- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Allocation behaviour (organisations getting multiple /32's)]
by John Tran 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

Hi Jeroen, It is great to know that you are paying attention to allocations that are being made in other region. I would like to clarify the reason why APNIC made muliple allocations to UUNET. UUNET have multiple memberships with APNIC based on the networks in the region. As each economy, membership, managing their own address space therefore they also requesting for IP address separately. For aggregation purpose APNIC normally make allocations from contiguous block, as you can see from these allocations. This is similar to making a large allocation to an organisation then they further splitting between network for each economy. I hope the above explanation answered some of your queries if you need further information please feel free to contact us. Regards Son APNIC > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net] Allocation behaviour (organisations getting > multiple /32's) > Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 12:52:33 +0200 > From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen(a)unfix.org> > Organization: Unfix > To: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > > I just noticed that UUNET/MCI got an additional 3 /32's: > > inet6num: 2001:4441::/32 > netname: UUNET-AU-NETBLOCK-20050708 > descr: UUNET Australia Limited > descr: UUNET Network > country: AU > > inet6num: 2001:4440::/32 > netname: UUNET-HK-NETBLOCK-20050708 > descr: UUNET Worldcom Hong Kong Ltd > descr: UUNET Network > country: HK > > inet6num: 2001:4442::/32 > netname: UUNET-JP-NETBLOCK-20050708 > descr: UUNET Japan, Ltd > descr: UUNET Network > country: JP > > They where all assigned to 1 person, who apparently works for UUNET/MCI > in the US, not even the APNIC region, not even a role. > > Did somebody say goodbye to aggregation? > > Btw UUNET also has: > 2001:600::/32 (Europe) > > Apparently nothing in the US, in total 4x /32. 4 slots gone away. > Are all global companies going to request separate /32's ? > > Greets, > Jeroen > > > > -- > > _____________________________________________________________________ > Anne Lord, Communications Director <anne(a)apnic.net> > Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: +61-7-3858-3100 > PO Box 2131 Milton, QLD 4064 Australia Fax: +61-7-3858-3199 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >

3 3

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] ipv6-enabled webserver
by Thu Thuy 18 Jul '05

18 Jul '05

Hi, all I'm in my way to investigate on ipv6 trial and implementation. Now i'm stucking with a quite big question on ipv6-enabled software. As i saw, ipv6 web services is entirely implemented in almost such large ipv6 research projects as KAME, WIDE, GEANT... In Japan, some ISPs offer ipv6 web hosting to their customers. Many websites support native ipv6 such as RIPE, APNIC... Could you pls show me what kind of webserver software be used in above-mentioned projects and organisations to fully implement ipv6 web service to users. Thanks.

6 9

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Allocation behaviour (organisations getting multiple /32's)
by Jeroen Massar 09 Jul '05

09 Jul '05

I just noticed that UUNET/MCI got an additional 3 /32's: inet6num: 2001:4441::/32 netname: UUNET-AU-NETBLOCK-20050708 descr: UUNET Australia Limited descr: UUNET Network country: AU inet6num: 2001:4440::/32 netname: UUNET-HK-NETBLOCK-20050708 descr: UUNET Worldcom Hong Kong Ltd descr: UUNET Network country: HK inet6num: 2001:4442::/32 netname: UUNET-JP-NETBLOCK-20050708 descr: UUNET Japan, Ltd descr: UUNET Network country: JP They where all assigned to 1 person, who apparently works for UUNET/MCI in the US, not even the APNIC region, not even a role. Did somebody say goodbye to aggregation? Btw UUNET also has: 2001:600::/32 (Europe) Apparently nothing in the US, in total 4x /32. 4 slots gone away. Are all global companies going to request separate /32's ? Greets, Jeroen

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Minutes IPv6 WG RIPE 50
by David Kessens 18 Jun '05

18 Jun '05

I did not receive any comments on the draft minutes (v1) by June 10. Therefore, the draft minutes (v1) are now the official minutes of our session during RIPE 50 except for one typo that I found myself, in the last sentence, please replace 'exepected' by 'expected'. Thanks, David Kessens --- ----- Forwarded message from David Kessens <david.kessens(a)nokia.com> ----- Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 20:42:40 -0700 From: David Kessens <david.kessens(a)nokia.com> To: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Cc: meeting(a)ripe.net Please see below for our first cut of the minutes for our working group session during RIPE 50. Please let me know if you have any comments or corrections. The minutes will be declared final by Friday, June 10, 2005 if no significant changes (other than typo fixes and minor editorial issues) are found. David Kessens --- Draft Minutes (v1) IPv6 WG RIPE 50 When: Friday, 6 May 2005, 09:00 - 10:30 Where: C58, Clarion Hotel, Stockholm, SE Minute Taker: Adrian Bedford Quick Update from the RIPE NCC Regarding IPv6 Services (Ruud de Kooter - RIPE NCC) After the presentation, Ruud was asked if there were plans to integrate the IPv6 whois interface with the main whois. Currently the proxy cannot talk to the interface and this hampers some functionality (such as rate limiting). Ruud asked Shane Kerr to answer this. Shane explained that the RIPE NCC has a v6 proxy running over a v4 database backend. The RIPE NCC has been looking at how people use the database for two years and patterns suggest that now would be a good time to integrate native IPv6 into the server using /48 as a client identifier. Discussion on: Global IPv6 Routing Table Status (Gert Doering, Spacenet) Gert indicated that the Routing Working Group was discussing best practices for BGP filters. The overall thrust of the presentation was that v6 is growing smoothly with no big disasters so far. A question was asked about ratio comparison between the numbers of Autonomous Systems (AS) announced by IPv6 networks as opposed to v4. The current data suggests that there are 1.419 announced entries per originating AS for v6 and 10.308 for v4. A point was made that Deutsche Telecom (DT), who have one of the largest v6 allocations made to date would not announce their block as one AS, they would be more likely to split this and allocate blocks to different service providers for political reasons. Someone from DT commented that the company has the right to do this, though denied that the move was in any way politically motivated. Renumbering IPv6 Networks (Stig Venaas, Uninett & Tim Chown, University of Southampton) After the presentation, it was mentioned that we are assuming that customers of service providers will keep their space, yet ten years ago major providers did force renumbering onto customers. It was agreed that renumbering of IPv6 is, at least in principal, no different to what happened with v4. Developments/Initiatives Regarding IPv6 in the RIPE Region and Beyond - Francis Dupont: Point6 (http://www.point6.net/ - Gert Doering: A new maillist for discussion of ipv6 operational issues was started: http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-ops/ After the announcement of the list, it was agreed that having a publicly available archive of this new list would be a good idea. Although it exists on the site that hosts the list, this is a personal website and for stability purposes, maybe a copy of the archive should be placed elsewhere. It was felt that the RIPE website was unsuitable for this. - Carlos Friacas: o IPv6 - Advanced Network Developments's first year in Portugal o 9K IPv6 Schools' Network Initiative o About the IPv6 Steering Committee Revisiting the /48 recommendation There was a lengthy discussion around RFC 3177. It was made clear that the discussion was not intended to reach final consensus on all the issues involved, but merely to serve as a way to get an idea about the general direction on where the community would like to go to make it possible to write up an initial proposal. Many agreed that the /48 is too much for many users for now and in the future. A discussion followed about how we should define a site with the suggestion that we need to accept that this can remain a grey area, which is not at all well defined right now. Discussion is needed around this topic, though the group tended to accept that it might not be easy to put down limits in black and white. Most people in the room felt that RFC3177 needs a revision. Most people felt that the /48 limit itself doesn't need to be changed, but most agreed that there is a need for a new category that falls somewhere between /48 and /64 for users that have a need for subnetting but for which a /48 seems excessive. This category would fit the mass consumermarket or (very) small office market, however, it was noted that we should base the category on technical needs of the user, not in economic terms like mass consumer market. It is exepected that an Internet Draft will be written that can be discussed at RIPE 51. ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] documenting RIPE critical infrastructure/micro allocations
by Bjoern A. Zeeb 02 Jun '05

