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

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] reverse, whois..
by Andrius Kasparavicius 26 Jun '03

26 Jun '03

hi, why there is no "nameserver" records in inet6num? Also it would be useful to have reverse zones on ftp.ripe.net, like in-addr now is. Also, maybe could someone explain why dig -x 2001:778:: NS doesn't work? Is it my fault? best regards, Andrius

13 24

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Florian Frotzler's master thesis
by Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) 27 May '03

27 May '03

Dear All, In my talks in Barcelona on "first results of the IPv6 version of TTM", I referred to Florian Frotzler's master thesis. This document is now on the web at: http://www.ripe.net/ttm/Documents/Various/ffrotzler.pdf Kind regards, Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(a)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Fw: Help setting ipv6 address on my machine with two ethernet cards
by mario 26 May '03

26 May '03

> i've two ethernet card on two host and i'm not able to set ipv6 address on > both ethernet card. > how can i do? > > question : > the device name of ethernet card for ipv6 is sit0 sit1 sit2 etc etc??? > > if not, how can i set ipv6 address for every interface that i have? >

2 1

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Discussion about RIPE-261
by Gert Doering 23 May '03

23 May '03

Hi, those of you that have been to Barcelona have heard the presentation by Paul Wilson from APNIC concerning the RIPE-261 document. In short, it's a proposal how to reorganize distributing IPv6 allocations "from the root" to the LIRs, fixing the way it's done now (ICANN allocating /23 fragments to the RIRs, and the RIRs having to fill them quite thoroughly, not leaving space for an ISP to grow past a /29). Technically, this is a matter between the RIRs and ICANN, but as this proposal affects routing and filtering as well, it would be useful to have consensus among the members that it's a good thing. So: please read the document (ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-261.txt) and comment on it. Note: this e-mail goes to ipv6-wg and lir-wg, but please don't followup to ipv6-wg - keep all of the discussion in the lir-wg mailing list. Speaking as "me personally" (this is not the official WG chair speaking here, just a concerned IPv6 user!), I have the following comments: - The /23 allocations ICANN -> RIRs are bad, because they lead to address space fragmentation, and the blocks are too small to do useful allocation towards the LIRs. Something NEEDS to be changed here. - Nevertheless, I do NOT like the idea of a "common address pool". People want to be able to see the "region" that a prefix is coming from by looking at the address. This is working fine now in v4 (except for the swamp and part of ERX) and in the so-far IPv6 allocations (except that due to the /23s it's getting messy), but would be broken by the CAP. - As a technical reason: people want to be able to filter IPv6 prefixes by region, like "I only have one uplink that provides me with US connectivity, so there's no need to carry any US prefixes in my routing table, I just point a summary down that line". This is not yet done, but I am convinced that we shouldn't break routing hierarchy without good need. - If people *really* go into "multiple /48s per site" multihoming, source address selection works by doing a longest-match check, and this will work better if same-region addresses have something like a common prefix, instead of "everythins smeared everywhere". So my personal recommendation would be: - change the /23 allocation boundary ICANN -> RIR to something more useful, like a /12 or so (a /12 means "512 of them are available, so we're not yet burning bridges - but a /8 would work as well. A /16 is already somewhat tight). - every RIR still gets its own allocation from where RIR->LIR allocations are taken - inside that RIR allocation, use the binary chop algorithm described in RIPE-261 for the RIR->LIR distribution. So - let the discussion start now! Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54837 (54495) 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

Re: [6bone] RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Update on IPv6 filter recommendation
by Gert Doering 23 May '03

