February 2003 - ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Reverse delegation for 6bone address space in ip6.arpa
by Andrei Robachevsky 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

Dear Colleagues, In accordance with RFC 3152, the administration of the name space within ip6.arpa has been delegated to the RIRs. The 3FFE::/16 address space has not yet been allocated to the RIRs by the IANA. It is the intention that the RIRs administer this space. The community has expressed a need for 3FFE reverse space to be in the ip6.arpa domain. The RIR CEOs sent a message to the IAB requesting a waiver regarding the RFC 3152 requirement and received a positive response. The RIRs are prepared to administer e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa domain in the manner as described below. We plan to implement it in the next few weeks and deliver the solution soon after the RIPE 44 Meeting in January. Regards, Andrei Robachevsky CTO, RIPE NCC Support for reverse delegation for 6bone address space in ip6.arpa DNS tree --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phase I. Before a final decision is made on future management of the 3FFE address space The delegation for e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa is made by IANA to one of the RIRs. Zone information for this space is produced by copying the existing delegations in the e.f.f.3.ip6.int zone. Additional check is done to ensure that the servers corresponding to the NS RR are also authoritative in .arpa space. Zone information is updated whenever changes are detected in the e.f.f.3.ip6.int zone. This approach has a couple of advantages. It keeps the RIRs out of the 6bone registration process until a final decision is made on future management of the 3FFE address space. It also implies no procedural changes from a user's perspective since changes are made in only one place, while at the same time it moves responsibility for maintaining the e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa zone to the RIRs. This then prepares for a smoother transition to Phase II. The main constraint of this approach is that it forces registrants to use the same name servers for .arpa as for .int. Phase II. Registration of 3FFE space is transferred to the RIRs A shared zone management process will be implemented similar to that currently implemented by the RIRs for the legacy v4 space (ERX project, http://www.ripe.net/db/erx/) That is, holders of 6bone address space will be served for reverse delegation by the respective RIR in their region, and the generation of the e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa zone can be entirely automated using zone merging.

2 2

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IXP networks routing
by Nicolas DEFFAYET 04 Mar '03

04 Mar '03

Hello, We hesitate to allow IXP's /48 in our routing table. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policy-ixp.html => "Networks assigned under this policy may not be globally routable." What's the best practice ? Thanks Best Regards, -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NDSoftware NOC: http://noc.ndsoftwarenet.com/ FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/ EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/

11 15

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [lir-wg] IXP networks routing
by Kurt Erik Lindqvist 27 Feb '03

27 Feb '03

> The standard allocation size as per common practice at this point is > either > /64 or /48. More types of sizes are being debated all the time, but to > this > day, no other sizes have been established. A /64 might be too small for > IXPs with more than one peering mesh, so the next step up is /48. Per the previous thread here a /64 would be for a very small IX.... - kurtis -

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [lir-wg] IXP networks routing
by Randy Bush 26 Feb '03

26 Feb '03

> as an IXP-Operator I would like to comment this in three ways: > > 1. Requesting an Address-space be it v4 or v6 for an IXP-Infrastructure > and not making it globally reachable somehow misses the point. It should > be clearly reachable - ideally through *all* connected peers of the > infrastructure. (they certainly can decide on the security for these > destinations) > ... <http://psg.com/~randy/970210.nanog/sld008.htm> randy

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: Reverse delegation for 6bone address space in ip6.arpa
by Axel Pawlik 20 Feb '03

20 Feb '03

Petr, all, over the last months, the RIRs have developed a reasonably pragmatic procedure to basically mirror the reverse delegation entries under ip6.int into ip6.arpa. Today, we have a working prototype implementing this approach. Unfortunately, our proposal has not been received favourably by the current administrator of the 6bone reverse delegations. To satisfy the needs of our members, however, we are now discussing another way to provide this functionality in a different way, building on the experiences we have made during the Early Registrations Transfer (ERX) Project. We will coordinate this closely with the other RIRs during next week's APNIC meeting; we are obviously also keeping an eye on the 6bone developements as regards the registry transfer and phaseout proposals. Expect a progress report after that. regards, Axel

3 3

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] network's architecture under IPv6
by BEGIN, Thomas 20 Feb '03

20 Feb '03

Hello to all, I am wondering on IPv6 impacts over a company network's architecture. I mean, a big IPv4 network has to be divided in several VLANs in order to lighten the available bandwidth (sometimes for security reasons but it is not my interest in this case). And this because broadcast messages are received and examined by all network adapter. Thus comes my question: As there is no more broadcast messages but only multicast messages in IPv6, is there still a need to divide a big network in smaller networks (VLANs) ? Thanks Thomas BEGIN

2 1

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] network's architecture under IPv6
by BEGIN, Thomas 20 Feb '03

20 Feb '03

Hello to all, I am wondering on IPv6 impacts over a company network's architecture. I mean, a big IPv4 network has to be divided in several VLANs in order to lighten the available bandwidth (sometimes for security reasons but it is not my interest in this case). And this because broadcast messages are received and examined by all network adapter. Thus comes my question: As there is no more broadcast messages but only multicast messages in IPv6, is there still a need to divide a big network in smaller networks (VLANs) ? Thanks Thomas BEGIN

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Second IPv6 deployment survey
by leo vegoda 20 Feb '03

20 Feb '03

Dear Colleagues, At the IPv6 WG session at RIPE 44 last month, the RIPE NCC was requested to conduct a second survey on IPv6 deployment. Information on the first IPv6 deployment survey conducted by the RIPE NCC is available at: <http://www.ripe.net/ipv6/ipv6-survey-summary.html> <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-42/presentations/ripe 42-ipv6-survey/index.html> In the last survey we contacted LIRs that had received IPv6 allocations. To help develop the structure of the second survey, we would like community input on the following issues: 1. Should the survey be restricted to RIPE NCC members? 2. Should the survey be restricted to those holding IPv6 address space? 3. If the answer to 2 is "yes", should those networks have had the address space for any particular length of time? We would also appreciate comments on issues that are important to the IPv6 community with regards to IPv6 deployment. We look forward to your input. Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services

2 1

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] New IPv6 block allocated to RIPE NCC
by leo vegoda 17 Feb '03

17 Feb '03

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2001:1400::/23 from the IANA in February 2003. 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, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services

2 1

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6, future internet, hierarchy
by Andrius Kasparavicius 14 Feb '03

14 Feb '03

Hello, what I should think about when I allocate IPv6? :-) Just like IPv4 subnets for needed IP devices, the same but multipled(how much?) for future hierarchy, divide all I have for all who need(best hierarchy). Divide geographically, by organisations, people population for best hierarchy all v6? I look ahead, hierarchy.. a lot of IPv6. Hmm.. And at the end, would I be bad if I will use /127 for point-to-point(tunnels). respectfully, Andrius

7 29