02 Jun '05

Hi, while updating some prefix filters I started a link collection documenting the entries. I have found that other RIRs (ARIN, APNIC) have neat documentation about the critical infrastructure/micro allocations assigned but I only found two references of the Block RIPE uses for v6 IXP assignments. | ARIN Critical infrastructure, micro allocations | http://www.arin.net/reference/micro_allocations.html | APNIC Critical infrastructure, micro allocations | http://www.apnic.net/db/ranges.html For LACNIC I haven't found any assignments but following documentation: | LACNIC Critical infrastructure, micro allocations | http://lacnic.net/en/politicas/ipv6.html 5.5. IPv6 micro allocations | http://lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/micro-asignaciones_ipv6-sp.pdf For RIPE Gert's page is talking about 2001:7F8::/29 and the DB entry. | http://www.ripe.net/whois?searchtext=EU-ZZ-2001-07F8 | http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policy-ixp.html Could someone add documentation/web page stating that RIPE is doing /48 assignments from this Block for critical infrastructure (read: IXPs)? Perhaps also giving a list of which prefixes got assigned already as these won't show up in delegated-ripencc-latest. Greetings Bjoern A. Zeeb -- Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT bz @ FreeBSD dot org

6 8

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Draft Minutes (v1) IPv6 WG RIPE 50
by David Kessens 01 Jun '05

01 Jun '05

Please see below for our first cut of the minutes for our working group session during RIPE 50. Please let me know if you have any comments or corrections. The minutes will be declared final by Friday, June 10, 2005 if no significant changes (other than typo fixes and minor editorial issues) are found. David Kessens --- Draft Minutes (v1) IPv6 WG RIPE 50 When: Friday, 6 May 2005, 09:00 - 10:30 Where: C58, Clarion Hotel, Stockholm, SE Minute Taker: Adrian Bedford Quick Update from the RIPE NCC Regarding IPv6 Services (Ruud de Kooter - RIPE NCC) After the presentation, Ruud was asked if there were plans to integrate the IPv6 whois interface with the main whois. Currently the proxy cannot talk to the interface and this hampers some functionality (such as rate limiting). Ruud asked Shane Kerr to answer this. Shane explained that the RIPE NCC has a v6 proxy running over a v4 database backend. The RIPE NCC has been looking at how people use the database for two years and patterns suggest that now would be a good time to integrate native IPv6 into the server using /48 as a client identifier. Discussion on: Global IPv6 Routing Table Status (Gert Doering, Spacenet) Gert indicated that the Routing Working Group was discussing best practices for BGP filters. The overall thrust of the presentation was that v6 is growing smoothly with no big disasters so far. A question was asked about ratio comparison between the numbers of Autonomous Systems (AS) announced by IPv6 networks as opposed to v4. The current data suggests that there are 1.419 announced entries per originating AS for v6 and 10.308 for v4. A point was made that Deutsche Telecom (DT), who have one of the largest v6 allocations made to date would not announce their block as one AS, they would be more likely to split this and allocate blocks to different service providers for political reasons. Someone from DT commented that the company has the right to do this, though denied that the move was in any way politically motivated. Renumbering IPv6 Networks (Stig Venaas, Uninett & Tim Chown, University of Southampton) After the presentation, it was mentioned that we are assuming that customers of service providers will keep their space, yet ten years ago major providers did force renumbering onto customers. It was agreed that renumbering of IPv6 is, at least in principal, no different to what happened with v4. Developments/Initiatives Regarding IPv6 in the RIPE Region and Beyond - Francis Dupont: Point6 (http://www.point6.net/ - Gert Doering: A new maillist for discussion of ipv6 operational issues was started: http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-ops/ After the announcement of the list, it was agreed that having a publicly available archive of this new list would be a good idea. Although it exists on the site that hosts the list, this is a personal website and for stability purposes, maybe a copy of the archive should be placed elsewhere. It was felt that the RIPE website was unsuitable for this. - Carlos Friacas: o IPv6 - Advanced Network Developments's first year in Portugal o 9K IPv6 Schools' Network Initiative o About the IPv6 Steering Committee Revisiting the /48 recommendation There was a lengthy discussion around RFC 3177. It was made clear that the discussion was not intended to reach final consensus on all the issues involved, but merely to serve as a way to get an idea about the general direction on where the community would like to go to make it possible to write up an initial proposal. Many agreed that the /48 is too much for many users for now and in the future. A discussion followed about how we should define a site with the suggestion that we need to accept that this can remain a grey area, which is not at all well defined right now. Discussion is needed around this topic, though the group tended to accept that it might not be easy to put down limits in black and white. Most people in the room felt that RFC3177 needs a revision. Most people felt that the /48 limit itself doesn't need to be changed, but most agreed that there is a need for a new category that falls somewhere between /48 and /64 for users that have a need for subnetting but for which a /48 seems excessive. This category would fit the mass consumermarket or (very) small office market, however, it was noted that we should base the category on technical needs of the user, not in economic terms like mass consumer market. It is exepected that an Internet Draft will be written that can be discussed at RIPE 51.

