- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Fw: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy
by Stuart Prevost 17 Jan '02

17 Jan '02

FW: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global PolicyAll, I have send this to this lists as the global-v6 lists does not seem to be working. Regards, Stuart ----- Original Message ----- From: Stuart Prevost To: stu(a)prevost.net Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:32 PM Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy Dear all, Please find enclosed comments on new draft enclosed in text below. I an unable to attend the RIPE meeting next week in Amsterdam, but Paul Mylotte will comment on the comments in this mail at the meeting. Regards, Stuart IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy Draft of December, 22 2001 Version 2001-12-22 APNIC ARIN RIPE - NCC Status of this Memo This document specifies "Internet best current practices" for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Distribution of this document is unlimited as long as its contents remain unchanged. Comments on this document should be sent to the global-v6 mailing list: To post: <global-v6(a)lists.apnic.net>. To subscribe: <http://www.apnic.net/net_comm/lists/> Archives: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/global-v6> Contents Status of this Memo.......................................... 1 1. Introduction............................................. 2 1.1. Overview............................................ 2 1.2. Current Status...................................... 3 2. Definitions.............................................. 4 2.1. Autonomous System (AS).............................. 5 2.2. Internet Registry (IR).............................. 5 2.3. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).......... 5 2.4. Regional Internet Registry (RIR).................... 6 2.5. National Internet Registry (NIR).................... 6 2.6. Local Internet Registry (LIR)....................... 6 2.7. Allocate............................................ 6 2.8. Assign.............................................. 6 2.9. Utilization......................................... 7 2.10. Site............................................... 7 3. Goals of IPv6 address space management................... 7 3.1. Goals............................................... 7 3.2. Uniqueness.......................................... 8 3.3. Registration........................................ 8 3.4. Aggregation......................................... 8 3.5. Conservation (Stewardship).......................... 9 3.6. Fairness............................................ 9 3.7. Minimize Overhead................................... 9 3.8. Conflict of goals................................... 9 4. IPv6 Policy Principles................................... 10 4.1. Address space not to be considered property......... 10 4.2. Routability not guaranteed.......................... 11 4.3. Minimum Allocation.................................. 11 4.4. Consideration of IPv4 Infrastructure................ 12 5. Policies for allocations and assignments................. 12 5.1. Consistency of IR address space management policies. 12 5.2. Initial allocation.................................. 12 5.2.1. Initial allocation criteria.................... 12 5.2.2. Initial allocation size........................ 13 5.3. Subsequent allocation............................... 13 5.3.1. Subsequent allocation criteria................. 13 5.3.2. Utilization Metric............................. 13 5.3.3. Applied HD-Ratio............................... 14 5.3.4. Subsequent Allocation Size..................... 14 5.4. LIR-to-ISP allocation............................... 14 5.5. Assignment.......................................... 15 5.5.1. Assignment address space size.................. 15 5.5.2. Assignment to a site........................... 15 5.5.3. Assignment of multiple /48s to a single site... 15 5.5.4. Assignment to operator's infrastructure........ 15 5.6. DB registration..................................... 16 5.7. Reverse lookup...................................... 16 5.8. Validity of allocations and assignments............. 16 5.9. Existing IPv6 address space holders................. 17 6. Special case............................................. 17 6.1. IX (Internet Exchange).............................. 17 7. Acknowledgment........................................... 17 8. References............................................... 18 9. Appendix A:.............................................. 19 1. Introduction 1.1. Overview This document describes policies for the allocation and assignment of globally unique Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) address space. In particular, [RFC2373, RFC2373bis] designates 2000::/3 to be global unicast address space that IANA may allocate. In accordance with [RFC2928, RFC2373bis, IAB-Request], IANA has assigned initial ranges of global unicast IPv6 address space from the 2001::/16 address block to the existing RIRs. This document concerns the initial and subsequent allocations of the 2000::/3 unicast address space, for which RIRs formulate allocation policies. Because end sites will generally be given /48 allocations [RFC 3177, RIRs-on-48s], the particular emphasis of this document is on policies relating the bits within 2000::/3 to the left of the /48 boundary. However, since some end sites will receive /64 and /128 allocations, all bits to the left of /64 are in scope. This document updates and replaces all the guidelines and procedures of the existing Provisional IPv6 Policies [RIRv6-Policies] based on over two years of experience with the 1999 policy. The Provisional IPv6 Policy document will be obsoleted with the adoption of this document. Address policies should be globally uniform and formulated in a bottom-up manner through consensus processes at regional and global levels. Address policies must be determined with well-balanced consideration given to not only technical constraints and the expectations of the Internet community, but also to the operational needs of ISPs and end users. Furthermore, the policies should be reviewed whenever necessary in accordance with changes in the external environment or operational experience of the relevant communities. Policies described in this document are global in nature and are intended to be followed in each registry. However, adoption of this document does not preclude local variations in each region or area. This policy is also considered an interim policy in the sense that there is still little experience with allocating IPv6 addresses. As experience from implementing the policy is gained, some aspects of the policy will likely need review and updating. 