23 May '03

Hi, On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 09:27:04PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > LACNIC has allocated to /32s, as far as I can see. One is already > > visible (2001:1200::/32). > > Grmbl, those don't show up in http://www.ripe.net/ipv6/ipv6allocs.html > :( No (database mirroring issue). RIPE people know about it and are working on it. > Okay going to fix up the bogon filter so I will at least catch them on > sight. :) > http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/lacnic/ : > 2001:1200::/32 - 2002-12-19 - visible > 2001:1208::/32 - 2003-02-03 - not visible Yup :) > http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/ now reads: > 8<----------------------------- > Prefix Length distribution > The following prefixlengths are delegated by the above RIR's. > > 58x /24 > 56x /28 > 336x /32 > 50x /35 > Totaling in 500 TLA prefixes. > ------------------------------>8 > > 500 TLA's over 54 countries! Oh, wow. Very impressive, this! Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54495 (54267) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299

8 18

RE: [6bone] RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Update on IPv6 filter recommendation
by Michel Py 22 May '03

22 May '03

> Kimmo Suominen wrote: > I've used IPv4 space in the past to connect to extranet > providers using unique addresses, without connecting to the > Internet. Is such use not allowed in the IPv6 world? One > must promise to advertise the addresses to the Internet to > get an allocation? Although this is blurry (no explicit requirement) we can say that as of today, yes. But the space LIRs get is big enough to provide both Internet and extranet services. I don't see any extranet-only provider getting address space now though, and for multiple reasons. > Gert Doering wrote: > I wouldn't go so far as to say "it's not allowed". Me neither. Actually, I don't see why it should be forbidden, as long as one obtains the address space, which is the issue here. > When the policy was made, people were still suggesting the use > of site-local addresses for "non-global" usage. Site-locals > seem to be dead, so there is a hole in the policies right now. > Passing on the question from the registry point of view to the > IETF people (Michael & co): what are your recommendations how > this can be addressed (in the double sense)? [disclaimer: I do not represent the views of the IETF] This is a complex answer. First, let's not leave site-locals for dead yet. Technically, we do have site-locals using the "full usage" model, as defined by RFC 3513 that was just published. The current situation is that there is a "consensus" to deprecate them, which has pissed so many people that appeals are lined up for the next 2 years already (take-a-number if you want to appeal). There is no actual text to remove site-locals and it is expected that any text that would attempt to do that will be stalled and never go forward. In short: technically speaking we currently do have site-locals with an RFC in the standards track and I don't expect any change any time soon. That being said, the reason we got into this deadlock is that site-locals as currently defined do not please many people. If there is change in leadership within the IETF and work on site-locals is resumed (instead of trying to get "my way or no way") it is expected that site-locals will be restricted to a model that prohibits communication between sites. So, in any case I would not use site-locals for communication between sites. There are ideas floating around to make them globally unique, but this is for the purpose of avoiding renumbering when merging sites and not to provide site-to-site communication. Global addresses are required for that purpose, whether or not they are publicly routed or not. There are several proposals to provide PI-like addresses that are moving forward though. Michel.

3 2

RE: [6bone] RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Update on IPv6 filter recommendation
by Michel Py 19 May '03

19 May '03

Folks, What is the word about an IPv6 bogon route server? The cymru one has only IPv4 for the time being. Jeroen or Gert, are you planning on something like this? Michel. > Jeroen Massar wrote: > *whisper in ear* not after tonight when the bogon reporting > gets active :)

3 2

RE: [6bone] RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Update on IPv6 filter recommendation
by Michel Py 19 May '03

19 May '03

Christian, > Christian Kuhtz wrote: > Why not ask Rob Thomas do the same for IPv6? I did and I know he's working on it. > We don't need to reinvent the wheel and have multiple > sources for this stuff. I'm not sure about that. - I like redundancy. - The IPv6 situation is quite different than the IPv4. In IPv4, the bogon list is constructed by taking out what is not allocated. In IPv6, this would not be enough as there are so many huge holes in allocated space that hijacking applies both to allocated and unallocated. - Therefore, things such as what Jeroen does which is a live analysis of the actual routing table have value. One can argue that the name for this would be a real-time blackholing table and not a bogon list, but nevertheless a route-server for these would be welcomed. Jeroen please correct me if I'm wrong but what you call a bogon is a route that you have actually seen in the GRT and that has no business there? So, I don't see any re-inventing of the wheel here. It is clear that Rob's IPv6 bogon list would include 4000::/4 and FE80::/10 among other things, but a more dynamic blocking such as what Jeroen could do would be welcomed too. Michel.