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Minutes from IPv6 WG - RIPE 49
by David Kessens 01 Jun '05

01 Jun '05

Please see below for the final minutes of our session during RIPE 49. The minutes are mostly the same as the v1 draft minutes that were posted earlier. Only differences are a typo fix and an improved summary of Jordi's presentation on 'Guidelines for ISPs on IPv6 Assignments to Customers'. I will sent out the draft minutes for our meeting during RIPE 50 in a couple of minutes. David Kessens --- Minutes from IPv6 WG - RIPE 49 RIPE 49 Manchester IPv6 Working Group Wednesday 22 September 2004 WG Chair David Kessens Scribe Adrian Bedford (RIPE NCC) Attendees: 121 Administration and Agenda Presented by David Kessens Adrian Bedford of the RIPE NCC was appointed scribe. Agenda was agreed Minutes from both RIPE 47 and 48 were approved. Update from the RIPE NCC Presented by Andrei Robachevsky, RIPE NCC As of August, k-root is IPv6 enabled The new version of the RIPE website (to be launched shortly) will also be IPv6 enabled. An Overview of the Global IPv6 Routing Table Presented by Gert Doering (Spacenet) A number of anomalies have been observed in the Global IPv6 Routing table, though in most cases these could be explained by traffic engineering, internal transitions and in one case a prefix leak. One person used the Jabber Remote Feedback system to ask why IXPs are announcing /48s with no export. It was explained that, for example, AMSIX doesn't want it's neighbors to make it's prefix globally visible. It remains a contentious issue as to whether something should be globally visible. What are the Deployment Plans Behind the Larger IPv6 Allocations? Presented by: Mikael Lind (TeliaSonera) David Kessens asked whether there were plans to allocate /64s for mobile use. Mikael confirmed that this was likely and that TeliaSonera was also looking at /48s for this use. Kurtis Lindqvist asked whether TeliaSonera has been talking with vendors to co-ordinate hardware and equipment. Mikael explained that this has not yet happened, as they feel right now there is little incentive to do so. David asked if Mikael would consider returning to a future RIPE Meeting to provide an update when TeliaSonera is further along in the development and deployment process, Mikael indicated that he would be happy to do so. Deployment Plans Behind Larger IPv6 Allocations Presented by Jordi Palet (Consulintel) Jordi will continue to keep the Working Group posted on feedback. He will also encourage non-respondents to contribute. Geant IPv6 Presented by Jordi Palet (Consulintel) Guidelines for ISPs on IPv6 Assignments to Customers Presented by Jordi Palet (Consulintel) This presentation provided an initial attempt on creating guidelines on how to interpret the official ipv6 assignment policy in practical terms. < BREAK > IPv6 Glue for the Root Nameservers Presented by Johan Ihrén (Autonomica) Iljitsch van Beijnum asked how long the process is likely to take. Johan commented that it would depend on who was prepared to take on the task, Johan is willing to do this, though added that nothing is root server specific, if people argue that we need v6 glue now, then they should step up and offer to help out. There is no specific target date for this to happen, since testing needs to be completed. Randy Bush asked that since we tend to assume that we should upgrade when something breaks, how is he to know when something has in fact broken. How, as an operator will he actually know there is something wrong? Johan agreed with Randy, there needs to be an agreed process. This could mean that things may not happen universally at the same time. Much will depend on the level of ambition of those involved - the tasks could be more or less complex. Gert Doering commented that as we see ccTLDs adding v6 glue, they might already know some of the issues that could arise. He suggested that someone speak to the ccTLD Operators and find someone who is willing to help with testing. It was also suggested that prudence might be a good idea. If a ccTLD Operator decides to deploy v6 transitions to their nameservers, in the end it will be their own decision. A question was asked about whether anything could be done to improve I-root connectivity to Europe. Johan commented that this would fall into his domain and promised to provide more feedback on this by RIPE 50. Bill Manning commented that the group appeared to be talking as if testing had not in fact started, whereas people are doing tests, ccTLD Operators at already looking at the impacts of these tests. A timeframe was agreed at the last ISOC meeting to finish testing before their next report at the end of the year, enabling a report to made to ICANN. One obstacle here is that the last report to the ICANN board took six months to have approved. Doug Barton of ICANN commented that the process has been streamlined and lessons learned, it is felt that any such future report would receive a far quicker response. David Kessens asked if all root servers planned to have IPv6 connectivity at the same time. Johan replied that he thought it unlikely that everyone would approach this in the same way, adding that he felt diversity was not a bad thing. It would, he said, be likely that we would see some TLDs using basic glue with others holding off during the early phases. The day when we will see the v6 glue globally is still somewhere in the distant future as there are no specific plans at this point to co-ordinate such a deployment. To date eight have basic glue in place. David asked if this community could help and Johan said he felt it certainly could. There was discussion about asking the RIPE NCC for help, though Johan this was not necessary at this stage. From his point of view he did not feel the issue was who did this, rather thought needed to be given to identifying which tests are relevant. Time would need to be taken over inventory to find out what code is already out there. David rounded up the discussion by saying that volunteers would be welcomed, though this was not be taken as a specific action point. An Update on Multihoming in IPv6 Presented by Geoff Huston (APNIC) A comment was made that the slide detailing issues appeared to not consider the update rates for bindings and third party referrals. Geoff said that design decisions should avoid relying on DNS. Randy Bush commented that there had been some mission drift from multi-homing to mobility. A comment was made that if an opportunistic solution does not meet all the needs in the architecture, you are forced to use a structured identifier. Such an identifier would have to be unique to avoid collisions. This could give rise to a very complex registration infrastructure, which might be painful to administer. Geoff replied that uniqueness never comes cheap and needs enormous effort at a global level. This lead to a suggestion that it may be preferable to choose opportunistic styles. Geoff felt that this was down to personal taste; there were certainly benefits in avoiding global costs if set up problems could be avoided. A suggestion was made that we should consider developing a whole new protocol that could handle routing table growth, Geoff replied that it would be ideal to think that we could do both, groups do exist with experience in both fields. The IETF have working groups that work together to engineer solutions and ensure routing tables do not become too complex. Geoff agreed that many people do feel routing could provide a better answer Kuris Lindqvist pointed to work that had been done during an interim meeting in Santa Monica in June 2004, this looked at the architectural work done by Geoff and the 30-40 drafts submitted. The drafts were split into four or five categories and based upon these; a simple poll was carried out. In some categories, the authors withdrew their proposals and in others, there was little support. The consensus was that the architecture proposed by Geoff was the way the group wished to move forward at the moment. A speaker announced that he had prepared a draft on the use of PI to reduce pressures on routing tables, intended as a compromise and is accepting comments on this. A speaker added that during his presentation Geoff dismissed mobile IP for security and state management reasons. The IETF has already addressed security and state management could throw up more problems. He felt that having two solutions for these issues problem was unwise and we need to work towards a single solution for what seem like related problems. He felt that using security, as a reason to reject the architecture draft was a red herring. Geoff pointed out that this is not yet in the draft, though will be in the next version. Geoff agreed that some of the assumptions we made previously in mobile IPv6 now seem less secure. Security locators assume a stable home base - if it fails, everything else fails. Multi6 looks at the ‘homeless vagrants’ of the world that do not have a home all of the time and the home is not reachable. It then assumes that there is not a home locator that can always be contacted. The Multi6 team looked at the other approaches and aimed to learn from them. He remains unsure if this kind of binding works in mobile environments, it is far too early to make this assessment. David Kessens asked whether the group found updates from Multi6 useful, Kurtis suggested that it would be nice to have Geoff make a similar presentation in future Address Policy Working Group Sessions too. Gert Doering suggested that as co-chair of the Address Policy Working Group, he would like to see the drafts on PI Addressing discussed through the Address Policy Mailing List. Moonv6 Update Presented by Jim Bound Kurtis Lindqvist asked whether security testing had been carried out in an isolated test environment. Jim clarified that filters had only been tested on IPv6 ports, addresses and protocols. He added that it showed there was confusion. Just because dual stack is not a security problem, IPv6 in itself is not an insecure protocol. Intrusion detection needs to be included into work. Kurtis asked what stage of the evolution process the project had reached. Jim replied that in this respect, research was still quite basic. Deploying 5,000 IPv6 Sites - XTEC Presented by Jordi Palet (Consulintel) Input to RIPE NCC Activity Plan Presented by David Kessens David asked if the group had any items to include in the 2005 RIPE NCC Activity Plan. There was no response.