1.2. Current Status The APNIC meeting held in Taiwan in August 2001 discussed policies relating to IPv6 address allocation and assignment and reached a certain consensus. Afterward, similar suggestions were made at a RIPE meeting held in October 2001 and an ARIN meeting held in the same month. Various discussions were held at these meetings, with consensus identified on a number of points. This document makes a proposal based upon the results of discussions at these meetings. In all of these meetings, the participants recognized an urgent need for more detailed, complete policies in the Asia Pacific Region governing global IPv6 address space management. It was generally recognized that discussion about policies for IPv6 allocation and assignment will not easily come to an end, but there is a consensus that such discussion should be summed up quickly to establish interim policies. Accordingly, this document should be considered as a time- limited public document that describes the most reasonable solution available at present that has been obtained through these discussions. This document will therefore be duly updated as the Internet environment of IPv6 progresses, and it is expected that updates will occur relatively frequently in the coming years. This document does not provide details of discussions concerning individual policy issues, however the following sources provide background information which may be of interest: Meeting results: <http://www.apnic.net/meetings/12/results/> <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-40/minutes.html> <http://www.arin.net/minutes/ARIN_VIII/PPM.html> Presentation Materials: <http://www.apnic.net/meetings/12/docs/prop_new_ipv6_policy.ppt> <http://www.apnic.net/meetings/12/docs/ipv6principles-dist.ppt> <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-40/presentations/> <http://www.arin.net/minutes/ARIN_VIII/PPM.html> 2. Definitions [note: some of these definitions will be replaced by definitions from other RIR documents in order to be more consistent.] The following terms and their definitions are of particular importance to the understanding of the goals, environment, and policies described in this document. Responsibility for management of IPv6 address spaces is distributed globally in accordance with the hierarchical structure shown below. +--------+ | IANA | +--------+ | +-----------+-----------+ | | | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | RIR | | RIR | | RIR | Regional Internet +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ Registries | +-----------+--+--------+ | | | | +-----+ +-----+ | | NIR | | NIR | National Internet | +-----+ +-----+ Registries | | | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ |LIR/ISP | |LIR/ISP | |LIR/ISP | Local Internet +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ Registries | | | +---------+ | | | | | | +-------+ +----+ +----+ +----+ |EU(ISP)| | EU | | EU | | EU | End users +-------+ +----+ +----+ +----+ 2.1. Autonomous System (AS) Autonomous Systems are the unit of routing policy in the world of exterior routing, and are specifically applicable to protocols like BGP [RFC1771]. 2.2. Internet Registry (IR) An Internet Registry (IR) is an organization that is responsible for distributing IP address space to its members or customers and for registering those distributions. IRs are classified according to their primary function and territorial scope within the hierarchical structure depicted in the figure above. 2.3. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has responsibility for management of the entire IP address space used on the Internet. Actual assignment operations are performed by organizations under IANA. Rather than allocating or assigning address space to operational networks, the IANA delegates responsibility for large blocks of address space to Regional Internet Registries, for management at the regional level. 2.4. Regional Internet Registry (RIR) Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are established and authorized by respective regional communities, and recognized by the IANA to serve and represent large geographical regions. The primary role of RIRs is to manage and distribute public Internet address space within their respective regions. Currently, there are three RIRs: APNIC, RIPE NCC, and ARIN. Preparations are being made to establish LACNIC and AfriNIC. 2.5. National Internet Registry (NIR) A National Internet Registry (NIR) is an IR that primarily allocates address space to its members, which are Local Internet Registries (LIRs). NIR members are generally Internet Service Providers (ISPs) organized at a national level. A NIR is constituted from ISPs, but the NIR itself does not function as an ISP. NIRs are expected to remain neutral to the interests of ISPs of their constituency. NIRs exist mostly in the Asia Pacific Region. 2.6. Local Internet Registry (LIR) A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an IR that primarily assigns address space to the users of the network services that it provides. LIRs are generally ISPs, whose customers are primarily end users and possibly other ISPs. 2.7. Allocate To allocate means to distribute address space to IRs for the purpose of subsequent distribution by them. 2.8. Assign To assign means to designate address space that an IR distributes part or all of to an end user for the purpose of actual deployment in that end user's or ISP's own network. Address space is also designated as assigned if the IR uses it for the purpose of addressing their own network. Assignments are made only for specific purposes demonstrated by specific organizations and are not be sub- allocated or sub-assigned to other parties. In this hierarchical structure, IANA allocates address space to RIRs for the purpose of redistribution. RIRs then allocate address space to NIRs or LIRs in their respective regions (or in some cases to NIRs which further allocate the space to LIRs within their own countries). Each NIR allocates address space to LIRs in its own country. When an RIR or NIR allocates address space to an LIR, it also delegates to the LIR the authority to assign addresses to end users. 2.9. Utilization Unlike IPv4, IPv6 generally assigns a /48 to each end site. The actual utilization of any particular /48, when compared to IPv4 , will be extremely low. In IPv6, the "utlization" that is of interest refers to the bits to the left of the /48. Throughout this document, the term utilization refers to the allocation of /48s to end sites, and not the utilization of those /48s within those end sites. 2.10. Site A site is defined as an end user (subscriber) who has a business relationship with a provider that involves that provider carrying its traffic. Every end user (subscriber) individually on a contract with an ISP is considered an entity and is eligible to receive a /48 IPv6 assignment, regardless of organization or geographical location. 3. Goals of IPv6 address space management 3.1. Goals The goals of address space management described here reflect the mutual interest of all members of the Internet community and ensure that the Internet is able to function and grow to the maximum extent possible. Address policies must be determined with well-balanced consideration given to not only technical constraints and the expectations of the Internet community but also to the operational needs of ISPs and end users. These goals are essentially the same as the goals in IPv4 policies that have been formulated by the Internet community. However, attention must be paid to the fact that differences between IPv6 and IPv4 change the relative priority of elements that must be considered to attain these goals. 3.2. Uniqueness Every assignment and/or allocation of address space must guarantee uniqueness worldwide. This is an absolute requirement for ensuring that every public host on the Internet can be uniquely identified. 3.3. Registration Every assignment and allocation of Internet address space must be registered in a public registry database accessible to all members of the Internet community. Which database is this referring to ? Each RIR database? This is necessary to ensure the uniqueness of each Internet address and to provide reference information for Internet troubleshooting at all levels, ranging from all RIRs and IRs to end users. Are we talking /48s /64s and /128s? It also reflects the expectation of the Internet community that all users of public resources, such as address space, should be able to check the conditions of the resources. What does "conditions of the resource" mean? 3.4. Aggregation Wherever possible, address space should be distributed in a hierarchical manner, according to the topology of network infrastructure. This is necessary to permit the aggregation of routing information and limit the expansion of Internet routing tables. With its vast address space, IPv6 makes hierarchical distribution for aggregation much easier than IPv4. The IPv6 specification creates a huge address space, and the number of hosts under internal routing control of an individual autonomous system is expected to increase dramatically compared with IPv4. For example, cellular phones, various electric appliances, and telemeter sensors, are likely to become connected to the Internet in addition to the conventional types of IPv4 hosts. Thus, hierarchical distributions must be considered to limit the expansion of routing tables regarding not only external routing information advertised in the Internet default-free zone but also internal routing information within an autonomous system. Because internal aggregation is important, policies should be sensitive to supporting better internal aggregation (e.g, through assignment of bigger blocks). 