- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa broken
by Daniel Roesen 17 Aug '04

17 Aug '04

On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 09:17:56AM +0100, David Malone wrote: > 2.0.0.2.ip6.int has become completely unavailable in the last few > days, resulting in delays for people connecting from 6to4 addresses > via ssh and the like. 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa is also broken in all colors. soa @ns.apnic.net. for ip6.arpa. has serial: 2004071900 soa @ns.icann.org. for ip6.arpa. has serial: 2004071900 soa @ns-sec.ripe.net. for ip6.arpa. has serial: 2004071900 dig @tinnie.arin.net. for SOA of parent (ip6.arpa.) failed ==> tinnie.arin.net IPv6 connectivity is broken: $ dig @69.25.34.195 ip6.arpa. SOA +short dns1.icann.org. hostmaster.icann.org. 2004071900 3600 1800 604800 10800 $ dig @2001:440:2000:1::22 ip6.arpa. SOA ; <<>> DiG 9.2.3 <<>> @2001:440:2000:1::22 ip6.arpa. SOA ;; global options: printcmd ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached Found 0 NS and 0 glue records for 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. @ns.apnic.net. (AUTH) Found 0 NS and 0 glue records for 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. @ns.icann.org. (AUTH) Found 4 NS and 4 glue records for 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. @ns-sec.ripe.net. (AUTH) DNServers for ip6.arpa. === 3 were also authoritatve for 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. === 0 were non-authoritative for 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. ERROR: Found 2 diff sets of NS records === from servers authoritative for 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. WARNING: ns.apnic.net. claims to be authoritative for 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. == but no NS record at parent zone WARNING: ns.icann.org. claims to be authoritative for 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. == but no NS record at parent zone WARNING: ns-sec.ripe.net. claims to be authoritative for 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. == but no NS record at parent zone ==> so although the three remaining NS for ip6.arpa have the same SOA serial, they obviously have a different view on the NS RRset for 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa... and all are authoritative for 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. Now looking at the NS RRset ns-sec.ripe.net returns for 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa: == ns-apnic.6to4.nro.net. ns-arin.6to4.nro.net. ns-lacnic.6to4.nro.net. == ns-ripe.6to4.nro.net. soa @ns-apnic.6to4.nro.net. for 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. serial: 2004072901 dig @ns-arin.6to4.nro.net. for SOA of 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. failed soa @ns-lacnic.6to4.nro.net. for 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. serial: 2004072901 soa @ns-ripe.6to4.nro.net. for 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. serial: 2004072901 ==> ns-arin.6to4.nro.net == tinnie.arin.net, so we have the same IPv6 reachability problem again What a mess all over... why do ns.apnic.net and ns.icann.org return NXDOMAIN when queried for the NS RRset for 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa, but ns-sec.ripe.net returning one? It looks like the whole 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa is missing in the ip6.arpa zone, and ns-sec.ripe.net is only by chance carrying the 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa zone, thus returning the NS RRset. I wonder where's the right place to report such global (multi-RIR/org) DNS problems to, if not v6ops. I see no "global IPv6 operations" list, can anyone enlighten me? Best regards, Daniel

2 4

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs
by Daniel Roesen 13 Aug '04

13 Aug '04

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 09:04:21AM +0100, Jon Lawrence wrote: > Yes, doubling does seem unwise. > It would make sense (to me anyway) that once xx% of a /12 is allocated then > another /12 is issued to the RIR. Indeed. I see no point in unconditional doubling. I'm pretty confident that /12 blocks are large enough to serve a RIR long enough so that ordering a new /12 is not hampering anything. My suggestion would be to set aside a /8 per RIR (perhaps also a DNS reverse delegation for that) and allocate /12s to the RIRs upon their request. A RIR qualifies for a new /12 block as soon as nn% usage of the current /12 block is reached. nn might be 50% or more. As Randy suggests, the percentage should be low enough so that the RIRs can get new space without delaying allocation to LIRs (as it happens nowadays). Best regards, Daniel