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE 50 Report
by Daniel Roesen 25 May '05

25 May '05

On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 02:09:07PM +0200, Nick Hyrka wrote: > IPV6 WORKING GROUP > > - It was decided that the RIPE Whois Database will continue to include more > services that run in native IPv6. Hm? > - It was noted that the IPv6 Working Group needs to decide where it wishes > to house the new, operational IPv6 mailing list. What are you talking about here? What "new, operational IPv6 mailing list" are you referring to? What has the RIPE IPv6 Working Group to do with it? I have some suspicion that this is a reference to Ulrich Kiermayr's comment? Please clarify. Regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr(a)cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

4 5

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Fwd: [apops] APNIC New IPv6 address block(s)
by leo vegoda 24 May '05

24 May '05

Begin forwarded message: > From: John Tran <john(a)apnic.net> > Date: May 24, 2005 9:29:05 am GMT+02:00 > To: apnic-announce(a)lists.apnic.net > Cc: apops(a)apops.net > Subject: [apops] APNIC New IPv6 address block(s) > Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0505231059340.10511(a)durian.apnic.net> > > > > Dear colleagues > > APNIC received the following IPv6 address block from IANA recently > and will be making allocations from this range in the near future. > > 2400:0000::/19 > > This announcement is being made for the information of the Internet > community, and so that network configurations such as routing filters > may be updated as appropriate. > > For more information on the resources administered by APNIC, see: > > http://www.apnic.net/db/ranges.html > > For information on the minimum allocation sizes within address ranges > administered by APNIC, see: > > http://www.apnic.net/db/min-alloc.html > > > Kind regards > > Son > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Resources Services Manager <Son(a)apnic.net> > Asia Pacific Network Information Centre phone: +61 7 3858 3100 > http://www.apnic.net fax: +61 7 3858 3199 > Helpdesk phone: +61 7 3858 3188 > email: > helpdesk(a)apnic.net > Please send Internet Resource Requests to <hostmaster(a)apnic.net> > _____________________________________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > apops mailing list > apops(a)apops.net > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apops > Website: www.apops.net > -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Who provides v6 uplink via tunnel ?
by Kurt Jaeger 22 May '05

22 May '05

Hello, As none of our uplinks currently provides v6 support, I'm looking for some site that would be willing to route our /32 and tunnel it to some endpoint via v4. We're located in southern germany (Stuttgart). -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 15 years to go ! LF.net GmbH fon +49 711 90074-23 pi(a)LF.net Ruppmannstr. 27 fax +49 711 90074-33 D-70565 Stuttgart mob +49 171 3101372

5 8

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] What is a site?
by ＠UUNET SE Ip 11 May '05