3.5. Conservation (Stewardship) Maintaining unnecessary allocations and assignments or stockpiling address space with no aggregation merit should be avoided as a matter of course. Also, efforts must be made for the efficiency of address use as much as possible within the bounds of other constraints. 3.6. Fairness All policies and practices relating to the use of public address space should apply fairly and equitably to all existing and potential members of the Internet community, regardless of their location, nationality, size or any other factor. 3.7. Minimize Overhead It is desirable to minimize the overhead associated with obtaining additional address space as a site grows. Overhead includes the need to go back to RIRs for additional space too frequently, the overhead associated with managing address space that grows through a number of small successive incremental expansions rather than through fewer, but larger, expansions, etc. This para talks about trying to minimize overhead as a site grows, but if a site is allocated a /48 and needs an additional /48 for expansion then according to 5.5.3 The LIR whose customers needs an additional /48 request needs to be reviewed at the RIR/NIR level. Is this really minimizing overhead!! Maybe this section needs more text and a reference to 5.5.3? 3.8. Conflict of goals The goals of conservation, aggregation and minimization of administrative overhead often conflict with each other. In IPv6 address management, the six goals described above are given different priorities from the implicit priorities of IPv4 address management. IPv6 address management should give higher priority to aggregation and lower priority to address conservation, when compared with current IPv4 management practices. This does not mean that wasteful address usage should be tolerated because vast address space is available. Instead, emphasis is placed on the need for policies that place aggregation in higher priority so that the number of external and internal routes will be practically limited in the large address space to ensure stable Internet operations for a long time to come. Emphasis on aggregation sometimes leads to somewhat lower priority on address conservation because these two goals tend to conflict with each other. It should be noted that an exclusive choice between aggregation and conservation will not be made on the basis of the policies or judgment of any registry practices in accordance with these policies. Both aggregation and conservation should be taken into consideration in the right balance. In IPv6, the right balance is generally "more aggregation, less conservation". The balance between aggregation and conservation will be reviewed over time according to various factors, such as operational experience and address consumption. Some or all of the goals described here may occasionally be in conflict with the interests of individual IRs or end users. Therefore, all IRs evaluating requests for allocations and assignments must make judgment, seeking to balance the needs of the applicant with the needs of the Internet community as a whole. The policies described in this document are intended to help IRs balance these needs in consistent and equitable ways. Full documentation of and transparency within the decision making process must also be maintained in order to achieve this result. 4. IPv6 Policy Principles To address the goals described in the previous section, the policies in this document discuss and follow the basic principles described below. 4.1. Address space not to be considered property It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole for address space to be considered freehold property. The global IPv6 policies in this document are based upon the understanding that address space is lease-licensed for use rather than owned. All Internet Registries are expected to manage address space operations correctly in accordance with this principle. According to this policy, IP addresses will be allocated on a lease- license basis, with such lease-licenses to be of specific limited duration of normally one year. Conditions of a lease-license have specific conditions applied at the start or renewal of the lease. Lease-licenses will typically be renewed automatically at the end of their duration when the following two conditions are met: a) The original basis of the allocation remains valid. b) Registration requirements relating to that allocation have been fulfilled at the time of renewal However, when a lease-license is renewed, the new lease-license will be evaluated under and governed by the applicable resource allocation and renewal policies in place at the time of renewal. It is not clear what "resource allocation and renewal policies" are exactly. There is no definition of them in this document. Sounds like we are moving towards the way the DNS system works with the renewal of Domain Names. Changes to the conditions of current lease-licences shall be subject to a definite period of notice, except in exceptional circumstances recognized by a consensus of the Internet community. As address space is not owned, and consistent with the desire to avoid excessive fragmentation of address space, it may become necessary in extreme circumstances to renumber assignments. Such renumbering will only be undertaken after extensive consultation with the Internet community. 4.2. Routability not guaranteed Because IPv6 is fundamentally based upon aggregatable addresses, its circumstance differs from IPv4, which contains a number of non- provider-based assignments for historical reasons. Nonetheless, registries are not responsible for routability, which is affected by the technical implementation by LIRs/ISPs. RIRs must take steps, however, to ensure that allocations they make will not result in excessively fragmented address space, as that may lead to loss of routability. 4.3. Minimum Allocation As under current IPv4 management policies, it is proposed that IPv6 policies establish a "minimum allocation" of address space, which serves to limit the distribution by Internet Registries of portable address prefixes. Generally speaking, making minimum allocation size too small leads to address fragmentation, and making the size too large lowers the efficiency of address use. Discussion about the appropriate size of allocation needs to be continued in the future. The interim policies adopt the following concept: First, a minimum address space (/32) will be provided by default by RIR/NIR to LIRs. However, many large providers will quickly deplete a /32 space and need to use more address space within a short time. For this reason, providers requiring space larger than a /32 may request more address space, but must provide justification for such a request. 4.4. Consideration of IPv4 Infrastructure Where an existing IPv4 service provider requests IPv6 space for eventual transition of existing services to IPv6, the number of present IPv4 customers may be used as a reason for requesting more space in justifying IPv6 address space requests. This is based upon the implicit assumption that service providers having a large number of IPv4 customers are likely to have many customers in IPv6 as well. This assumption should be evaluated and reviewed on the next occasion of revising the policies. 