December 2005 - ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to the RIPE NCC
by filiz＠ripe.net 31 Dec '05

31 Dec '05

[Apologies for Duplicates] Dear Colleagues The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2A01:0000::/16 from the IANA in December 2005. 2A01:0000::/23 was allocated to the RIPE NCC in July 2005. This latest range includes that previous allocation. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. You can find more information about the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC on our web site at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-ncc-managed-address-space.html Regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC

5 6

Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
by Roger Jorgensen 28 Dec '05

28 Dec '05

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Lea Roberts wrote: <snip> > the problem with using ASNs is that when you think over the projected > lifetime of IPv6, there will be *lots* of ASNs. Note that the 4-byte ASN > draft is entering the standards track in IETF. Don't think that tying PI > to ASNs is anything more that passing the problem to the next generation > (if that long... :-) > > It would seem obvious that as network connectivity becomes essential for > doing business, it must be reliable. It is unwise to carry forward the > IPv4 multi-homing model for network resilience with just faith that the > system will be able to scale to an ever larger number of routes. IPv6 has > so far failed to deliver on its original promise of seamless renumbering > and multi-homing using multiple prefixes. The hard problems still need to > be solved in a way that can scale for decades to come. Can't we all just drop using the word multihoming and IPv6 PI? They all reflect back to how thing was done with IPv4 and those ways are doomed to fail with IPv6 simply due to the size of the IP space. Last I checked around there were some promissing new proposal on the way for how to solve this very basic problem. And in the meantime, drop the thought about multihoming and PI space, start to think about other ways to use the possibility IPv6 give us. Just to mention maybe the biggest advantage, we have that extended header part of IPv6, it give us endless possibilities. and yes I do have some idea about how it can be done but no one really bother to consider geo-based IP's either so... :) Not to forget it quite likely will undermine the entire business case for how ISP's today operate. -- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | rogerj(a)stud.cs.uit.no | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger(a)jorgensen.no -------------------------------------------------------

29 109

Real-world IPv6 SMTP experience
by Florian Weimer 27 Dec '05

27 Dec '05

Hi, is there any document that contrasts RFC 3974 with the real world? I try to create a set of MX RRs which includes an IPv6 MX host, does not negatively impact reachability from v4-only hosts (or v6-enabled hosts without v6 connectivity), prefers v6 over v4 when possible, and does not waste any IPv4 addresses. This is what I've come up with so far: deneb.enyo.de. 172800 IN MX 9 v6.mail.enyo.de. deneb.enyo.de. 172800 IN MX 10 v4.mail.enyo.de. v6.mail.enyo.de. 172800 IN A 212.9.189.167 v6.mail.enyo.de. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:14b0:202:1::a7 v4.mail.enyo.de. 172800 IN A 212.9.189.167 The A RR of v6.mail is necessary because some broken anti-spam checks reject mail from deneb.enyo.de if they cannot find an A record for the primary MX. The v4.mail MX host is needed because some MTAs suppress A record lookup if they discover an AAAA record (even if there's no v6 connectivity available). I wouldn't be too surprised when this setup leads to bouncing mail, too. 8-> Florian

8 14

IPv6 database service
by Thu Thuy 07 Dec '05

07 Dec '05

Hi, all folk I would like to ask for your advise in IPv6 - support in database service. I don't know what kind of database now support IPv6. Could you pls advise me your knowleadge related to this matter. For IPv6 web service which require database, i don't know how is database service deployed. Do they used IPv6-supported database or they still use IPv4 database and the web server is dual-stack (IPv6 to handle user request and IPv4 to connect to database server). Thanks much for your help. Thu Thuy.