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Help: Cannot assign requested address?
by Warodom Werapun 19 May '03

19 May '03

Why I got error message "Cannot assign requested address"? Tested on Linux Redhat 8.0, Kernel 2.4.20. [root@MN sysconfig]# ifconfig eth1 | grep inet6 inet6 addr: 3ffe:b80:1e99:2::2/64 Scope:Global inet6 addr: fe80::2e0:29ff:fe79:ff5/10 Scope:Link [root@MN sysconfig]# ping6 -I eth1 fe80::2e0:29ff:fe79:ff5 ping: bind icmp socket: Cannot assign requested address [root@MN sysconfig]# ping6 3ffe:b80:1e99:2::2 connect: Cannot assign requested address [root@MN sysconfig]# ping6 -I eth1 3ffe:b80:1e99:2::2 connect: Cannot assign requested address Thank you for reply - Warodom Werapun

1 0

RE: [6bone] RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Update on IPv6 filter recommendation
by Michel Py 19 May '03

19 May '03

Carlos, > Carlos Morgado wrote: > Yes, that is indeed one scenario. But consider the extreme > case of an operator which only sells transits to multihomed > customers who already have their own address. Can you come with a real example? More, can you come up with a real example that has applied for space and has been denied the prefix? On paper, this is an issue but policies are not on planning on every possible hypothetical case. Michel.

2 1

RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Update on IPv6 filter recommendation
by Michel Py 19 May '03

19 May '03

Gert, > Gert Doering wrote: > I have just added an update to the "strict" filter list of > my IPv6 filter list recommendations on > http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html Thanks for the heads-up. Some comments: > ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 3ffe::/18 ge 24 le 24 > ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 3ffe:4000::/18 ge 32 le 32 > ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 3ffe:8000::/22 ge 28 le 28 This part is fine. > ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2001:500::/32 ge 48 le 48 It would be interesting to have more refinement here. What I mean is that I would be open to allow a /48 that contains a root server but not a /48 that serves an IXP. More details/specifics to what is inside 2001:500::/32 would be appreciated. > ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2001::/16 ge 35 le 35 I think this could be refined too. The range where /35s were originally allocated from is much smaller than 2001::/16. > ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2001::/16 ge 24 le 32 This could also be refined. Not all 2001::/16 has been delegated to RIRs. ARIN got a block, RIPE got a block, APNIC got a block, but there still is some undelegated space. The drawback of refining to that level is that it will inevitably induce a situation similar to 69/8 and will require maintenance, but the other side of that coin is that it would prevent people from hijacking prefixes from undelegated space. As an example and please correct me if wrong in the address I picked because it's all from memory, if I hijack and announce 2001:FEED::/32 that would pass your filter but this prefix can't be assigned to anybody now as it is not part of a larger block that has been delegated to a RIR, so it must be a hijack. Michel.

4 4

RE: [6bone] RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Update on IPv6 filter recomme ndation
by João Carlos Neves Cabral 16 May '03