5. Policies for allocations and assignments 5.1. Consistency of IR address space management policies All Internet Registries shall adopt policies that are consistent with the policies formulated by the Internet community and described in this document. 5.2. Initial allocation 5.2.1. Initial allocation criteria A requesting organization can receive an initial allocation by demonstrating that it has an immediate (i.e., within next three months) requirement for at least a /36 prefix. That is, immediately after the allocation, the organization will have 776 or more sites in need of address assignments. 776 is the number of /48 address blocks that can be assigned out of a /36 address block to achieve an HD- Ratio of 0.8. The HD-Ratio is an address allocation utilization metric proposed in RFC 3194 as an adaptation of the H-Ratio originally defined in [RFC1715]. (See also Section 5.3.3.) This para now mention 3 months, but this is too short a time to connect 776 customer sites. It is not obvious what the new time frame should be, but it should be longer than 3 months. [Note: discussion is needed as to whether justification for need of a /36 is reasonable initial starting point, or whether the criteria of an immediate need to address 776 sites is too high. Note also, that once a request for an initial allocation has been granted, the minimum allocation (i.e., /32) is provided, even though the requestor has not justified a need for such a large amount of space.] 5.2.2. Initial allocation size A requesting organization satisfying the initial allocation criteria can receive an initial allocation of the minimum /32 address block. Any organization requesting a larger address block may receive the necessary size of allocation by submitting documentation that reasonably justifies the necessity. For instance, a provider or an enterprise currently providing IPv4 address services may apply for and receive an initial allocation of the size reasonably judged necessary to provide all the existing users with IPv6 services. In this case, the necessary size will be judged on the basis of the number of existing users and infrastructure. Shouldn't this be that the IPv4 provider should be allocated an initial allocation for its IPv4 customers PLUS the next 2 years growth, as in 5.3.4. Otherwise we will have the scenario where an IP v4 provider switches to IPv6, and changes its customers over to IPv6 and then has to go back to the RIR to request an additional block for its new IPv6 customers. Suggest that the "2 year rule" should be applied here also. This can be represented by the following expression: S(0) = shorter(/32, eval(required prefix size)) where (required prefix size) is the prefix size of applicant requesting allocation 5.3. Subsequent allocation An organization (ISP/LIR) that has already received an address block from an RIR/NIR may receive a subsequent allocation in accordance with the following policies. 5.3.1. Subsequent allocation criteria Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organization (ISP/LIR) satisfies the evaluation threshold of past address utilization in terms of the number of sites in units of /48 assignments. The HD- Ratio is used to assess the utilization of the existing address block as described below. 5.3.2. Utilization Metric In general, HD-Ratio [RFC3194] is expressed as follows: Log (number of allocated objects) HD = ------------------------------------------------ Log (maximum number of allocatable objects) where the objects are IPv6 site addresses (/48s) assigned from an IPv6 prefix of length P. The utilization threshold T, expressed as a number of individual /48 prefixes to be allocated from IPv6 prefix P, can be calculated as: ((48-P)*HD) T = 2 Thus, the utilization threshold for an organization requesting subsequent allocation of IPv6 address block is specified as a function of the prefix size and target HD ratio. This utilization refers to the allocation of /48s to end sites, and not the utilization of those /48s within those end sites. It is an address allocation utilization ratio and not an address assignment utilization ratio. 5.3.3. Applied HD-Ratio A desirable HD-Ratio for evaluation is thought to lie between 0.80 and 0.85, with the actual value needing to be determined as experience is gathered from implementation of this policy. An HD- ratio of 0.8 is adopted for this interim policy. The value may change in response to implementation experience. 5.3.4. Subsequent Allocation Size The size of an "n"-th time subsequent allocation S(n) is found as: S(n) = shorter(S(n-1)-1, eval(two_years_req)) where S(n-1)-1 represents one bit shorter prefix address block size of the previous allocated address block size, and eval(two_years_req) represents the evaluation of two-year demands of the requesting organization. In other words, an organization (ISP/LIR) satisfying the criteria can receive at least one bit shorter prefix automatically. If an organization needs more address space, it needs to demonstrate its two-year demand to an RIR/NIR. Then, the RIR/NIR evaluates it and allocates the address prefix enough to satisfy its two-year requirements. 5.4. LIR-to-ISP allocation There is no specific policy for an organization (ISP/LIR) to allocate address space to subordinate ISPs. Each LIR organization may develop its own policy for subordinate ISPs to encourage optimum utilization of the total address block allocated to the LIR. However, the LIR is required to keep track of all /48s assignments, including assignments made by its subordinate ISPs to end users, and report the assignment status to RIR/NIR so that the HD-Ratio can be evaluated when a subsequent allocation becomes necessary. Here the text implies that the LIR should keep track of all subordinate allocations, which means that if an LIR allocates a block to a subordinate ISP then the LIR needs to keep track of all the /48s that the subordinate ISP allocates to its own customers. Then, when the LIR requests a larger allocation, that same LIR needs to report these allocations to RIR/NIR so that the RIR/NIR can then calculate the subsequent allocation. However, earlier in "3.3. Registration" it says that "Every assignment and allocation of Internet address space must be registered in a public registry database accessible to all members of the Internet community" It also talks about registration in 5.6 see below. This registration question needs clarifying - the document contradicts itself. Currently in IPv4, addresses are registered in either a public database or in the LIR's own database, thus allowing a mixture. Thus, if we need to keep our customer information private, we can keep it "off" a public database, but if the customer does want to be seen in the public database then we can enter it. Suggest the same principle needs to be applied to IPv6. 5.5. Assignment This section describes the assignment policy. 5.5.1. Assignment address space size Address space following the 64th bit is the IETF boundary [RFC2460]. Address space following the 48th bit is a policy boundary, with IETF recommendations [RFC3177] and RIR agreement [RIRs-on-48] recommending the assignment of: - /48 in the general case, except for very large subscribers - /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed by design - /128 when it is absolutely known that one and only one device is connecting. RIRs/NIRs are not concerned about which address size an LIR/ISP actually assigns. Accordingly, RIRs/NIRs will not request the detailed information on user networks as they did in IPv4, except for the cases described in Section 4.4. and for the purposes of measuring utilization as defined in this document. 5.5.2. Assignment to a site 5.5.3. Assignment of multiple /48s to a single site When a single site requires an additional /48 address block, it can request the assignment with documentation or materials that justify the request. Requests for multiple or additional /48s will be processed and reviewed (i.e., evaluation of justification) at the RIR/NIR level. 