11 May '05

Hi. Following the discussion about /48 boundaries I'd like a better definition of what a site is. My definition of an end-user site is the office where we (MCI/UUNET) install a circuit. This could be a large office or a small bransch office or anything in between. Each office is handled separately and they request IPv4 addresses per office. Adopting this to IPv6 it would mean that each office would get a /48. This is too much for many of them. Approx. 80-90% of our sites request 32 IP-addresses or less and most likely only subnet it 2 or 4 times if they ever subnet it. Furthermore we never get a complete network design for all branch offices if the customer is transnational or even national so we can't really assign a /48 to the customer for him to subnet among his offices. We can of course change our procedures to accomomodate thisbut this will make things a lot more difficult for us as a LIR and also the customer. We can't decide how many addresses to assign to a customer based on size or revenue. What I want is a clear definition of what a site is by having more catagories. but I don't want a floating boundary as catagories do simplyfies things. I also include my suggestions based on where I'm coming from :-) /60 for home networks (16 networks) /56 for enterprises (small/medium) (256 networks) /48 for large enterprises (65000 networks) /47 or more for "very large subscribers" /64 for mobile phones (w/ bluetooth or 802.11b) /128 for dialup PC Please note that I'm not a routing expert nor am I a experienced in the complete IPv6 concept with mobil users and consumers goods etc. My main area is IP-address administration. I administrate IP-networks for MCI/UUNET in almost all of Europe except DE, AT and CH. I haven't read the RFC's related to this so my mind is wide open ;-) Best regards Patrick Arkley Supervisor IP/DNS-team SKSC/SKRC MCI - Powered by UUNET Armégatan 38 S-171 04 Solna, Sweden Web: www.se.mci.com <http://www.se.mci.com/> Phone direct: +46 (0)8 5661 7075 Fax: +46 (0)8 5661 7236 Mobile: +46 (0)733 11 20 75 VNET: 915-7075 E-mail: patrick.arkley(a)se.mci.com <mailto:patrick.arkley@se.mci.com> Initial Call team [VPN]: +46 (0)8 5661 7899 or emea-ip-vpn-initial-call(a)se.mci.com <mailto:emea-ip-vpn-initial-call@se.mci.com> Registry: +46 (0)8 5661 7454 or registry(a)se.uu.net <mailto:registry@se.uu.net> <mailto:registry@se.uu.net> IP-team: +46 (0)8 5661 7629 or ip(a)se.uu.net <mailto:ip@se.uu.net>

13 44

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [ipv6-wg@localhost] Re: What is a site?
by Erics 10 May '05

10 May '05

Hi all, please, let´s get back to the main question - what is a site ? I think we need a definition for this, because we find a lot of different means (eg. endsite, single network, customer, subscriber) in the IPv6 allocation and assignment policy and the RFC3177. Lets view a concrete example : A customer of us, a shipping company has ten brances at ten different locations. And he is running a seperated network behind our acces router on each loctaion. >From our point of view and understanding the RFC3177 each location is a site and we assign a /XX to each branch. Do you agree on this, or are there different opinions ? Kind regards Eric Schmidt LIR de.telekom

2 1

RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [ipv6-wg@localhost] Re: What is a site ?
by Patrick Arkley 10 May '05

10 May '05

That was indeed the original question. In my scenario, the same as yours, I would assign a /48 to each branch office. Too many subnets I would say. However, if the customer from a central point asked for a range for all his branch offices I wouldn't hesitate in assigning one /48 for him/her to use wherever appropriate. The problem from an adminitrative side is that we rarely get the customer to fill out a network request for all sites but rather request ranges per site as they are up for installation. Rgds Patrick Arkley Supervisor IP/DNS SKSC/SKRC Phone direct: +46 (0)8 5661 7075 Fax: +46 (0)8 5661 7236 Mobile: +46 (0)733 11 20 75 VNET: 915-7075 E-mail: patrick.arkley(a)se.mci.com Initial Call team [VPN]: +46 (0)8 5661 7899 or emea-ip-vpn-inital-call(a)se.mci.com Registry: +46 (0)8 5661 7454 or registry(a)se.uu.net IP-team: +46 (0)8 5661 7629 or ip(a)se.uu.net -----Original Message----- From: Erics [mailto:EricS@t-com.net] Sent: den 10 maj 2005 11:37 To: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net] Re: [ipv6-wg@localhost] Re: What is a site? Hi all, please, let´s get back to the main question - what is a site ? I think we need a definition for this, because we find a lot of different means (eg. endsite, single network, customer, subscriber) in the IPv6 allocation and assignment policy and the RFC3177. Lets view a concrete example : A customer of us, a shipping company has ten brances at ten different locations. And he is running a seperated network behind our acces router on each loctaion. >From our point of view and understanding the RFC3177 each location is a site and we assign a /XX to each branch. Do you agree on this, or are there different opinions ? Kind regards Eric Schmidt LIR de.telekom

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] HD ratio issues and revisiting /48
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 05 May '05