3 2

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Policy for allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to RIRs
by leo vegoda 10 Aug '04

10 Aug '04

Dear Colleagues, The Number Resource Organisation (NRO) has published a proposal for a policy for the allocation of IPv6 address space from the IANA to the RIRs. It is intended that this proposed policy should be agreed by all RIRs' open policy fora and then approved by the ASO and ICANN as a global policy. The proposal is available on our web site at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ipv6.html Comment on the proposal is sought. Kind regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

9 15

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] inet6num missing for allocation - more?
by Daniel Roesen 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

Hi, I've just noticed, that the allocation 2001:478::/32 is not registered in the RIPE DB: $ whois -h whois.ripe.net -r 2001:478::/32 | fgrep inet6num: inet6num: 0::/0 Could RIPE check wether this problem does exist for other allocations too? Or is EP.NET "special"? :-) Best regards, Daniel

2 2

RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] inet6num missing for allocation - more?
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 04 Aug '04

04 Aug '04

>I've just noticed, that the allocation 2001:478::/32 is not registered >in the RIPE DB: But it is in ARIN's: > warin 2001:478:: OrgName: EP.NET, LLC. OrgID: V6EP Address: PO 12317 City: Marina del Rey StateProv: CA PostalCode: 90295 Country: US NetRange: 2001:0478:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - 2001:0478:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF CIDR: 2001:0478:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/32 NetName: EP-NET NetHandle: EP-NET-NET Parent: ARIN-001-NET NetType: Direct Allocation NameServer: FLAG.EP.NET NameServer: Z.IP6.INT Comment: RegDate: 2001-05-21 Updated: 2002-08-05 TechHandle: WM110-ARIN TechName: Manning, Bill TechPhone: +1-310-322-8102 TechEmail: bmanning(a)karoshi.com > ... Or is EP.NET "special"? :-) Who knows :-) >Best regards, >Daniel 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [sig-ipv6] Re: 9/9/2004 IP6.INT Removal (Was: 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?)
by Bound, Jim 31 Jul '04