1 0

Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
by Daniel Roesen 06 Dec '05

06 Dec '05

On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 05:26:20PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > There are lots of similar examples as the NATO one. It make no sense > at all Not issueing PI for multihomed entities makes no sense at all, in face of the complete lack of a full replacement. I'm still waiting for the heads to come out of the sand, but I'm waiting since long and don't see _any_ light at the end of the tunnel (don't anybody dare to say "shim6" if he/she doesn't want to disqualify her/himself immediately). The folks all having their own /32 already allocated to them and trying to limit independent address space to "service providers" (or those who manage to pretend being it, which seems to be easy) are still arguing for "not for them!" paradigm - easy position with having their own dishes already done. Until we have a clear full replacement (that means a solution which does NOT ignore real requirements like shim6 does) there should be a very simple PI policy which issues a /48 or whatever to end sites at a nominal small fee, paid directly to the RIR. An initial setup fee and a yearly renewal fee, paid by credit card or something equally simple. No payment => assignment withdrawn. The initial fee covering the cost of evaluation of the request, doing the assignment and setting up the billing account and DNS reverse. The yearly fee covering the maintenance of the entries in the database and DNS rev NS RRset and the yearly recurring fee invoicing/billing. Done. Too simple, too scary, too much independence again to the endsites, eh? I think it's ridiculous to have folks become LIR (and pretend/lie being ISPish) just to get the PI space they need and having them pay the same money every *real* LIR (you remember what LIR means? Local Internet REGISTRY) which happens to open tickets with the hostmasters every now and then (or much more often). Setting aside my disbelieve in the FUD about the scalability problem of real BGP multihoming (noone yet has shown that the relative amount of multihomers does or will explode), I'm quite sure that we'd need a real locator/ID split which is NOT shim6 but something going farther than that. And we won't have it soon, if at all for IPv6. But keeping on ignoring user's needs for further years and waiting for the magically appearing 100% ideal solution is not the way forward. My 0.02EUR Regards, Daniel (having renumbered his IPv6 network already three times completely and hoping not having to do it a fourth time anytime soon, and not being able to properly multihome like I can do in IPv4 because I'm not a commercial ISP, nor can afford the thousands of EUR for LIR which usually finance MUCH more than just a one-time PI assignment and some DB slots) -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr(a)cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

4 8

Re: [ipv6-wg] a consensus, about what?
by peter.sherbin＠bell.ca 06 Dec '05

06 Dec '05

>Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 09:43:56 +0100 (CET) >From <rogerj(a)jorgensen.no> >To: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> > cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: [ipv6-wg] a consensus, about what? <snip> >so what sort of consensus are we aiming for...? A new policy >for AS, a net block, routing policy, multihoming, or just IPv6 in general? >...quite a lot of topics have been discussed ... but what are our goal with all this? Get rid of the current hierarchy which requires ISP in order to connect to the network. The Internet is an aggregation of interconnected networks. We want to replicate what the Mother Nature has already given us, i.e. a brain like structure where neurons (individual networks) have multiple direct connections with each other. As brain cells networks should have about the same size. Network prefix determines the size. Peter Sherbin Bell Canada

2 1

AW: [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fi x IPv6
by Bonness, Olaf 06 Dec '05

06 Dec '05

Hi Gerd, > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > Von: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] > Gesendet: Montag, 5. Dezember 2005 18:07 > An: Kurt Erik Lindqvist > Cc: Cameron C. Gray; Per Heldal; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net; > ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > Betreff: Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: > Andre's guide to > fix IPv6 > > > Hi, > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 02:17:25PM +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > > I think each LIR should get a /32 and we should drop the 200 > > "customer" rule. But that is just me... > > Actually I like the "every AS should get a <network>" approach (with > a yearly recurring fee for AS and network, to guarantee return of the > resources as soon as the importance of having a slot in the global > routing table doesn't outweigh the costs anymore). > > "Every LIR gets a /32 (upon request), no questions asked" is a concept > that I'm also happy with - as I have said before. For those that are > afraid of the landrush: limit that policy to 5.000 LIRs per region. Not sure if that works. Kind of "First come - first serve" thing. Regards Olaf > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 81421 > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 >

4 7

De-aggregation of assigned IPv6 prefixes?
by Jeroen Massar 06 Dec '05

06 Dec '05

Hi, http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html#initial_criteria reads amongst others: 8<------------------- c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which it will assign /48s by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation -------------------->8 According to the above, after the /48, can one announce more specifics or should/must one not do this? (*) The RIPE Registry allows registering more specific route6 objects. If this is allowed, then why is the above parrt, after '/48', then included in the policy? What is the exact intention of the sentence? Greets, Jeroen *= of course one is lord of their own network and thus can announce whatever one wants and just hope/agree that others accept it.