05 May '05

Consider this my input for tomorrow's discussion. I'm far away but I'll be with you guys in spirit. (And watching!) Ok, this message is becoming rather long. Skip to the end for the practical stuff if necessary. I believe Geoff's point with the presentation yesterday was "with only 45 bits to play with and considering the HD ratio IPv6 address space isn't as unlimited as it once seemed". The whole idea behind the HD ratio is that the more you have, the more you waste. And "more" isn't just more in absolute terms, but also in relative terms. Essentially an HD ratio of X percent says you'll waste X percent of your address bits. To some degree, this makes sense. If you have a flat numbering plan you need N numbers plus some wiggle room. But if you introduce a strictly hierarchical addressing plan, you need more wiggle room. For instance phone numbers we have in most European countries have area codes for cities and then subscriber numbers within each city. When phone numbers in Amsterdam run out, they can't borrow numbers from The Hague. So not only do we need wiggle room for both aggregation levels (national and city), but in phone numbers we also lose some serious number capacity because the boundary isn't very flexible. In the Netherlands even the smallest area codes hold 6 digit subscriber numbers. This eats up more numbers than when you can give the smallest area codes 5 digit numbers, or better yet, use 4.5 - 7 digit as needed. Now the interesting thing is that the HD ratio RFC (RFC 3194) is for a large part based on experiences with French phone numbers. It's easy to see that even though Alain Durand and Christian Huitema are obviously on to something, there must be a problem somewhere, as they write that the practical maximum (= HD ratio of 87%) utilization for IPv4 is 240 million addresses. (Actually that would be 211 million, they didn't compensate for class D and E and other unusable address space.) However, according to the most recent ISC host count were now at 317 million (= hosts present in the reverse DNS) while only 2.5 billion out of 3.7 billion usable IPv4 addresses have been allocated by IANA. So the current HD ratio for usable non-reserved IPv4 space is 90.5%, and this includes legacy space, so if we were to look at RIR space only, this would certainly be even higher. If we apply the same HD ratio to the remaining 1.2 billion addresses, we should be able to grow to 480 million IPv4 addresses in use without even taking legacy space issues into account. The HD ratio also doesn't account for the nature of the number hierarchy. In phone numbers or classful IPv4, you can't move the aggregation boundaries around. But with CIDR and VLSM (variable length subnet masks, at one point a great innovation), this is not a problem. So if you have 8 locations that need 100 - 800 addresses respectively, you don't need 8 x 1024 = 8192 addresses, but 128 + 256 + 3 x 512 + 3 x 1024 = 4992 addresses, or even 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7 * 128 = 4096 addresses. This will of course push some of the pain up the next aggregation level, as rather than a single route there will be 8 to 32 individual routes. When we cross over to inter-domain routing, this is clearly harmful since we are currently unable to aggregate in the interdomain routing space unless aggregation was already done (or at least possible) at the source AS. But for interior routing, this really isn't much of a problem. Even when routing a billion (2^30) /48s, that would boil down to: 2 levels, strict hierarchy: 2 * 2^15 routes 3 levels, strict hierarchy: 3 * 2^10 routes This is all very doable with today's hardware. Even if we assume a size difference of a factor 64 between the largest and the smallest entities in a loose hierarchy (ie. if Mexico City is your largest entity, the smallest would be a city with less than half a million people) that's 2^15 + 2^21 with two levels and 2^10 + 2^16 with three levels. Conclusion: you don't _have_ to lose one bit out of five as the allocated address space gets bigger. This also applies to interdomain routing. If you want to number 4 billion end-sites, Geoff's presentation lists a /8 as the prefix length of choice. But 4 billion also happens to be 256 * 16 million, and for 16 million we only need a /18. So 256 of those would be a / 10. We just saved 2 bits but now we have 256 /18s in the global routing table rather than one /8. But even someone who gets as much flack for not trusting the router vendors to come up with bigger boxes as me can appreciate that routing a larger number of /18s isn't going to kill BGP (there can only be 32 - 256 thousand /18 routes anyway). (With apologies for the thousand = 2^10 and million = 2^20.) !-!-!-! So where does this land us in the "create more wiggle room" debate? I think it's pretty clear that there is no immediate danger if we don't. On the other hand, if we can save some bits without real pain, why not do it? Going from /48 to /56 as a general recommendation would be one way to do that. Another way would be to keep the /48 for people who want it, but move the /64 to /60. It's practically impossible to utilize /128s in IPv6 (it can be done but it's just too painful and awkward). So: Now: /64 or /48 /56 idea: /64 or /56 /60 idea: /60 or /48 Giving everyone who needs address space a /60 rather than a /64 has the advantage that there is always room for a router. If my cell phone gets a /64, that's nice, but it means the phone has to bridge or proxy ND or some such. With a /60 I can have a subnet of my own for the bluetooth link, and another for the GPRS/UMTS link. Obviously this will increase the address consumption for people who would otherwise have gotten a /64, but even if there are many of those, that doesn't add up too badly. However, 95% of the people who would have gotten a /48 and 99% of the people who would have taken a / 56 would also be happy with a /60, and this would save a lot of address space. I also believe /60 vs /48 will make ISPs happier, as they're used to making SOHO/BigCu$tomer distinctions today and /60 vs /48 would pretty naturally fall into this. However, I stronly believe that EVERYONE who wants one and has an ISP who is reasonable should get a /48 no questions asked for the exact reasons that we have the "let them eat /48s" rule today. I would also suggest that all individual /48s would be registered in RIR databases.

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Glueing to the "."...
by Carlos Friacas 04 May '05

04 May '05

Hi, As far as i know, the possibility of having AAAA glue records on the root zone was a long and hard quest... Now that we have it for some time, is it important to ask what is being done with this possibility??? Well, i do think YES... and by reading the DNS root zone what i can see is: - 42 ccTLDs glued - 4 gTLDs glued (.com, .int, .aeros, .net) - only 35 different servers/names with AAAAs on the root zone (NS0.JA.NET has 2!) - most of the TLDs supported by nameservers with AAAAs has only one or two. Should we expect an improvement in these numbers soon? :-) Comments...? ./Carlos -------------- http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/nativeRCTS2.html Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt "Internet is just routes (150665/657), naming (millions) and... people!"

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE50
by David Kessens 03 May '05

03 May '05

Please see below for the ipv6 working group agenda. David Kessens --- Interesting topics (from an ipv6 perspective) in the presentation sections: Monday, 2 May 2005 14:00-15:30 * Quality of Service Measurement in IPv6, Issues and Solutions (Alessandro Bassi, Hitachi) * How to set an Internet2 Land Speed Record (Anders Magnusson, Lulea Tekniska Universiteit) Tuesday, 3 May 2005 16:00-17:30 * Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering) --- Agenda for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE50 When: Friday, 6 May 2005, 09:00 - 10:30 Where: C58, Clarion Hotel, Stockholm, SE A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Quick update from the RIPE NCC regarding ipv6 services (RIPE NCC) C. Discussion on: Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering) D. Revisiting the /48 recommendation (Gert Doering, Thomas Narten, David Kessens) Discussion, read rfc3177 as preparation E. Renumbering ipv6 networks (Stig Venaas, Tim Chown) F. Report(s) about *actual* v6 traffic volume as compared to v4? *what's real* out there, not what's on powerpoint? (input from the audience) G. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond - IPv6 - Advanced Network Developments's first year (Carlos Friacas) - 9K IPv6 Schools' Network Initiative (Carlos Friacas) - About the IPv6 Steering Commitee: (Carlos Friacas) - Point6 (http://www.point6.net/) (Francis Dupont) - New Operational IPv6 maillist: http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-ops/ (Gert Doering) - ... H. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan (input from the audience) Z. AOB ---

4 4

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Call for agenda items & Draft Agenda (v1) for ipv6 wg RIPE50
by David Kessens 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