31 Jul '04

Thank you. /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com > [mailto:bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 7:20 AM > To: Bound, Jim > Cc: bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com; Jeroen Massar; Anand > Kumria; Rob Blokzijl; v6ops(a)ops.ietf.org; sig-ipv6(a)apnic.net; > ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [sig-ipv6] Re: 9/9/2004 IP6.INT Removal (Was: > 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?) > > > both ip6.arpa and ip6.int > > --bill > > > > > P.S. Bill - the new initial IPv6 AAA at root for JP and KR > are they to > > use ipv6.arpa? Thanks. > > > > /jim > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-v6ops(a)ops.ietf.org > > > [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > > bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com > > > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 5:45 PM > > > To: Jeroen Massar > > > Cc: Anand Kumria; Rob Blokzijl; v6ops(a)ops.ietf.org; > > > sig-ipv6(a)apnic.net; ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > > > Subject: Re: [sig-ipv6] Re: 9/9/2004 IP6.INT Removal (Was: > > > 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?) > > > > > > > > > whjile i applaud each and everyone who has expunged > > > all ip6.int from their lives, the fact of the matter is that > > > IETF fiat or no, there exist -many- systems that can only use > > > reverse maps in the ip6.int tree. > > > > > > it will be maintained as long as there are queries for > > > it. for those of you for whom ip6.int is a distant memory, > > > pleae understand and respect the fact that you can not, > > > despite public posturing, force others to change their > > > systems. to practically remove ip6.int incures real cost > > > in both time and cash. in the US there is a term for what > > > the IETF is trying to do w/ ip6.int. Its called an unfunded > > > mandate. Unless or until the good folk in the IETF who are > > > calling for the removal of ip6.int are ready to put up the > > > cash to effect real change, I wish they would stop. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 09:58, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2004-07-22, at 09.43, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But indeed, if there is concensus or not 9/9/2004 > > > and ip6.int > > > > > > > > is gone for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I vote for 9/9/2004 and getting rid of it properly. > > > Maintaining > > > > > > > two reverse threes will create more problems than it > > > will solve. > > > > > > > > > > What, specifically, is the hurry? > > > > > > > > That this has been overdue for three years already and > that even > > > > though the deprecation was marked in August 2001 some vendors > > > > still not have done the change. And as it is a > > > s/ip6.int/ip6.arpa/g which is > > > > very easy, if vendors did not do that yet they are way > > > overdue and you > > > > got to wonder how much their interest is in keeping > > > software upto date. > > > > > > > > Basically we (at least me) have been waiting for the 6bone > > > to get the > > > > delegation so that we could remove the 2 trees and only > keep one: > > > > ip6.arpa. This was decided by the IAB thus we should > live up to it. > > > > > > > > If we do not remove ip6.int then still implementations > > > using it will > > > > not show up. They have had 3 years already to update... > > > > > > > > > > Take your pick: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://unfix.org/~jeroen/archive/drafts/draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int- > > > > > > removal-00.html > > > > > > > > > http://unfix.org/~jeroen/archive/drafts/draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int- > > > > > > removal-00.txt > > > > > > > > > http://unfix.org/~jeroen/archive/drafts/draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int- > > > > > > removal-00.xml > > > > > > > > > > > > Short, quick and easy. > > > > > > If no comments are risen for 16:00 today I'll submit > > > this as an ID. > > > > > > > > > > Comments: > > > > > e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa was documented in RFC3681 > published in February > > > > > 2004 and actioned in July 2004. > > > > > > > > Added, but note that this was all long overdue and > there where a > > > > number of other solutions that would have worked already 2 > > > years ago > > > > if there had not been any of the political arguments > > > holding back this > > > > technical issue. Note also that 6bone will end per 6/6/6 > > > and that it is a TESTbed. > > > > The TESTbed is delaying and thus hurting the production > networks > > > > in this case. > > > > > > > > > I'm assuming the actioning of e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa > is the trigger > > > > > for this I-D; if so, why do you want to wait so > little time (2 > > > > > months) between e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa becoming available and > > > > > requiring people to have updated resolver libraries? > > > > > > > > People should have updated their resolvers in the last > *3 years*. > > > > If you have not done that already then you are not maintaining > > > > your machines properly and there is a big chance that you have > > > > bigger problems than a IPv6 reverse DNS that doesn't > work anymore > > > > because ip6.int is gone. > > > > > > > > > Personally I'd be more in favour of a 6 month > timeout - i.e > > > > > around last December or so. > > > > > > > > Of course the date is up to discussion, but IMHO: ASAP and at > > > > least before the end of the year, the sooner the better. > > > > > > > > Note that Cisco's IOS updates will be done before that date and > > > > Windows > > > > XP2 will come out in August (they say) thus everybody using > > > IPv6 has > > > > time enough to upgrade. All "free unix flavors" already > support it > > > > > > > > Also users agree: http://www.sixxs.net/forum/?msg=general-83948 > > > > Note the begin date of that thread, we where really waiting > > > for 6bone > > > > just as being nice to the people still using it. > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 10:57, Rob Blokzijl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If no comments are risen for 16:00 today I'll submit > > > this as an ID. > > > > > > > > > > two minor points. In the abstract and the > > > introduction you write: > > > > > > > > > > RFC 3152 delegates IP6.ARPA for reverse IPv6 > > > delegations. For RIRs > > > > > (RIPE,ARIN,APNIC,LACNIC and soon AFNIC) > > > > > > > > > > Replace RIPE --> RIPE NCC > > > > > > > > That I did that wrong is a major oops, I should by know the > > > difference by now. > > > > > > > > > Replace AFNIC --> AFRINIC > > > > > > > > > > (AFNIC is the .fr registry :-) ) > > > > > > > > Also adjusted and added some xref's in the XML. > > > > > > > > Old version is now draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int-removal-00.a > > > new version > > > > carries the draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int-removal-00 name. > > > > > > > > Greets, > > > > Jeroen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and > > > policy issues * > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > sig-ipv6 mailing list > > > > sig-ipv6(a)lists.apnic.net > > > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-ipv6 > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [sig-ipv6] Re: 9/9/2004 IP6.INT Removal (Was: 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?)
by Bound, Jim 28 Jul '04

