us dislike the thing because we perceive it as too liberal. Such is life. > and as Joao points out, the RIR's won't be >able to do anything against it. The RIRs should not act *against* "something"! They are supposed to execute a consensus, written down in a document and agreed by the community! It took a loong time, and many discussions, to arrive at the doc we do have on the table right now. And there are things in it which are "fuzzy". That was done deliberately, after trying (and failing) to come to more precise (and sometimes restrictive) definitions that would still be acceptable to all the 3(4) regions. On the other hand quite a few things were straightend out (like the exclusive reference to a /48 holder), and I'd really urge all of you to *completely read* the final doc. > And then I wonder if in the long run we >won't see a global routing mess, because many more organisations will be >able to register as LIR and justify a /32 in the same way. This is exactly >what the requirement for 200 potential sites tries to achieve, but fails to >do. Well, again one of those "assumptions" that this is bad :-) I still think that we can accommodate a *lot* of IPv6 routing with the slack from the (predicted) growth in v4 that did NOT happen in v4-land.... >The community should be able to come up with a better definition of who >should be allowed to get a /32 and who is condemned to go to an upstream >provider. This should be more objective than the current rule and not >result in the problems that we see now for RIR's and IXP's and smaller >NREN's and ISP's, . Welcome to the show. I hope you would be around to help when we have to re-work the thing to adapt it to the evolving Internet :-) Just one comment on the use of "smaller" here: we couldn't come up with a good set of criteria to define a "smaller" "whatever". What are the criteria? Real estate? Gigabit/sec? Terabit storage? number of contracts? number of web pages? annual turnover? annual profit (or loss :-)? The tier-1 ISP of yesterday is the chapter 11 case of today and a department of another ISP tomorrow. As I said during the discussion, (given the IETF recommendation) a SOHO customer of a "commercial" ISP s/would qualify for a site .eq. a /48. Probably a handful of physical subnets would be used. And it is easy to have a few hundred of those, eventually (probably). A university, or a regional edu-network could be structured alongside a single /48 as well. Such a "site" could happen to serve some 5000..10000 ..50000 users in quite some hundred physical subnets (LAN, ISDN, ADSL, wire-less). Which of those network would be the "smaller" one?? Is it really "cheating" if we start to treat a primary and secondary school as a site with their own /48? Or the other way 'round, why is the "commercial ISP" not treated as a site with *1* /48? I am stretching things here just a little bit, on purpose... >I think we can evade a global routing slump if we allow the RIR's to >continue the excellent work they have done in the last couple of years. >They have conserved adresses well. In one of the doc.s there is that famous statement that conservation and routing aggregation can, or tend to, be conflicting goals. >But we should provide them with adequate >rules to work with, so that they can aggregate well in the IPv6 future too. > >>The problem is the lack of arguments for an RIR on what is the right thing >>to do. >> >>Joao > >Let us provide them with the right arguments to do the right thing. Fair enough, but - >Maybe we should take that discussion back to the global v6 list. wouldn't it be prudent to try to *implement* the new policy, learn by doing so, and *then* go back to the drafting table?! I do not believe anybody claiming that we/he/she can find out *now* what the best solution is in a few year's time. The 'net is constantly evolving.... >Greetings, > >Rudolf van der Berg >Dutch German Internet Exchange >http://www.ndix.net OK, I think I'll leave it at that for this discussion :-) Thanks for your good questions and observations! Cheers, 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

5 4

v6 Countries...
by Carlos Friacas 12 Sep '02

12 Sep '02

David, .DO is the Dominican Republic (on the caribeean). I've been disappointed with the 58 figure... and im not sure if some of these 58 have real users... some less-developed countries resources are being run on europe or states. Can you detail a bit more how is this count being done? UN has 190 members, there is yet a long, long, long (...) path to go... Thanks in advance, ./Carlos "Networking is fun!" -------------- [http://www6.ip6.fccn.pt, IPv6 only] http://www.fccn.pt <cfriacas(a)fccn.pt>, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax: +351 218472167

5 7

Renater & G6 - Conférence IPv6 2002 - Paris
by Bernard Tuy 12 Sep '02

12 Sep '02

Dears, For an unknown reason I was noticed this information didn't spread out though I sent it at the end of the IPv6 wg meeting yesterday. Anyway, here it is again. See you soon in Paris then ... Cheers. +Bernard Tuy. info on the conference at *http://www.renater.fr/IPv6-2002/

1 0

M6Bone : IPv6 Multicast Service
by Bernard Tuy 11 Sep '02

11 Sep '02

As asked by the IPv6 wg chair, please find the URL of the M6bone project deploying IPv6 multicast network and currently exchanging data over videoconferncing tools You can also join the mailing list as described in these pages. Enjoy, +Bernard T. --- http://sem2.renater.fr/m6bone/

1 0

Re: draft agenda (v2) RIPE43
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 10 Sep '02

10 Sep '02

>> Isnt this proposed topic of the kind: >> "See? no traffic, we should shut down IPv6!!! Nobody is using it!!!" >> or >> "Bahhhh, i was right... IPv6 is worthless..." Those who support that point of view would do so anyway, either backed by real data or by data made up on the fly :-) >no. it is wanting baseline measurement. e.g. apnic is tracking >hits on ip6.int service. > >five years from now, we will wish we have such data. > >randy Randy, I agree. Nevertheless a brief summary on projects (looking at quality instead of sheer "volume") would still be interesting, I guess. Wilfried. PS: David, I can bring a few minutes' worth of snap-shot info for our sandbox.

6 6

Agenda RIPE43
by David Kessens 06 Sep '02

06 Sep '02

Hi, Below follows the agenda for the ipv6 wg. Please note that after discussion between me and the working group chairs of the lir working group, we decided to move the topic of '6Bone Address Allocation and Registration Transition' to the lir working group. Also, you are all invited to the ipv6 tutorial which has been scheduled on monday. See my earlier mail for more details. Thanks & I hope to see you all in Rhodes! David K. --- Agenda for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE43 September 11, 2002, 14:00 - 17:30, Rhodes, Greece 1st slot A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Status of the 6bone (David Kessens) C. IPv6 version of TTM (Henk Uijterwaal) D. Action point 42.1: Investigate the CNAME and other solutions for v6-reverse delegation (RIPE NCC) E. IPv6 capable RR DNS servers - what is needed, what are the issues ?!? (RIPE NCC) F. Action point 42.2: Give an overview of 6-to-4 reverse delegation issues at RIPE 43 (RIPE NCC) G. Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering) Coffee break 15:30 - 16:00 H. Report(s) about *actual* v6 traffic volume as compared to v4? what's *real* out there, not what's on powerpoint? - baseline measurement for ipv6.int queries (Terry Manderson, APNIC) - some snap-shot info (Wilfried Woeber) - more reports are welcome! we will also have a discussion whether we can do something as a working group in this area I. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience) Z. AOB ---

1 0