Please see below for a draft (v1) of the ipv6 working group agenda. I am interested in your input for agenda items: whether you want to discuss a particular topic, or do a presentation that affects ipv6 deployment in the RIPE region (and beyond), everything *technical* is welcome. As you might have noticed, the meeting format of the RIPE meeting was changed. The intention is to do most of the presentations in the EOF part of the meeting while the practical working group work is done in the actual working group. As of this writing, I have not received final details on how this will work out exactly. At first, I planned to wait with my solicitation for agenda items until the details regarding this new approach were more clear and announced to the community. However, as the actual date of the meeting is getting closer, I have decided not to wait any longer. I hope this helps and see you all in Stockholm, David Kessens --- Draft Agenda (v1) for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE50 When: ?, May 2005 Where: ?, Clarion Hotel, Stockholm, SE [ Presentation section ] A. Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering) [ Working group section ] B. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) C. Quick update from the RIPE NCC regarding ipv6 services (tentative) D. Discussion on: Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering) E. Renumbering ipv6 networks (Stig Venaas, Tim Chown) F. Report(s) about *actual* v6 traffic volume as compared to v4? *what's real* out there, not what's on powerpoint? (input from the audience) G. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience) H. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan (input from the audience) Z. AOB ---

2 1

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to the RIPE NCC
by Filiz Yilmaz 20 Apr '05

20 Apr '05

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2A00::/21 from the IANA in April 2005. 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, -- Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] New international IPv6 operators forum
by Daniel Roesen 16 Apr '05

16 Apr '05

Dear RIPE IPv6 WG, people were missing a global mailing list (not regional RIR/NOG) dedicated to _operational_ matters of the global IPv6 (production, not 6BONE) Internet. To fill this void I've created such a mailing list: http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-ops/ So if you're taking part in IPv6 BGP or are interested in global IPv6 operational matters, feel more than invited to join the list! We do have IPv6 ops people from all regions on board to foster exchange of experience and resolve problems which require someone non-local coordination as well as discuss problems people face while deploying IPv6. Please also let your collegues/upstreams/peers/downstreams know. Currently, there are ~250 people subscribed (after only 3 days or so of existence), including many vendors. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr(a)cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] New IPv6 Cluster publication: IPv6 and Broadband
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 14 Mar '05

14 Mar '05

http://www.ist-ipv6.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=98 8

2 2

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root
by Andrei Robachevsky 28 Feb '05

28 Feb '05

Colleagues, K-root server has now IPv6 transport enabled. k.root-servers.net. AAAA 2001:7fd::1 A 193.0.14.129 This information is also available from www.root-servers.org webiste. Regards, Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC

11 21

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RV:Call for Papers - Next Global IPv6 Summit in Spain
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 27 Feb '05

27 Feb '05

Hi all, Several people requested an extension of the deadline for the submission of the short abstracts for their presentations. So we decided to extend the deadline until midnight of March 4th. Please make sure to not miss it this time. We only require a title for your presentation and 3-4 lines short abstract. The final agenda will be announced at the end of the following week. Regards, Jordi Hi all, As indicated in the email below, the next Global IPv6 Summit in Spain, the bigger IPv6 European event, in its 4th edition (after a very successful organization and broad international attendance in 2001, 2002 and 2003), will be organized this time in Barcelona, next June 2005, with a expected audience over 2.600 key decisions makers from ICT sectors. The main target of the event is business oriented talks, as well as talks oriented to policy makers, information/knowledge society, education and public sectors. This Call for Papers doesn't require that you submit a complete paper (which is welcome also), but instead, a short plain text abstract of your presentation topic, by email. Talks regarding deployment experiences, new services and applications will be of key interest for the expected attendance, and hence highly encouraged. We believe that key topics will be also those regarding: 1) IPv6 and business 2) IPv6 and Broadband 3) New IPv6-based services and applications 4) IPv6 and the Digital Home 5) IPv6 and Multimedia, Voice/Video applications 6) IPv6, Mobility, Wireless and 3G 7) IPv6 and Ambient Intelligence/Ubiquitous Computing/Distributed Systems 8) IPv6 and GRIDs 9) IPv6 and logistics, transport and eSafety 10) IPv6 for eHealth, eGoverment, eLearning and other "e-whatever" 11) IPv6 and gamming 12) IPv6 and peer-to-peer 13) IPv6 and security 14) IPv6 and Open Source 15) IPv6 and marketing/branding Also topics regarding Standards, Research, Development and Innovation experiences are welcome, including R&D projects results. The Agenda will be drafted early in March, so the dead-line for submitting your topic is only until 25th February, but as said only a short abstract is required. If you're interested in participating, or you have any special idea, even if your topic is not in the list above, please don't hesitate to contact me (jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es) ASAP, so we can work out any options. Regards, Jordi PS: Please, feel free to circulate this email among your contacts. ------ Mensaje reenviado De: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> Responder a: <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> Fecha: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:25:42 +0100 Para: "members(a)ipv6forum.com" <members(a)ipv6forum.com>, <tf-sc(a)ipv6tf.org> Asunto: Next Global IPv6 Summit in Spain Hi all, As I already informed a few weeks ago, the next Global IPv6 Summit in Spain will be held this time in Barcelona next June (instead of Madrid in March as previously forecasted). This will happen starting on June 6th, with a tutorial in the morning, the opening ceremony in the afternoon, with some keynotes and then 2-3 days of IPv6 conference, depending on the success of the call for papers. If required we can extend our event up to Friday 10th (total 4 days, plus opening ceremony, plus half day tutorial). In this occasion, we will try a completely new model, integrating the IPv6 conference in a bigger event, more business oriented, even when technical sessions will be still present. The "umbrella" event is Internet Global Congress (IGC), with has been organized in Barcelona already during the 6 previous years. The Internet Global Congress, the leading Internet and New Technologies congress in Spain, is organized by the Fundació Barcelona Digital, a non-profit organization, which also provides space for exhibition and delivers the IGC awards for Digital Innovation (aimed to students and professionals with embryonic Internet projects, aims to be a launch platform for all those people involved in research and innovation in the field of Internet and the New Technologies). IGC provides us all the infrastructure for organizing the Global IPv6 Summit track, and we only need to manage our own agenda, and consequently our own call for papers (see next email). They also they care about all the issues related to registration, proceedings and publicity, at no cost for us. We expect that this will be the bigger IPv6 event in Europe during 2005, with an expected attendance over 2.600 people, which of course, will be able to attend not just to the IPv6 track but also to other IT tracks (already depicted at http://www.igcweb.net, then click at Program). The attendance is mainly CTOs, CEOs and other key decision makers related to ICT, so its a very nice opportunity for IPv6 in Europe to meet a large audience which probably has not been in touch with IPv6 until now. I count with the support from all of you, and please do not hesitate to let me know any ideas that you may have to make an even more successful event that what for sure we will have in a so nice city as Barcelona. More information will be soon available at http://www.ipv6-es.com and http://www.igcweb.net. Regards, Jordi ------ Fin del mensaje reenviado ************************************ Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Call for Papers and information available 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 Document available: RIPE-343
by RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service 26 Feb '05