28 Jul '04

Well stated Mr. Manning. Same for any updates from IETF for IPv6 (e.g. 2461, 2462, SEND, Optimistic DAD) as every vendor I know (e.g. routers, switches, servers, clients, embedded systems) is shipping production IPv6 within their OS release. Any changes now to IPv6 will undergo rigorous Q&A, whether it has a business case for deployment to update the OS IPv6 features vs. other work for network centricity within the stack, and general time to test interoperability. Because the freeware BSD and Linux bases do it does not mean that the vendors will do it. Assume the time to change as it is for IPv4 now when we update or add features. The IETF can only provide specifications and suggestions (INFO and BCP) to the market they cannot mandate anything to the market and we have not for IPv4 either, it will not be different than IPv6. This is also dilemma we face for transition mechanisms. Back when we decided to follow the path that we do scenarios and then analysis and killed the forward progress and work on Teredo, ISATAP, DSTM, and Tunnel Broker some vendors and systems software entities did not stop building them and they are now beginning to be deployed in test beds and some early adopters. This will find market interest and into vendor products (note all of the ones listed above) and then when we do finish the specs we will face the same problem with the transition mechanisms. We do need to move to ipv6.arpa in the industry but it will happen gradually and same as a note even for the updates to Base Transition Mechanisms ergo RFC 2893 and I have already run into being asked about IPv4 Compatible Addresses during deployment and those are dead now. Same for the addressing architecture regarding TLAs and Site-Locals. Lesson here is again assume a time to absorb for IPv6 products now just like we do for IPv4. The IPv6 Forum and NAv6TF can help here where the IETF cannot, and I will take this to the members and industry, but it will take time. It is a deployment issue not a standards issue at this point. The exception has been Mobile IPv6 and most vendors are all at RFC level and that is because lots of customers want to begin early adoption with MIPv6 and that keeps the vendors quite proactive on that one. P.S. Bill - the new initial IPv6 AAA at root for JP and KR are they to use ipv6.arpa? Thanks. /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-v6ops(a)ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of > bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 5:45 PM > To: Jeroen Massar > Cc: Anand Kumria; Rob Blokzijl; v6ops(a)ops.ietf.org; > sig-ipv6(a)apnic.net; ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [sig-ipv6] Re: 9/9/2004 IP6.INT Removal (Was: > 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?) > > > whjile i applaud each and everyone who has expunged > all ip6.int from their lives, the fact of the matter is that > IETF fiat or no, there exist -many- systems that can only use > reverse maps in the ip6.int tree. > > it will be maintained as long as there are queries for > it. for those of you for whom ip6.int is a distant memory, > pleae understand and respect the fact that you can not, > despite public posturing, force others to change their > systems. to practically remove ip6.int incures real cost > in both time and cash. in the US there is a term for what > the IETF is trying to do w/ ip6.int. Its called an unfunded > mandate. Unless or until the good folk in the IETF who are > calling for the removal of ip6.int are ready to put up the > cash to effect real change, I wish they would stop. > > > > > > On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 09:58, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 2004-07-22, at 09.43, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > But indeed, if there is concensus or not 9/9/2004 > and ip6.int > > > > > > is gone for me. > > > > > > > > > > I vote for 9/9/2004 and getting rid of it properly. > Maintaining > > > > > two reverse threes will create more problems than it > will solve. > > > > > > What, specifically, is the hurry? > > > > That this has been overdue for three years already and that even > > though the deprecation was marked in August 2001 some vendors still > > not have done