- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 22 Jul '04

22 Jul '04

>Blame the IAB. Apparently, they were the ones who created this mess by >frivolously adopting ip6.arpa as a replacement for ip6.int. I think that's not exactly true ;-) . The reverse name tree for IPv4 is already located in the arpa. subtree. I cannot see any good reason why the same service for IPv6 should use a different TLD. (Actually I don't see a good formal reason for not using in-addr.arpa. - but I presume that there are good technical reasons...) . The mandate of the int. TLD (to support international treaty organisations) is not exactly compatible with the use for IPv6 reverse name tree delegations :-) Wilfried ( https://cert.aco.net/ ) _________________________________:_____________________________________ 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 1

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [dns-wg] Re: Re: IPv6 glue AAAA RRs in the root zone
by Jeroen Massar 21 Jul '04

21 Jul '04

[Added CC to ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net, where IMHO this belongs ;) ] On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 11:11, Jim Reid wrote: > >>>>> "Jeroen" == Jeroen Massar <jeroen(a)unfix.org> writes: > > >> Wrong, several root name servers (of course, not ICANN's one) > >> are reachable over IPv6: read http://www.root-servers.org/ > >> and edit your db.root. > > Jeroen> I know those addresses and I also know that all of those > Jeroen> boxes have a latency over at least 200ms and very odd > Jeroen> routability and those are far far far from to be called > Jeroen> production. > > This could be a good topic for presenting to the WG. Want to volunteer > to write up a document and/or presentation on the state of IPv6 > deployment in the root and TLD name servers, routing anomalies, etc, > etc? It would be good to hear someone's first-hand experiences with > this stuff: what went wrong, how it was worked around or solved, what > could be done better, future directions. Check http://www.sixxs.net/misc/latency/ and select the "IPv6 between POPs and well known destinations" option to reveal some ugglyness. I've been monitoring most of them for quite some time already and I also did some testing with the IPv6 only test root's (see http://www.rs.net) The POPs mentioned btw are the located all over Europe at various independent ISP's add .sixxs.net to find out exactly where or see the POP page on the site. Average latency to b.root-servers.net at least 294ms. H.root-servers.net was gone for sunday to monday and so on.... Not even minding the packetloss. E and I are also there btw, though that is not on the root-servers.org site. > Personally, I don't see why you care about the RTT to a root server. A > well-behaved name server will make 4-5 queries to a root server once a > week or so. <SNIP> That is indeed true, but it is rather odd when a machine is physically close and good connectivity between for instance Amsterdam and Sweden exists and then one still has traffic going over the US... But this is more a problem of the state of the IPv6 routing tables and the fact that only I is in europe and is only even testing IPv6 connectivity. Thus a presentation or better a debate about how the IPv6 routing can be improved in general would be a better subject and prolly the place for that is the ipv6-wg. But as people know who go there Gert Doering has been doing those updates for quite some time already and last time at least there was some discussion about the MIPP draft. Even as it has improved considerably in the last couple of years we are not there yet.. Greets, Jeroen

1 0

Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC
by Doug Barton 22 Jun '04

22 Jun '04

Johan Ihren wrote: > Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis(a)kurtis.pp.se> writes: > > >>>I guess if the RFC is there is because IANA requires it, so moving >>>this to historic will not work, instead updating it will do. >> >>Help me out here. Why would IANA require it? I don't remember there >>being an RFC telling IANA how to allocate other resources? What's so >>special about IPv6 addresses? > > > The lesson learned here is that IANA allocation policy based on > numbers specified in an RFC caused problems once. Then updating the > RFC to get around the problem is broken. That's just pushing the > problem out of sight with a clear promise of it coming back to bite us > sometime in the future. > > Moving the RFC to historic is one half of the solution. The other half > is IANA standing on their own legs (together with the NRO) on these > matters. Thank you for including me in this discussion. Rather than attempting to correct details of the history described in this thread (and which even if I was right it wouldn't matter too much since they happened before I took my current position in December of 2003) I would like to suggest a way forward. The current membership of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has expressed an interest in the direction in which IPv6 allocation policy proceeds. ICANN thinks that this interest is perfectly reasonable, and welcomes it, as well as their valuable insight on the relevant issues. My position on this issue has been clearly stated on numerous occasions going back to January of this year. It is not IANA's job to create policy. We will however be glad to participate in a discussion that is designed to lead to a policy, offering our unique perspective. An excellent example of how this process probably should work is the IPv4 global allocation policy that was developed in cooperation between the RIRs and IANA back in July 2003. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/iana-rir-allocation-policies.html That policy subsequently went through the policy fora in all 4 regions, and is currently awaiting finalization through the ASO process. A similar process needs to occur in relationship to IPv6 allocation policy on a global level. ICANN and the IAB stand ready to enter into such discussions, and eagerly await such an invitation from the RIRs. Between now and the time that such a policy is created, IANA's position is that it is not appropriate for us to attempt to be "creative" in this area. Doug -- Doug Barton General Manager, The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