26 Feb '05

[apologies for duplicate e-mails] New RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A revised document is available from the RIPE document store. Ref: ripe-343 Title: IPv6 Address Space Management Author: Paul Wilson, Raymond Plzak, Axel Pawlik Date: 22 February 2005 Format: PS=53986 TXT=13567 Obsoletes: ripe-261 Short content description ------------------------- This document provides the management process for IPv6 global unicast address space whereby address allocations are made from a single global pool according to a "sparse allocation" algorithm. In this version, previously published as ripe-261, we fixed an error in the 6-bit address space table. Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- You can access the RIPE documents in HTML format via our website at the following URL:. http://www.ripe.net/docs/ipv6-sparse.html The RIPE Document Store is also available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-343.pdf PDF version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-343.txt plain text version Kind Regards, RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service

7 9

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Call for Papers - Next Global IPv6 Summit in Spain
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 07 Feb '05

07 Feb '05

Hi all, As indicated in the email below, the next Global IPv6 Summit in Spain, the bigger IPv6 European event, in its 4th edition (after a very successful organization and broad international attendance in 2001, 2002 and 2003), will be organized this time in Barcelona, next June 2005, with a expected audience over 2.600 key decisions makers from ICT sectors. The main target of the event is business oriented talks, as well as talks oriented to policy makers, information/knowledge society, education and public sectors. This Call for Papers doesn't require that you submit a complete paper (which is welcome also), but instead, a short plain text abstract of your presentation topic, by email. Talks regarding deployment experiences, new services and applications will be of key interest for the expected attendance, and hence highly encouraged. We believe that key topics will be also those regarding: 1) IPv6 and business 2) IPv6 and Broadband 3) New IPv6-based services and applications 4) IPv6 and the Digital Home 5) IPv6 and Multimedia, Voice/Video applications 6) IPv6, Mobility, Wireless and 3G 7) IPv6 and Ambient Intelligence/Ubiquitous Computing/Distributed Systems 8) IPv6 and GRIDs 9) IPv6 and logistics, transport and eSafety 10) IPv6 for eHealth, eGoverment, eLearning and other "e-whatever" 11) IPv6 and gamming 12) IPv6 and peer-to-peer 13) IPv6 and security 14) IPv6 and Open Source 15) IPv6 and marketing/branding Also topics regarding Standards, Research, Development and Innovation experiences are welcome, including R&D projects results. The Agenda will be drafted early in March, so the dead-line for submitting your topic is only until 25th February, but as said only a short abstract is required. If you're interested in participating, or you have any special idea, even if your topic is not in the list above, please don't hesitate to contact me (jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es) ASAP, so we can work out any options. Regards, Jordi PS: Please, feel free to circulate this email among your contacts. ------ Mensaje reenviado De: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> Responder a: <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> Fecha: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:25:42 +0100 Para: "members(a)ipv6forum.com" <members(a)ipv6forum.com>, <tf-sc(a)ipv6tf.org> Asunto: Next Global IPv6 Summit in Spain Hi all, As I already informed a few weeks ago, the next Global IPv6 Summit in Spain will be held this time in Barcelona next June (instead of Madrid in March as previously forecasted). This will happen starting on June 6th, with a tutorial in the morning, the opening ceremony in the afternoon, with some keynotes and then 2-3 days of IPv6 conference, depending on the success of the call for papers. If required we can extend our event up to Friday 10th (total 4 days, plus opening ceremony, plus half day tutorial). In this occasion, we will try a completely new model, integrating the IPv6 conference in a bigger event, more business oriented, even when technical sessions will be still present. The "umbrella" event is Internet Global Congress (IGC), with has been organized in Barcelona already during the 6 previous years. The Internet Global Congress, the leading Internet and New Technologies congress in Spain, is organized by the Fundació Barcelona Digital, a non-profit organization, which also provides space for exhibition and delivers the IGC awards for Digital Innovation (aimed to students and professionals with embryonic Internet projects, aims to be a launch platform for all those people involved in research and innovation in the field of Internet and the New Technologies). IGC provides us all the infrastructure for organizing the Global IPv6 Summit track, and we only need to manage our own agenda, and consequently our own call for papers (see next email). They also they care about all the issues related to registration, proceedings and publicity, at no cost for us. We expect that this will be the bigger IPv6 event in Europe during 2005, with an expected attendance over 2.600 people, which of course, will be able to attend not just to the IPv6 track but also to other IT tracks (already depicted at http://www.igcweb.net, then click at Program). The attendance is mainly CTOs, CEOs and other key decision makers related to ICT, so its a very nice opportunity for IPv6 in Europe to meet a large audience which probably has not been in touch with IPv6 until now. I count with the support from all of you, and please do not hesitate to let me know any ideas that you may have to make an even more successful event that what for sure we will have in a so nice city as Barcelona. More information will be soon available at http://www.ipv6-es.com and http://www.igcweb.net. 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

Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 19 Jan '05

19 Jan '05

>"ICANN folly that we're in the process of changing" >(and this has taken far too long already). I propose to suggest the phrase "this has taken far too long already" as the new trademark for IANA/ICANN operations... >Gert Doering > -- NetMaster Sorry, couldn't resist... Wilfried ( https://cert.aco.net/ ) [ not wearing any hat for this message, just typing as a regular network citizen] _________________________________:_____________________________________ 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...there's no place like 127.0.0.1 (or ::1/128 ?)

2 1