the change. And as it is a > s/ip6.int/ip6.arpa/g which is > > very easy, if vendors did not do that yet they are way > overdue and you > > got to wonder how much their interest is in keeping > software upto date. > > > > Basically we (at least me) have been waiting for the 6bone > to get the > > delegation so that we could remove the 2 trees and only keep one: > > ip6.arpa. This was decided by the IAB thus we should live up to it. > > > > If we do not remove ip6.int then still implementations > using it will > > not show up. They have had 3 years already to update... > > > > > > Take your pick: > > > > > > > > > http://unfix.org/~jeroen/archive/drafts/draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int- > > > > removal-00.html > > > > > http://unfix.org/~jeroen/archive/drafts/draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int- > > > > removal-00.txt > > > > > http://unfix.org/~jeroen/archive/drafts/draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int- > > > > removal-00.xml > > > > > > > > Short, quick and easy. > > > > If no comments are risen for 16:00 today I'll submit > this as an ID. > > > > > > Comments: > > > e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa was documented in RFC3681 published in February > > > 2004 and actioned in July 2004. > > > > Added, but note that this was all long overdue and there where a > > number of other solutions that would have worked already 2 > years ago > > if there had not been any of the political arguments > holding back this > > technical issue. Note also that 6bone will end per 6/6/6 > and that it is a TESTbed. > > The TESTbed is delaying and thus hurting the production networks in > > this case. > > > > > I'm assuming the actioning of e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa is the trigger > > > for this I-D; if so, why do you want to wait so little time (2 > > > months) between e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa becoming available and > > > requiring people to have updated resolver libraries? > > > > People should have updated their resolvers in the last *3 years*. > > If you have not done that already then you are not maintaining your > > machines properly and there is a big chance that you have bigger > > problems than a IPv6 reverse DNS that doesn't work anymore because > > ip6.int is gone. > > > > > Personally I'd be more in favour of a 6 month timeout - i.e > > > around last December or so. > > > > Of course the date is up to discussion, but IMHO: ASAP and at least > > before the end of the year, the sooner the better. > > > > Note that Cisco's IOS updates will be done before that date and > > Windows > > XP2 will come out in August (they say) thus everybody using > IPv6 has > > time enough to upgrade. All "free unix flavors" already support it > > > > Also users agree: http://www.sixxs.net/forum/?msg=general-83948 > > Note the begin date of that thread, we where really waiting > for 6bone > > just as being nice to the people still using it. > > > > On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 10:57, Rob Blokzijl wrote: > > > > > > If no comments are risen for 16:00 today I'll submit > this as an ID. > > > > > > two minor points. In the abstract and the > introduction you write: > > > > > > RFC 3152 delegates IP6.ARPA for reverse IPv6 > delegations. For RIRs > > > (RIPE,ARIN,APNIC,LACNIC and soon AFNIC) > > > > > > Replace RIPE --> RIPE NCC > > > > That I did that wrong is a major oops, I should by know the > difference by now. > > > > > Replace AFNIC --> AFRINIC > > > > > > (AFNIC is the .fr registry :-) ) > > > > Also adjusted and added some xref's in the XML. > > > > Old version is now draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int-removal-00.a > new version > > carries the draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int-removal-00 name. > > > > Greets, > > Jeroen > > > > > > > * sig-ipv6: APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and > policy issues * > > _______________________________________________ > > sig-ipv6 mailing list > > sig-ipv6(a)lists.apnic.net > > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-ipv6 > > >

3 2

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?
by Jeroen Massar 26 Jul '04