16 May '03

On Fri, 16 May 2003, leo vegoda wrote: > Hank Nussbacher <hank(a)att.net.il> writes: > > [...] > > >What are the RIRs doing to reclaim all those "red" lines of allocations > >that have never once appeared in a routing table? I would say all > >assignments from before Jan 2002 and that have "never"in the "last > >seen" column are ripe for revocation.Question is, why hasn't this > >been done before and has this been discussed so far? > > Is there a policy requirement that IPv6 prefixes allocated by RIRs must > be routed on The Internet? I've not found it in the current "IPv6 > Address Allocation and Assignment Policy". :Is there such a requirement for IPv4 prefixes? If yes (and I would hope :so, otherwise why would anyone want RFC1918 addresses when one can get :"real" IPs), then I think the same should apply for IPv6 prefixes. Allow me to give my two cents on this one: I should think not! I'm not thinking in terms of announcing /32s on the Internet; if announcing a /32 on the Internet is a requirement, I can easily cope with it. But what about in terms of private versus globally reachable IPv6 addresses ? In IPv4 we need to be careful and save IP addresses because there aren't that many and hence, we use RFC1918. In IPv6 we no longer have that problem ... so why should anyone need to use private addresses unless for a really small guarenteed closed network (i.e. site i.e. site-local within the site only) ? My question is, how do RIRs look at a company or institution using a slice of its /32 for their internal not reachable from the Internet networks ? Is this acceptable usage of IPv6 addresses or do we need to all start using the same site-local addresses as we do for RFC1918 in our internal networks and end up with endless problems with address conflicts ? Back on the subject, I wouldn't be shocked if IPv6 /32s were assigned by RIRs to LIRs that need these addresses for uniqueness and yet, don't need for them to be announced on the Internet. regards, Joao. ---

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] 6BONE database entries for non-3FFE space?
by Pekka Savola 14 May '03

14 May '03

Hi, I'd like to hear what others have done with regard to this.. Currently, we only have the RIPE 2001:FOO::/32 space anymore. The assignments have been recorded in the RIPE database in the normal fashion, of course. (Of course, the situation is the same with ARIN/APNIC/.. space too, but just to take an example.) Have folks w/ production space kept the 6bone database http://www.viagenie.qc.ca/en/ipv6/registry/ and http://www.cs-ipv6.lancs.ac.uk/ipv6/6Bone/Whois/ up-to-date especially regard to assigned /48 sites? Or is there a rough consensus to let it rot in pieces for non-3FFE address space? -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

2 1

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Update on IPv6 filter recommendation
by Gert Doering 14 May '03

14 May '03

Hi, I have just added an update to the "strict" filter list of my IPv6 filter list recommendations on http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html The new thing is that inside 2001:500::/29, the "strict" list is now permitting /48s. This is because 2001:500:: is used for ARIN microallocations, and /48s are the "normal" allocation boundary in there. Two networks are already announced from within that block, 2001:500::/48 and 2001:500:1::/48, and some ISPs promtly can't reach them due to too tight filtering. So if you filter very strictly, please adapt your filters for that block. (Thanks to Carlos Friacas for pointing that out to me). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54495 (54267) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299

7 10

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Webcast RIPE 45 Announcement
by RIPE NCC Meeting Registration 13 May '03

13 May '03

Dear Colleages, Please note that several sessions at RIPE 45 are being webcast. These sessions include the following: - - EOF - - Routing Working Group - - LIR Working Group - - Tools Working Group - - The RIPE NCC Services BoF - - IPv6 Working Group - - Database Working Group - - Plenary To see the meeting in real time, please use one of the following URLs. As we have limited bandwith to the meeting venue, we ask that you choose a server that is physically closer to you: - - RIPE Meeting Attendees only: mms://webcast.ripemtg.ripe.net/ripemtg - - Spain Mirror: mms://media.rediris.es/ripelive - - Portugal Mirror: mms://wms.fccn.pt/ripelive - - Italy Mirror: mms://stream1-wg.cineca.it/ripelive - - Denmark Mirror: mms://wmslave.fsknet.dk/ripelive - - Czech Republic Mirror: mms://server1.streaming.cesnet.cz/ripemtg - - United Kingdom Mirror: mms://ccs-web2k.brynmill.swan.ac.uk/ripelive - - Netherlands Mirror: mms://stream-ripe.wind.surfnet.nl/ripelive - - Amsterdam Mirror (RIPE NCC Office): mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripemtg Please note that the webcastings are technical trials only and the broadcasts should not be regarded as an official implementation of a webcasting service. More information on the webcastings with detailed instructions can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-45/webcast.html We welcome your feedback on these trials. Please send your comments to <ripecast(a)ripe.net>. Regards, RIPE Meeting Coordination Team