5.5.4. Assignment to operator's infrastructure An organization (ISP/LIR) may assign a /48 per PoP as the service infrastructure of an IPv6 service operator. Each assignment to a PoP is regarded as one assignment regardless of the number of users using the PoP. On the other hand, a separate assignment can be obtained for the in-house operations of the operator. 5.6. DB registration When an organization in reciept of an IPv6 address allocation makes IPv6 address assignments, it must register assignment information in a public database (initially a database maintained by an RIR/NIR, which may be replaced by a distributed database for registering address management information in future). Information is registered in units of assigned /48 networks. When an organization assigns an address space larger than a /48 to another organization, it must monitor if this organization has registered address utilization information in a public database. This para talks about an organization (LIR) assigning an address space larger than a /48 to another organization. In this case it implies that the other organization (NOT THE LIR) must register its /48's in a public database and that the LIR must ensure that the other organization has done this. But section 3.3 implies that every allocation be an a public database, and section 5.4 implies that it is not. RIR/NIRs will use registered data to calculate the HD-Ratio at the time of application for subsequent allocation and to check for changes in assignments over time. Each registry shall handle personal information with ultimate care. Concrete methods of protecting personal data shall be in accordance with privacy policies of each RIR/NIR (e.g., assign providers as tech-c or admin-c, divide an address in the middle, etc.). 5.7. Reverse lookup When an RIR/NIR delegates IPv6 address space to an organization, it also delegates the right to manage the reverse lookup zone that corresponds to the allocated IPv6 address space. Each organization should properly manage its reverse lookup zone. When making an address assignment, the organization must delegate to an assigned organization, upon request, the right to manage the reverse lookup zone that corresponds to the assigned address. 5.8. Validity of allocations and assignments An allocation or assignment of address space is valid only so long as the original criteria on which the allocation or assignment was based continues to be valid. If an allocation or assignment is made for a specific purpose, but the original purpose or original justification no longer applies, the allocation or assignment shall become invalid. If an allocation or assignment is based on information that is found to be false or incomplete, the allocation or assignment shall become invalid. Invalid allocations shall be returned to the appropriate IR. 5.9. Existing IPv6 address space holders Once the policies described in this document have been adopted, an organization already receiving an allocation according to the "PROVISIONAL IPv6 ASSIGNMENT AND ALLOCATION POLICY DOCUMENT" [RIRv6-Polices] is immediately eligible to having its allocation expanded to a /32 address block. The /32 address block will contain the already allocated smaller address block (one or multiple /35 address blocks in many cases) that was already reserved by the RIR for a subsequent allocation to the organization. Requests for additional space beyond the minimum /32 size will be evaluated as discussed elsewhere in the document. 6. Special case Special considerations will be given to the cases described below, with no regard to the provision of this document. Individual RIRs are currently discussing policies for these cases independent of this document. 6.1. IX (Internet Exchange) An IX is a point at which ISPs connect with one another. It requires ISP-independent addresses. 7. Acknowledgment The initial version of this document was produced by The JPNIC IPv6 global policy drafting team consisting of Akihiro Inomata, Akinori Maemura, Kosuke Ito, Kuniaki Kondo, Takashi Arano, Tomohiro Fujisaki, and Toshiyuki Yamasaki. Special thanks goes out to this team, who worked over a holiday in order to produce an initial document quickly. An editing team was then organized by representatives from each of the three RIRs (Takashi Arano, Chair of APNIC's Policy SIG, Thomas Narten, Chair of ARIN's IPv6 WG, and David Kessens, Chair of RIPE- NCC's IPv6 WG). The editing team would like to acknowledge the contributions to this document of Takashi Arano, John Crain, Steve Deering, Kosuke Ito, Richard Jimmerson, David Kessens, Mirjam Kuehne, Anne Lord, Jun Murai, Paul Mylotte, Thomas Narten, Ray Plzak, Paul Wilson and Wilfried Woeber. 8. References [RFC1715] "The H Ratio for Address Assignment Efficiency", C. Huitema. November 1994, RFC 1715. [RFC1771] "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", Y. Rekhter, T. Li. March 1995, RFC 1771. [IAB-Request] "Email from IAB to IANA", [XXX need better reference]. See IAB Minutes, Dec. 12, 1998, <ftp://ftp.iab.org/in>- notes/IAB/IABmins/IABmins.981208, <ftp://ftp.iab.org/in>- notes/IAB/IABmins/IABmins.990112. [RFC2373] "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", R. Hinden, S. Deering. July 1998, RFC 2373. [RFC2373bis] draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-07.txt. [RFC2460] "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", S. Deering, R. Hinden. December 1998, RFC 2460. [RFC2780] "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", R. Hinden, S. Deering. July 1998. RFC 2373. [RFC2928] "Initial IPv6 Sub-TLA ID Assignments", R. Hinden, S. Deering, R. Fink, T. Hain. September 2000, RFC 2928. [RFC3177] "IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address". IAB, IESG. September 2001, RFC 3177. [RFC3194] "The H-Density Ratio for Address Assignment Efficiency An Update on the H ratio", A. Durand, C. Huitema. November 2001, RFC 3194. [RIRs-on-48] <http://www.arin.net/minutes/bot/bot08152001.html>, XXX fill in. [RIRv6-Policies] <http://www.arin.net/regserv/ipv6/ipv6guidelines.html>, <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-196.html>, <http://www.apnic.net/docs/drafts/ipv6/ipv6-policy-280599.html>. 9. Appendix A: In accordance with the recommendations of "The Host-Density Ratio for Address Assignment Efficiency: An update on the H ratio" [RFC 3194], it is proposed in this draft to adopt an HD-Ratio of 0.8 as the utilization threshold for IPv6 address space allocations. The following table provides equivalent absolute and percentage address utilization figures for IPv6 prefixes, corresponding to an HD-Ratio of 0.8 P 48-P Total /48s Threshold Util% 48 0 1 1 100.0% 47 1 2 2 87.1% 46 2 4 3 75.8% 45 3 8 5 66.0% 44 4 16 9 57.4% 43 5 32 16 50.0% 42 6 64 28 43.5% 41 7 128 49 37.9% 40 8 256 84 33.0% 39 9 512 147 28.7% 38 10 1024 256 25.0% 37 11 2048 446 21.8% 36 12 4096 776 18.9% 35 13 8192 1351 16.5% 34 14 16384 2353 14.4% 33 15 32768 4096 12.5% 32 16 65536 7132 10.9% 31 17 131072 12417 9.5% 30 18 262144 21619 8.2% 29 19 524288 37641 7.2% 28 20 1048576 65536 6.3% 27 21 2097152 114105 5.4% 26 22 4194304 198668 4.7% 25 23 8388608 345901 4.1% 24 24 16777216 602249 3.6% 23 25 33554432 1048576 3.1% 22 26 67108864 1825677 2.7% 21 27 134217728 3178688 2.4% 20 28 268435456 5534417 2.1% 19 29 536870912 9635980 1.8% 18 30 1073741824 16777216 1.6% 17 31 2147483648 29210830 1.4% 16 32 4294967296 50859008 1.2% 15 33 8589934592 88550677 1.0% 14 34 17179869184 154175683 0.9% 13 35 34359738368 268435456 0.8% 12 36 68719476736 467373275 0.7% 11 37 137438953472 813744135 0.6% 10 38 274877906944 1416810831 0.5% 9 39 549755813888 2466810934 0.4% 8 40 1099511627776 4294967296 0.4% 7 41 2199023255552 7477972398 0.3% 6 42 4398046511104 13019906166 0.3% 5 43 8796093022208 22668973294 0.3% 4 44 17592186044416 39468974941 0.2% DRAFT [Page 20]

