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

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] [announce] GRH Distributed Looking Glass
by Jeroen Massar 07 Mar '03

07 Mar '03

As the Ghost Route Hunter tool (*1) is already collecting BGP data we've added a Looking Glass (*2) allowing a direct view into all the participating AS's at one glance. This has the advantages of easy comparison and thus troubleshouting. The output of the different project participants is all the same even though they are currently using Juniper's, Cisco's and Zebra routers. New participants can signup (*3) for the GRH project, ofcourse the ultimate goal is a stable internet and having many views helps a lot. I hereby also want to thank the people and companies giving tips and the ones participating in the project. On another note we've also setup an IPv6 News site (*4) where one can submit IPv6 'news' stories. It's backed up by a forum so that a discussion about the topic is possible. Submissions to the site can be made using an email to info(a)sixxs.net or by posting in the relevant forum. If the topic is 'newsy' enough it will be marked as interresting and it will automatically pop up on the main pages. Ofcourse don't hesitate to mail when in doubt. Greets, Jeroen *1: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ *2: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/lg/ *3: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/signup/ *4: http://ipv6gate.sixxs.net/

1 0

RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Cross posting
by Michel Py 06 Mar '03

06 Mar '03

> David Kessens wrote: > This is request to keep the current discussions regarding > ipv6 on the appropriate list and not to cross post to both > the ipv6 and lir working group lists: > - ipv6-wg > Technical discussions regarding the deployment of ipv6 in > the RIPE region > - lir-wg > policy discussion list including ipv6 allocation policies Agree. Anyway, half of this was a discussion about multihoming that I have heard 10 times already and that has always ended up in the same place: nowhere. If one wants to discuss the topic, one should type "ipv6 multihoming" in the search window of any reputable search engine and go where it's actually happening. Michel.

2 1

Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [lir-wg] IXP networks routing
by Randy Bush 06 Mar '03

06 Mar '03

> See mail to Gert, what worries me is that the IX services then are > locked with the upstreams routing policy. not exactly. the NON-IX services which the IXP choses to also offer have the same circumstances as any other service provider. such is life. randy

2 1

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 PPPoE
by Gert Doering 06 Mar '03

06 Mar '03

Hi, On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 09:46:13AM +0100, Jan Czmok wrote: > Side question: do a PPPoE exist for IPv6 ? Client side: yes, of course. Linux and BSD pppoe can do it, and "most recent" Cisco IOSes can do that as well. We have a couple of PPPoE DSL customers that use IPv6. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57021 (57147) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299

3 3

Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [lir-wg] IXP networks routing
by Carlos Friacas 06 Mar '03

06 Mar '03

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > > I know that this has surfaced on the last RIPE meeting already, but I > > still > > think that a TLD name server is in no way special - it's IP address can > > be resolved by querying the root, so it doesn't need to have a fixed IP > > address "forever". If the address changes (which of course should not > > happen every couple of weeks) change the glue record in the root, and > > that's it. > > Although I agree with you, reality is not always that simple. An > advantage with locating a TLD DNS server at a IX point is that you have > a easy way to get access to a large amount of carriers. We for example > get transit from all members. If we today are to provide IPv6 > connectivity, we are using the IPv6 space of our upstream provider. > This forces us to rely on their routing policies, which might not be > good from a "best for the Internet" view. > > This said, the reason why we are having this debate at all is the fact > that we don't have a PI mechanism, that said the reason we do not have > a PI mechanism is the fact that IPv6 does not solve some of the largest > problems on the Internet today. But that is a different discussion and > I getting enough mail on other lists...:) > > So - yes I agree with you, however this might lead to other unwanted > problems. This is why i said earlier i dont mind having a second "special case" on ccTLDs (being IXPs the first). Im seeing the "ok, then lets go to PI on v6 also" statement/resolution at the end of the tunnel -- and i dont really like it! :-) Making a "concession" on ccTLDs (giving them /48s) doesnt enable *any* company wanting PI to get such space. Because ccTLD management is well-known and it exists in a *limited* fashion. Regards, ./Carlos "Networking is fun!" -------------- [http://www.ip6.fccn.pt] 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

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [lir-wg] IXP networks routing
by Gert Doering 06 Mar '03

06 Mar '03

Hi, On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 10:08:11AM +0100, Jan Czmok wrote: > > >If you want PI space for your IXP to run services in, you can join the > > >long list of people that would like to have PI space in IPv6, which is > > >simply not possible at this point in time. > > I would not rather call it PI space.. why not defining and using > IXP-space (with cooperation from the RIR (like RIPE/APNIC/ARIN etc.) We *have* IXP-space. There are special rules to get it, and it's not guaranteed to be routeable, which is clearly written into the policy. What people are asking for is *PI* - "get me space that is not tied to any specific ISP but that nevertheless can be routed over any of them". Currently there is no PI in IPv6, and many think that this is a good thing. [..] > Come on. Calm down. Think! Ripe is surely educated enough to > differentiate between a Enterprise, ISP or IXP. Can you *define* what is an IXP? In a way that an enterprise aiming for PI space can't cheat and match that definition? I cannot. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57021 (57147) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299

10 22

RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [lir-wg] IXP networks routing
by Michel Py 06 Mar '03

06 Mar '03

> Gert Doering wrote: > [text removed as discussion does not belong here] For the record, I actually agree with Gert's posting on this topic. Michel.

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Cross posting
by David Kessens 06 Mar '03

06 Mar '03

This is request to keep the current discussions regarding ipv6 on the appropriate list and not to cross post to both the ipv6 and lir working group lists: - ipv6-wg Technical discussions regarding the deployment of ipv6 in the RIPE region - lir-wg policy discussion list including ipv6 allocation policies Thanks, David K. ipv6 working group chair person ---

2 1

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] DNS servers
by BEGIN, Thomas 05 Mar '03

05 Mar '03

HI, I'm wondering what's the way for specifying to a host DNS server's addresses. I mean are these addresses necessary (from DNS servers) stocked in each individual host (as it used to be for IPv4)? or is there a way to give this information to routers ? I came to this question after reading the cisco's documentation about IPv6 commands (http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/12…) which specifies about giving to routers DNS server's addresses. Thanks Thomas

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] DNS servers
by BEGIN, Thomas 05 Mar '03

05 Mar '03

HI, I'm wondering what's the way for specifying to a host DNS server's addresses. I mean are these addresses necessary (from DNS servers) stocked in each individual host (as it used to be for IPv4)? or is there a way to give this information to routers ? I came to this question after reading the cisco's documentation about IPv6 commands (http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/12…) which specifies about giving to routers DNS server's addresses.

1 0