5 4

RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Webcast RIPE 45 Announcement
by matthew.ford＠bt.com 13 May '03

13 May '03

Could whoever is operating the camera please drink less coffee..... just point the thing at the screen and be done with it .... I'm getting motion sickness ;-) Mat -----Original Message----- From: RIPE NCC Meeting Registration [mailto:meeting@ripe.net] Sent: Tue 13/05/2003 14:50 To: local-ir(a)ripe.net; ripe-list(a)ripe.net; ripecast(a)ripe.net; lir-wg(a)ripe.net; routing-wg(a)ripe.net; db-wg(a)ripe.net; ipmt-dev(a)ripe.net; ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Cc: meeting(a)ripe.net Subject: [ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net] Webcast RIPE 45 Announcement Dear Colleages, Please note that several sessions at RIPE 45 are being webcast. These sessions include the following: - - EOF - - Routing Working Group - - LIR Working Group - - Tools Working Group - - The RIPE NCC Services BoF - - IPv6 Working Group - - Database Working Group - - Plenary To see the meeting in real time, please use one of the following URLs. As we have limited bandwith to the meeting venue, we ask that you choose a server that is physically closer to you: - - RIPE Meeting Attendees only: mms://webcast.ripemtg.ripe.net/ripemtg - - Spain Mirror: mms://media.rediris.es/ripelive - - Portugal Mirror: mms://wms.fccn.pt/ripelive - - Italy Mirror: mms://stream1-wg.cineca.it/ripelive - - Denmark Mirror: mms://wmslave.fsknet.dk/ripelive - - Czech Republic Mirror: mms://server1.streaming.cesnet.cz/ripemtg - - United Kingdom Mirror: mms://ccs-web2k.brynmill.swan.ac.uk/ripelive - - Netherlands Mirror: mms://stream-ripe.wind.surfnet.nl/ripelive - - Amsterdam Mirror (RIPE NCC Office): mms://webcast.ripe.net/ripemtg Please note that the webcastings are technical trials only and the broadcasts should not be regarded as an official implementation of a webcasting service. More information on the webcastings with detailed instructions can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-45/webcast.html We welcome your feedback on these trials. Please send your comments to <ripecast(a)ripe.net>. Regards, RIPE Meeting Coordination Team

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] unsubscribe
by Carlo Van Wordragen 13 May '03

13 May '03

unscubscribe c.v.wordragen(a)aranea.nl

1 0

RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Update on IPv6 filter recommendation
by Michel Py 13 May '03

13 May '03

> Gert Doering wrote: > Micro-Allocations are *bad*. If they end up in the Global Routing Table, yes they are. > I can see two exceptions that can be clearly defined and are > really "exceptionable enough" (and not "just convenient") - > that's IXPs, and root name servers. We have policies for > those. Root name servers, no doubt. For IXPs, I do understand and support the need for micro-allocations but I am not convinced that they need to be announced in the GRT. > All other Micro-Allocations boil down to inventing PI > in one region only. Thank you. Michel.

1 0

RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Update on IPv6 filter recommendation
by Michel Py 12 May '03

12 May '03

> Pekka Savola wrote: > There is a danger that this uncoordinated madness will spread. Indeed it _is_ spreading already. I get a bunch of /64s, /48s, any kind of prefix if you can name it I get it already from some peering in North America when I drop my filters. > There has been a proposal to extend the microallocation policy, > but luckily enough it has been shot down. Fortunately it has although we can expect that there will be more tries. I will stay on the line of filtering anything that has not been approved by all 4 RIRs (LATNIC is live I hear). Michel.