26 Jul '04

Hi, As e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa has finally been delegated and works as of today I want to propose the end-day for ip6.int. ip6.int has been deprecated in favor of ip6.arpa for almost 3 years already (RFC3152 dates August 2001) thus it is time to clean up the mess. Vendors have been able to update their stacks for almost 3 years, ip6.arpa has been deployed on production (read RIR) IPv6 space already for quite some time too. Thus now, with 6bone also having a working ip6.arpa tree this seems to be a perfect opportunity to start shutting down ip6.int. At the moment only Cisco IOS and Windows XP don't have ip6.arpa support, but IOS has been addressed (they say) and Windows XP will be fixed with SP2 due out per August. As neither of these are server OS's this doesn't pose much of a problem anyway. People using IPv6 need to keep their systems up-to-date anyways. I propose that RIPE, and actually any other RIR, stops any delegations for ip6.int per 9/9/2006. Which is more than 3 years after the RFC has been released. Greets, Jeroen

17 34

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

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] [ginny@arin.net: [arin-announce] ARIN Offers Expanded IPv6 Network Services]
by David Kessens 12 May '04

12 May '04

----- Forwarded message from Ginny Listman <ginny(a)arin.net> ----- Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:29:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Ginny Listman <ginny(a)arin.net> To: arin-announce(a)arin.net Subject: [arin-announce] ARIN Offers Expanded IPv6 Network Services ARIN announces further introduction of its IPv6 network services. These services include DNS, FTP, HTTP and WHOIS via port 80. Additional services, such as WHOIS via port 43 and HTTPS will be added in the future. Details of some of the v6 implementation issues ARIN encountered will be presented during a panel discussion at the upcoming NANOG 31 meeting. Please feel free to contact me at ginny(a)arin.net if you have any questions. Regards, Ginny Listman Director of Engineering American Registry for Internet Numbers ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters!
by Gert Doering 10 May '04

10 May '04

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

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE48 (update 2)
by David Kessens 05 May '04

05 May '04

Hi, Below follows an updated agenda (update 2) for the ipv6 wg for RIPE48. Thanks, David Kessens --- Updated agenda (update 2) for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE48 When: 14:00 - 18:00, Wednesday May 5, 2004 Where: Grand Ballroom, Hotel Krasnapolsky, Amsterdam A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering) C. "per country view" about IPv6 allocation on the RIPE/NCC http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/v6top.html (Carlos Friacas) D. 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) E. Raising RPSLng Awareness (Carlos Friacas, Simon Leinen and Joao Damas) F. Discussion of: http://ip6.de.easynet.net/ipv6-minimum-peering.txt -- break -- G. IETF multi6 update (Kurtis Erik Lindqvist) H. Latest IPv6 Land Speed Record (Edoardo Martelli) (we might cover this topic before the break) I. What are the deployment plans behind the larger ipv6 allocations ? (Jordi Palet Martinez for Vodafoon) J. IPv6 home automation (Jordi Palet Martinez) K. (brief) update from the RIPE NCC on ipv6 enabled services (Andrei Robachevsky) L. IPv6 network management (IETF MIBs status, NetFlow v9, SNMPv6, and monitoring tools are the agenda items). (Bernard Tuy) M. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience) N. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan (input from the audience) Z. AOB ---

2 1

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Actual IPv6 traffic
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 04 May '04

04 May '04

From the agenda: > C. 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) My input in advance: I've been running some web measurements using a small image that can be linked on web pages to see whether the visitors are v6-capable or not. (The host that has the image has an IPv6 address and notes whether the image is requested over v4 or v6.) The results over the past months: Site IPv4 IPv6 Total 0 151 ( 98.05%) 3 ( 1.95%) 154 3 334 ( 94.35%) 20 ( 5.65%) 354 6 1355 ( 82.02%) 297 ( 17.98%) 1652 7 57 ( 75.00%) 19 ( 25.00%) 76 8 20107 ( 99.85%) 31 ( 0.15%) 20138 10 2918 ( 84.43%) 538 ( 15.57%) 3456 Totals 24925 ( 96.49%) 908 ( 3.51%) 25833 Note that the numbers refer to different sites with very different usage and IPv6 interest levels. Only number 8 is a very mainstream non-networking site (in Dutch) so I think this one represents average IPv6 capability for the web surfing public fairly well, at around 1 user in 666 requesting the counter image over IPv6. :-) See http://www.muada.com/ to see the counter in action and for a link to the results page. (BTW, it would help if someone would type sysctl -w net.inet6.ip6.forwarding=1 on router.ripemtg.ripe.net, or, failing that, kill the rtadvd.)