3 3

Revised LIR WG Agenda (now using the surplus IPv6 WG slots)
by James Aldridge 15 Jan '02

15 Jan '02

To give more time and to move the IPv6 policy section so it doesn't clash with the joint IPv6/Routing session, I've revised the LIR WG agenda. As David Kessens estimates that the IPv6 WG will only take about 30 minutes, we'll now start the IPv6 policy stuff immediatly after the IPv6 WG is over and use the rest of the time originally allocated for IPv6. The morning sessions are in the Grand Ballroom, the afternoon sessions are in St John's Room II. Regards, James ---------- LIR WG @ RIPE41 - 16 Jan 2002 Draft Agenda (rev 2) 09:00-10:30 A. Admin - scribe, participant list, charter, mailing-lists B. Agenda bashing C. RIPE 39+40 minutes actions D. Report from the RIPE NCC Hostmasters E. RIPE 185 ("European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures") F. Change of policy for Portable address space 11:00-12:30 G. RFC 2050 ("Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines") revision H. Report from the Address Council Y. Any other business Z. Open microphone... 14:30-15:30 (end of 1st IPv6 WG slot) + 16:00-17:30 (2nd IPv6 WG slot) I. IPv6 interim policy J. IPv6 future policy

1 0

WG: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "IPv6 Host to Router Load Sharing"
by Thomas Trede 14 Jan '02

14 Jan '02

FYI. Regards, Thomas Trede -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com [mailto:owner-ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com]Im Auftrag von Bob Hinden Gesendet: Montag, 14. Januar 2002 20:23 An: ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com Betreff: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "IPv6 Host to Router Load Sharing" This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments on advancing the following document as an Proposed Standard: Title : IPv6 Host to Router Load Sharing Author(s) : B. Hinden Filename : draft-ietf-ipv6-host-load-sharing-00.txt Pages : 4 Date : 10-Jan-02 Please send substantive comments to the ipng mailing list, and minor editorial comments to the author. This last call period will end two weeks from today on January 28, 2002. Bob Hinden / Steve Deering -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to majordomo(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Minutes of the IPv6 wg session at RIPE40
by David Kessens 12 Jan '02