3 2

Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC
by Gert Doering 22 Jun '04

22 Jun '04

Hi, On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 05:33:41AM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 02:18:01PM +0200, leo vegoda wrote: > > > The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2001:4000::/23 > > > from the IANA in June 2004. > > Unbelievable. Morons. > Why? Because man-months of argueing that "/23 allocations are needlessly fragmenting the RIR address blocks, please allocate a decent size (like a /8)" are just plainly ignored by the ICANN folks. See the RIPE-IPv6 mailing list archives. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299

11 19

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Guidelines for ISPs on IPv6 Assignment to Customers
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 21 Jun '04

21 Jun '04

Hi all, I guess this is interesting for this group ... Guidelines for ISPs on IPv6 Assignment to Customers (http://www.ist-ipv6.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=6…) I drafted this document during the last RIPE meeting and asked for inputs, but nothing .... Inputs still welcome ! Regards, Jordi ********************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit Presentations and videos on line at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC
by leo vegoda 14 Jun '04

14 Jun '04

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2001:4000::/23 from the IANA in June 2004. 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: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/smallest-alloc-sizes.html> Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

2 1

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] ICANN Board to implement IPv6 in root servers
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 31 May '04

31 May '04

http://www.ist-ipv6.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5… ********************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit Presentations and videos on line at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

6 13

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RIRs and IPv6 Groups Pledge Support of Global IPv6 Deployment
by Paul Rendek 12 May '04

12 May '04

Dear Colleagues, The RIRs, the IPv6 Task Forces, and the IPv6 Forum have issued a joint press release detailing co-operative efforts in support of global IPv6 deployment. The press release is available on the RIPE NCC website at: http://www.ripe.net/ipv6/ipv6-support-20040512.html Regards, Paul Rendek Head of Member Services and Communications RIPE NCC

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] The Regional Internet Registries, IPv6 Task Forces and IPv6 Forum Pledge Co-operative Support of Global IPv6 Deployment and new big allocation to TeliaSonera
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 12 May '04

12 May '04

Not sure why this email doesn't go thru, just trying again ... Hi all, See below my previous email to other exploders. I believe is specially important for this WG to provide inputs regarding concrete actions, so please, repeating myself, let me know !. Also, the slides regarding the big allocations had been updated with the last week Telia inputs (published only since today with their consent). By the way, in case you aren't aware of, the site http://www.ist-ipv6.org publish news (as many as we can) about IPv6, you can register there to receive a weekly update also. Regards, Jordi *** Hi all, Please, see the very recent news below. Regarding the cooperation with the RIRs, it will be helpful to get ideas and inputs from all the involved communities in order to concrete actions, so let me know ! Regional Internet Registries, IPv6 Task Forces and IPv6 Forum Pledge Cooperative Support of Global IPv6 Deployment http://www.ist-ipv6.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5… TeliaSonera receives /20, the bigger IPv6 block up to now http://www.ist-ipv6.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5… Regards, Jordi ********************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit Presentations and videos on line at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [6bone] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters!
by Jason Everard 12 May '04

12 May '04

Hi Gert, Having lived in Europe for most of my life, EU is not a country, rather a collection of countries. I'm not sure if it is just standard practice to list the European country under "EU", but wouldn't it be better to have "ES" for Espania? Just being picky. Kind regards, Jason Everard SANS Certified, CISSP, CCIE Security Senior Technical Consultant Network & Security Design Telecom Advanced Solutions Telecom New Zealand Tel: +64-9-363-3002 ext: 93002 Mobile: +64-27-478-3931 -----Original Message----- From: 6bone-bounces(a)mailman.isi.edu [mailto:6bone-bounces@mailman.isi.edu] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: Tuesday, 11 May 2004 3:57 a.m. To: 6bone(a)ISI.EDU; ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [6bone] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters! Hi, the first IPv6 /20 allocation ever has been made today: inet6num: 2001:2000::/20 netname: EU-TELIANET-20040510 org: ORG-TIC2-RIPE descr: PROVIDER Local Registry descr: TeliaSonera AB country: EU and this means that "if you have been following my filtering recommendations, this network will not be accepted right now" (the current filters had a minimum accepted prefix length of a /24). I have updated the prefix filter recommendation page: http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html and urge you to check whether your filters are prepared for these large prefixes. (There is a /23 upcoming, and rumors speak of a /19 being requested "real soon now"). TODO: the "strict" filter could do some grouping for different IPv6 allocation ranges, but this is dangerous today, as we don't know how future allocations will look like. Note: ICANN just doesn't get it. They have not allocated a reasonable prefix size to RIPE (like a /8), not even a /19, but "a big chunk of 14 sucessive /23s, summing up to a /20+/21+/22" - see the list at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-tla-assignments Gert Doering -- RIPE Address Policy WG Co-Chair, keeper of the IPv6 filter list -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list 6bone(a)mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9 18