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Draft minutes (v1) RIPE 44
by David Kessens 08 May '03

08 May '03

Hi, Please see below for the draft minutes of the ipv6 working goup at last RIPE meeting. The minutes will be declared final if I don't receive major objections by friday May 23 2003. I hope this helps, David K. --- Draft minutes (v1) IPv6 working RIPE 44 Meeting: IPv6 Working Group - RIPE 44 Date: Wednesday, 29 January, 2003 Time: 2pm - 4pm Chair: David Kessens (DK) Scribe: Timothy Lowe Webcast: rtsp://webcast.ripe.net:7070/Archive/ipv6-1.rm A. Administrative stuff - Agenda bashing Agenda available at: http://www.kessens.com/~david/presentations/ - No new agenda updates were proposed B. IPv6 version of TTM - Henk Uijterwaal http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-44/ presentations/ripe44-ipv6-ttm/ - No questions or comments were made C. Presentation - IPv6 whois proxy - Shane Kerr (SK) http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-44/ presentations/ripe44-ipv6-v6wpd/ Gert Dvring (GD): Will IPv6 be integrated into the main whois server, not just on the proxy server? SK: Those are our future plans but their some issues including security issues that need to be worked out first. DK: Don't put all your efforts into proxies. SK: We won't. D. IPv6 state of the art in the Italian educational and research community. - Gabriella Paolini (GP) Francis Dupont: Don't use /126 for point to point links GP: It avoids unnecessary waste. Speaker: (Did not use microphone) It includes loopback and network so it is DK: We can come up with a best current practice document on numbering v6 networks as an agenda point for next time. E. Global IPv6 routing table status - Gert Dvring (GD) Bernard Tuy (BT): Improving routing is something we should be working on. GD: Yes maybe a best current practice document. BT: Do we want a guideline document? GD: It would be useful DK: There is a 6bone document that describes this. BT: I want a RIPE document on this and volunteer to write one DK: Action on Bernard to co-ordinate for a routing document. Philip Smith (PFS): Would an IPv6 CIDR Report be useful? DK: Yes PFS: Fine, then Geoff and I will get on that. PFS: We provide transit to anyone at all right now. We want to change this we can discuss this later. DK: I am also encouraging people to look for other transit then from me. GD: I wish to keep the link to Cisco now with the shorter path lengths. PFS: All right I would appreciate any feedback. F. Ghost Route Busters - Jeroen Masser (JM) http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-44/ presentations/ripe44-ipv6-ghosts/ Randy Bush (RB): What is TLA? JM: Top Level Aggregater RB: What? A short exchange on the deprecation the TLA syntax followed. G. Traffic graphs Jeroen Masser Presentation was not given but is available from: http://www.ipv6.aorta.net H. 5 year trend in the BGP table Ronald van der Pol http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ipv6/measurements/index.en.html I. Workable approaches for IPv6 multihoming in the absence of a better solution than the one we use in the IPv4 Internet - Iljitsch van Beijnum (IvB) http://www.bgpexpert.com/ripe44/ BT: Why is the draft not out? IvB: The IETF can't agree on it. BT: We could write a draft here? DK: Bernard that is IETF work IvB: It is possible that we could submit a draft to them but let me finish here my presentation and we can discuss it later. Clemens Zauner (CZ): Putting multi addressing and multihoming in the same presentation is not so logical. IvB: Are you saying if you are doing multi addressing you are not really doing multihoming? DK: There are people that say if you do multi addressing right now you don't need to multihome. CZ: Also most of the deaggregation taking place is not due to multihoming. IvB: I agree this premise is false even if every ISP announces 10000 routes .... CZ: Even so I don't belive in millions of multihomers. IvB: Neither do I but v4 style multihoming won't scale. CZ: Even so I don't belive multihoming will break things if you look at it now. IvB: Yes but we also have to think 20 years ahead. CZ: Maybe we could make them prove a need for multi homing IvB: There is the possibility of coming up with an administrative solution like that but one solution could be to make them pay a fee. You cannot have an upstream