3 2

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE48 (updated)
by David Kessens 03 May '04

03 May '04

Below follows an updated agenda for the ipv6 wg for RIPE48. I managed to find a a volunteer for: What are the deployment plans behind the larger ipv6 allocations? (more volunteers are welcome) I also changed the scheduling to accomodate some of our speakers. We probably still have some time left so I will allow last minute additions to the agenda. Please read: http://ip6.de.easynet.net/ipv6-minimum-peering.txt so we can discuss this document. Thanks, David Kessens --- Updated agenda for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE48 When: 14:00 - 18:00, Wednesday May 5, 2004 Where: Grand Ballroom, Hotel Krasnapolsky, Amsterdam A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering) C. 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) D. Raising RPSLng awareness (Carlos Friacas, Simon Leinen and Joao Damas) E. Discussion of: http://ip6.de.easynet.net/ipv6-minimum-peering.txt -- break -- G. Latest IPv6 Land Speed Record (Edoardo Martelli) (we might cover this topic before the break) H. What are the deployment plans behind the larger ipv6 allocations ? (Jordi Palet Martinez for Vodafoon) I. IPv6 home automation (Jordi Palet Martinez) J. (brief) update from the RIPE NCC on ipv6 enabled services (tentative) K. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience) L. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan (input from the audience) Z. AOB ---

2 1

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Agenda for ipv6 working group RIPE48
by David Kessens 29 Apr '04

29 Apr '04

Below follows the agenda for the ipv6 wg for RIPE48. As you can see, we have a long agenda slot this time since we got many comments from people that we need more time. As a result, we still have some time left so I will accept last minute additions to the agenda. I have not found any volunteers for one proposed agenda item: What are the deployment plans behind the larger ipv6 allocations? I would very much welcome presentations from the receivers of such space on what their plans are on what they will do with this address space. Please let me know if you can help out or happen to know somebody who can help. Thanks, David Kessens --- Agenda for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE48 When: 14:00 - 18:00, Wednesday May 5, 2004 Where: Grand Ballroom, Hotel Krasnapolsky, Amsterdam A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering) C. 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) D. What are the deployment plans behind the larger ipv6 allocations ? (looking for speakers) E. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience) F. Latest IPv6 Land Speed Record (Edoardo Martelli) G. Raising RPSLng Awareness (Carlos Friacas, Simon Leinen and Joao Damas) -- break -- H. IPv6 home automation (Jordi Palet Martinez) I. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan (input from the audience) Z. AOB ---

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Call for agenda items & draft agenda (v1) for ipv6 wg RIPE48
by David Kessens 20 Apr '04

20 Apr '04

Below follows the draft agenda (v1) for the ipv6 wg for RIPE48. As you can see, we have a long agenda slot this time since we got many comments from people that we needed more time. Please contact me if you would like to propose any agenda items. I would like to draw your attention to one proposed agenda item: What are the deployment plans behind the larger ipv6 allocations? More recently, we have seen several ipv6 allocations that are larger than the minimum size. I would very much welcome presentations from the receivers of such space on what their plans are on what they will do with this address space. Thanks, David Kessens --- Draft Agenda (v1) for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE48 When: 14:00 - 18:00, Wednesday May 5, 2004 Where: Grand Ballroom, Hotel Krasnapolsky, Amsterdam A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering) C. 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) D. What are the deployment plans behind the larger ipv6 allocations ? (looking for speakers) E. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience) F. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan (input from the audience) Z. AOB ---

1 0