4 3

IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
by Mohacsi Janos 03 Dec '05

03 Dec '05

Dear All, I have a question regarding the IPv6 address assignment to cc level DNS server. If you don't have answer to this question please forward it to an appropriate working group - sorry for cross-posting this mail to two wg. We have here in Hungary a dilemma: - Traditionally, the IPv4 address of the primary cc level DNS server in of belonged to NIIF/HUNGARNET. - The DNS registration service a while ago was delegated to Council of Hungarian Internet Providers (ISZT) who is also operating the biggest Internet Exchange of Hungary (BIX). All big ISPs in Hungary (including NIIF/HUNGARNET) has right to do the registration via a special interface. - The IPv4 address of the primary cc level DNS server announced by NIIF/HUNGARNET. But ISZT is reorganizing its infrastructure to allocate address from a new PI type IPv4 address space to DNS servers. - The primary hu DNS server is connected to BIX - to be well connected. What IPv6 address space should we allocate to hu primary DNS server? 1. Assign IPv6 address from /32 address space of NIIF/HUNGARNET? - not very optimal since the only transit to hu primary will be NIIF/HUNGARNET - not ISP neutral - easy, no problem from point of view of NIIF/HUNGARNET 2. Assign IPv6 address space from /48 allocated to BIX (based on ripe-256 and ripe-310)? - According to the RIPE documents: "Networks assigned under this policy may not be globally routable" - which problematical since primary DNS servers should be globally reachable. 3. Allocate multiple /48 from IPv6 providers in HUNGARY to primary hu DNS server? - This can be problematical since the answers to DNS queries might be quite big. 4. Allocate /48 to primary hu DNS server that is globally routable? Are there similar to /48 from 2001:0500::/30 in RIPE region? - I think this is the cleanest solution. Can we discuss this issue on the working group or mailing lists? I saw a proposal: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-2.html In my opinion this can solve the problem.... Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 00F9AF98: 8645 1312 D249 471B DBAE 21A2 9F52 0D1F 00F9 AF98

21 60

Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide tofix IPv6
by Randy Bush 01 Dec '05

01 Dec '05

[ something did some horrifying things to the header of your mail as i received it, in particular the references: line, see appended. so i had to chop the refs off my reply. apologies to those who thread based on it. ] > I might totaly missunderstand you, but I get the feeling you want > us to go back to the root of the IPv6 discussion when it all was > started and use some of the stuff that was done before instead of > trying to figure it all out again? yep. though, since i come from the perspective of living it all these years, the "go back" part is a recent view :-). i.e. sane operational folk have been sining this song for years. there has been an amazing lack of ears listening to it. randy --- line breaks are not from here! References: <Pine.LNX.4.56.0511211704050.10258(a)chandra.student.uit.no><87slt m3p3n.fsf(a)mid.deneb.enyo.de><Pine.LNX.4.56.0511251013060.10258(a)chandra.stud ent.uit.no><4386E053.73B661B3(a)networx.ch><43886509.6060600(a)unfix.org><87acf r1mjl.fsf(a)mid.deneb.enyo.de><002f01c5f43a$12631110$44eea2d5@l><6.2.0.14.2.2 0051129101355.02919160(a)kahuna.telstra.net><87fypfpm1e.fsf(a)mid.deneb.enyo.de ><6.2.0.14.2.20051130053430.02d015d0(a)kahuna.telstra.net><20051130161647.GA1 2947(a)srv01.cluenet.de><08D2E092-8FB3-4C5D-9837-4433C77F0B46(a)kurtis.pp.se><1 7294.55288.858722.708230(a)roam.psg.com><6.2.0.14.2.20051202045722.02de10b0@k ahuna.telstra.net> <17295.18210.797714.378814(a)roam.psg.com>

1 0