12 Jan '02

Please see below for the minutes of the IPv6 wg session during RIPE40. Thanks, David K. --- Minutes IPv6 working group RIPE 40, Prague, October 2nd, 2001 Chair: David Kessens Number of participants: 83 participants A) Status of 6Bone (David Kessens, presentation available from http://www.kessens.com/presentations/) - Noted growth in IPv6 sites - Better understanding of the system - Growing number of inet numbers - More addresses are being allocated - Addition of two countries - 'co' & 'cu' (presumably Colombia and Cuba) - Number of queries are up - No questions were asked B) Addressing on cable systems (Pascal Julienne presentation available from http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-40/presentations.html#ipv6) - Reminder: example is a typical site in one city/TV and phone connected to one server - Addressing scheme of cable networks are more complicated when connecting cities i. Routable sites are more complex ii. One WAN for one city, one WAN for another, and so on. iii. As you grow cable networks in a country, you can tie up several cities with different servers, making routing scheme more complex - Why is IPv6 attractive for cable networks? i. Unique address requests from large number of end users ii. IPv6 Anycast address may provide effective web traffic between service points - Host address i. IPv4 vs Mac based addresses 1. Idea is not to renumber but use existing addresses ii. Digital TV - Shows service-based aggregation scheme/aggregate by service i. Two possible ways a. Prefer services over geographical areas b. Geographical areas over service In one case, you can manage all services from one department In the other case, you can manage different cities c. Merged scheme has yet to be examined thoroughly - IPv6 vs IPv4 interaction i. IPv6 or IPv4 or use of a tunnel? - Protocol stack i. Multicast aspect in cable network ii. Most countries use DVB today iii. Modifications need to be made for the future iv. SMPTE 305M is IPv6 compatible but not best for Europe Q: Is there any IPv6 vendor support for cable equipment ?!? A: - End-user's PCs are ahead - Set-top boxes and head-end need IPv6 implementation - Digital TV and telephony support unknown - Where do we go from here? Internet on TV is not going well in Germany but speaker believes it is possible Q: We have a problem with Anycast. A: Anycast works only in the routers and not in the service Anycast needs to be investigated to overcome problems Q: You can connect to the Internet via the private topology/connectivity of IPv6, cable systems, /48 systems? A: it depends how it is managed What I show is not an answer of how to do it but an example Q: Along the lines of Francis ... you can't give an end-user one IP address..., one customer in Paris... A: this is just an example - I am working with Euro and US cable set box manufacturers. In one month I can give you names of several companies who are developing equipment A: can we get the names now? (laughter) C) Global IPv6 Routing Table (Gert Doering, presentation available from http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-40/presentations.html#ipv6) - This will not be scientific but impressions; something to show and discuss - I will give an overview of the topic - What is the routing table? - Protecting addresses i. One big difference to new address: everyone gives transit to others ii. Everybody gets connectivity iii. Underlying topology is different from IPv4 - Some continents have different structures, leading to some interesting observations i. (Shows Saturdays' numbers) ii. 6BONE iii. Most important for the future is a /35 iv. Shows distribution graph of total number of prefixes since Saturday v. Shows graph separating from 6BONE and registry base vi. Shows new slide of RIRs, AS, and AS paths vii. Overall there are 171 addresses participating in the table? viii.Average number of Hops is so similar via IPv6 vs IPv4 ix. Observations of 'crap' in the table x. Problems of address length and of too many hops xi. Find out what router is causing them and fix xii. Lazy aggregation - Cable & Wireless example xiii.Need to be more careful of what is put into the IPv6 table otherwise it will look like IPv4 table, full of 'crap' xiv. Invalid AS numbers (shows example of Mexican ISP) Comment: I saw AS numbers being stolen (gasps/laughs) - I want to make IPv6 work, so if people use 'crap', I will use that For now, I just observe weird things and call them to make them stop - Conclusions: it works, people are hooking up to IPv6, it is still experimental, people are cooperative, interest is growing, even with the illegalities (stealing, etc.) Comment: on filtering - we can discuss this at next meeting - We need to be careful of which packets are used for certain circumstances - Shows slide of references Comment: We have 250 routes; it would be interesting to have a registry as we did before. - This is something to be discussed later Q: You mentioned what could we do to improve? Anything we can do here (at RIPE?) A: We can look at the table and if we see irregularities; just ask them for the reason; many may not respond; but if everyone just talks to their neighbor.ask if it is done on purpose.. Q: I am tempted to place this on the agenda topic next time. Q: I want to ask people what addressing scheme they use for point-to-point links A: I use 127's. I have never seen any problems using them. D) Discussion on RPSL and IPv6 routing policies (Florent Parent, presentation available from http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-40/presentations.html#ipv6) Florent discussed whether the implications on RPSL regarding RPSL. He discussed the various options of adding attributes and classes. The decision was made to form a maillist to discuss the RPSLng: <rpslng(a)ripe.net> E) Pan-European IPv6 IX Backbone (Jordi Palet, presentation available from http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-40/presentations.html#ipv6) - Project still under negotiation i. Hopefully, we'll start on December 1st - Correct pronunciation: 'Euro6IX' as in 'EuroSix' - Build a native IP structure i. Want it to be 'open' - Will receive funding from the EU - "Chicken and Egg" problem overcome - Gaining real IPv6 experience in the real world i. Simulates real commercial networks - Euro6IX Goals and Objectives i. Consortium numbers 1. Main Telco's represented by their research arms 2. Universities 3. Sponsors are international ("and it's just starting") ii. Network hierarchy iii.Network map iv. Infrastructure set-up v. Work package summary vi. Research activities vii.Users/User group involvement viii.Access Usage policy 1. For EU funding, we must stay clear of conflicts F) IPv6 in European Region Input from the audience requested: IST/6NET IPv6 testbed (Bernard Tuy, presentation available from http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-40/presentations.html#ipv6) Q: What is the difference between Euro6IX and IST? A: Membership is different Q: But the goals seem to be the same. A: Yes, most are the same. Both projects will incorporate a lot and be common but will never be equal. Money has been put into IPv6 development and that's important.

1 0

Agenda for IPv6 working group RIPE41
by David Kessens 12 Jan '02

12 Jan '02

Hi, Below follows the agenda for the ipv6 wg. As you can see, we don't have that many agenda topics this time. That means we will probably only need to meet for about 30 minutes. Since we have the time available, don't hesitate to contact me if you have some last minute item that you would like to add to the agenda. I have proposed to the chairpeople of the lir working group to use the remaining time that is allocated for the ipv6 working group session for the ipv6 global policy discussion. This will allow us to spend quite some time discussing the new policy draft. I will send an update to the list when I hear more about the final scheduling for the ipv6 global policy discussion. As preparation for this discussion, you might want to read the actual draft that was recently announced at the global policy mailing list (<global-v6-request(a)apnic.net>): http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/global-v6/archive/2001/12/msg00000.html & ftp://ftp.cs.duke.edu/pub/narten/global-ipv6-assign-2001-12-22.txt Note that there will also be a session on RPSL and ipv6 in cooperation with the routing working group. This session will be coordinated by the routing working group chairperson Joachim Schmitz and takes place wednesday January 16th at 11:00am. Thanks, David K. --- Agenda for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE41 Wednesday January 16th 2002, 14:00 - 17:30, Amsterdam A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Status of the 6bone (David Kessens) C. Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering) D. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience) Z. AOB ---

1 0

Draft agenda (v2) for IPv6 working group RIPE41
by David Kessens 03 Jan '02

03 Jan '02

Hi, Below follows the second draft agenda for the ipv6 wg. We will only meet for one meeting slot for the regular working group session due to all the attention for ipv6 in other (joint) sessions. As you can see, we don't have that many agenda topics yet. I would very much welcome your input on other interesting topics that you might want to volunteer yourself or somebody else for. There will be a separate session on ipv6 allocation policy where we will discuss the new draft on global ipv6 allocation policies. A draft proposal was recently posted to the global list for ipv6 policy discussions (<global-v6-request(a)apnic.net>). An agenda for this session will be published later. There will also be a session on RPSL and ipv6 in cooperation with the routing working group. This session will be coordinated by the routing working group chairperson Joachim Schmitz. Thanks, David K. --- Draft agenda (v2) for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE41, Amsterdam A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Status of the 6bone (David Kessens) C. Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering) D. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience) Z. AOB ---