for free whether it is one or many upstreams. GD: There are a number of routes that shouldn't be there but are for traffic engineering reasons. A reason for multihoming that I see is that they want connectivity redundancy due to ISP bankruptcies. IvB: I want to take this discussion offline to go into it further J. IPv6 Multihoming part 2 - Kurt Erik Lindqvist (KEL) http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-44/ presentations/ripe44-ipv6-multihoming/ GD: I like this idea. of increasing the allocation from IANA to the RIR's. Make it an action on the RIPE NCC to talk to IANA about this. If this gets out of hand we can roll it back. It is pretty radical. KEL: It is not a long term solution but it buys us time. IvB: 64,000 multihomers is not the upper limit. KEL: Even so it still won't break routers at twice as many. DK: Should we go to routing with this? GD: Yes. KEL: Yes K. Discussion point - Fragmentation of the IPv6 address space from the top down by allocating /23's to RIRs - Gert Dvring AOB DK: Another IPv6 survey is in the works and the RIPE NCC needs input on what questions to ask in the survey. Please give them input. BT: Presenting useful data is a good idea if you have any ideas on this pass them on. Also we have a v6 project the M6bone please come play with us. DK: We arranged this working group session to avoid overlap with the other working group sessions and we have moved topics to other appropriate wg's. We would like input on if you like this approach. Please inform me. I. Workable approaches for IPv6 multihoming in the absence of a better solution than the one we use in the IPv4 Internet - Kurt Erik Lindqvist, Iljitsch van Beijnum brief discussion K. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond input from the audience L. Input to the RIPE NCC Activity Plan & results of KPMG survey input from the audience DK: It is very important that the RIPE community tells the RIPE NCC what IPv6 activities should be put into the activity plan Z. AOB Agenda point for RIPE 45 best current practice document on numbering IPv6 networks Action Points from Previous meetings: 42.1: Investigate the CNAME and other solutions for IPv6 reverse delegation - RIPE NCC 42.2: Give an overview of 6-to-4 reverse delegation issues at RIPE 43 - RIPE NCC 42.3: IPv6 capable RR DNS servers - what is needed, what are the issues? - RIPE NCC Action points 42.1-3 were rewritten and closed. New Actions Points: 44.1 Enable reverse delegation For 6bone (RIPE NCC) 44.2 To co-ordinate an IPv6 routing guideline document (Bernard Tuy) 44.3 To investigate with IANA increasing the size of RIR allocations to rationalize routing (RIPE NCC) 44.4 Report back to the working group what the status is and what the issues are regarding: - enabling AAAA glue records in the . zone - AAAA glue records for delegations to TLDs - AAAA glue records for the root servers themselves - enabling ipv6 transport to the . zone and come back with ideas on how these issues can be overcome (RIPE NCC).

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Agenda IPv6 wg RIPE 45
by David Kessens 07 May '03

07 May '03

Hi, Below follows the agenda for the ipv6 wg for RIPE45. We still have some time in the schedule, so I will be able to accomodate last minute contributions. Thanks & I hope to see you all in Barcelona, David K. --- Agenda for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE45 When: 16:30-18:30, Wednesday May 14 2003 Where: Verdi room, Hotel Fira, Barcelona, Spain A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Status of the 6bone (David Kessens) C. University of Tennessee ipv6 network storage stack (Alessandro Bassi) Logistical networking, which is based on distributed network storage, is a project of the UTK Logistical Computing and Internetworking Lab. The LoCI Lab website is http://loci.cs.utk.edu/ . D. Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering) E. Report(s) about *actual* v6 traffic volume as compared to v4? *what's real* out there, not what's on powerpoint? -Ttm data (Henk Uijterwaal) F. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience) - Geant IPv6 service - 6Net on going IPv6 experimentations - M6bone worldwide deployment and multicast protocols for IPv6 (Bernard Tuy) G. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan (input from the audience) Z. AOB ---

1 0