2 1

Draft agenda (v1) for IPv6 working group RIPE41
by David Kessens 20 Dec '01

20 Dec '01

Hi, Below follows the first draft agenda for the ipv6 wg. We will only meet for one meeting slot for the regular working group session due to all the attention for ipv6 in other (joint) sessions. The proposed agenda for the ipv6 working group still has quite some room for other topics/presentations. I would very much welcome your input on other interesting topics that you might want to volunteer yourself or somebody else for. There will be a separate session on ipv6 allocation policy where we will discuss the new draft on global ipv6 allocation policies. You have not seen the draft yet but work is progressing really fast now. The draft will be published before the end of the year. An agenda for this will be published later. There will also be a session on RPSL and ipv6 in cooperation with the routing working group. This session will be coordinated by the routing working group chairperson Joachim Schmitz. Thanks, David K. --- Draft agenda (v1) for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE41, Amsterdam A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Status of the 6bone (David Kessens) C. IPv6 transition (tentative) (Andrï¿½ Zehl) D. Global IPv6 routing table status G. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience) Z. AOB ---

1 0

Draft minutes of the IPv6 wg session at RIPE40
by David Kessens 08 Dec '01

08 Dec '01

Please see below for the first draft version of the minutes of the IPv6 wg session during RIPE40. Please take a look at it and report typos, errors and omissions. The minutes (with possible minor corrections) will be declared final if I receive no comments and/or only minor typographical errors by Fri Dec 21. Thanks, David K. --- Minutes IPv6 working group RIPE 40, Prague, October 2nd, 2001 Chair: David Kessens Number of participants: 83 participants A) Status of 6Bone (David Kessens, presentation available from http://www.kessens.com/presentations/) - Noted growth in IPv6 sites - Better understanding of the system - Growing number of inet numbers - More addresses are being allocated - Addition of two countries - 'co' & 'cu' (presumably Colombia and Cuba) - Number of queries are up - No questions were asked B) Addressing on cable systems (Pascal Julienne) - Reminder: example is a typical site in one city/TV and phone connected to one server - Addressing scheme of cable networks are more complicated when connecting cities i. Routable sites are more complex ii. One WAN for one city, one WAN for another, and so on. iii. As you grow cable networks in a country, you can tie up several cities with different servers, making routing scheme more complex - Why is IPv6 attractive for cable networks? i. Unique address requests from large number of end users ii. IPv6 Anycast address may provide effective web traffic between service points - Host address i. IPv4 vs Mac based addresses 1. Idea is not to renumber but use existing addresses ii. Digital TV - Shows service-based aggregation scheme/aggregate by service i. Two possible ways a. Prefer services over geographical areas b. Geographical areas over service In one case, you can manage all services from one department In the other case, you can manage different cities c. Merged scheme has yet to be examined thoroughly - IPv6 vs IPv4 interaction i. IPv6 or IPv4 or use of a tunnel? - Protocol stack i. Multicast aspect in cable network ii. Most countries use DVB today iii. Modifications need to be made for the future iv. SMPTE 305M is IPv6 compatible but not best for Europe Q: Is there any IPv6 vendor support for cable equipment ?!? A: - End-user's PCs are ahead - Set-top boxes and head-end need IPv6 implementation - Digital TV and telephony support unknown - Where do we go from here? Internet on TV is not going well in Germany but speaker believes it is possible Q: We have a problem with Anycast. A: Anycast works only in the routers and not in the service Anycast needs to be investigated to overcome problems Q: You can connect to the Internet via the private topology/connectivity of IPv6, cable systems, /48 systems? A: it depends how it is managed What I show is not an answer of how to do it but an example Q: Along the lines of Francis ... you can't give an end-user one IP address..., one customer in Paris... A: this is just an example - I am working with Euro and US cable set box manufacturers. In one month I can give you names of several companies who are developing equipment A: can we get the names now? (laughter) C) Global IPv6 Routing Table (Gert Doering, presentation available from http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-40/) - This will not be scientific but impressions; something to show and discuss - I will give an overview of the topic - What is the routing table? - Protecting addresses i. One big difference to new address: everyone gives transit to others ii. Everybody gets connectivity iii. Underlying topology is different from IPv4 - Some continents have different structures, leading to some interesting observations i. (Shows Saturdays' numbers) ii. 6BONE iii. Most important for the future is a /35 iv. Shows distribution graph of total number of prefixes since Saturday v. Shows graph separating from 6BONE and registry base vi. Shows new slide of RIRs, AS, and AS paths vii. Overall there are 171 addresses participating in the table? viii.Average number of Hops is so similar via IPv6 vs IPv4 ix. Observations of 'crap' in the table x. Problems of address length and of too many hops xi. Find out what router is causing them and fix xii. Lazy aggregation - Cable & Wireless example xiii.Need to be more careful of what is put into the IPv6 table otherwise it will look like IPv4 table, full of 'crap' xiv. Invalid AS numbers (shows example of Mexican ISP) Comment: I saw AS numbers being stolen (gasps/laughs) - I want to make IPv6 work, so if people use 'crap', I will use that For now, I just observe weird things and call them to make them stop - Conclusions: it works, people are hooking up to IPv6, it is still experimental, people are cooperative, interest is growing, even with the illegalities (stealing, etc.) Comment: on filtering - we can discuss this at next meeting - We need to be careful of which packets are used for certain circumstances - Shows slide of references Comment: We have 250 routes; it would be interesting to have a registry as we did before. - This is something to be discussed later Q: You mentioned what could we do to improve? Anything we can do here (at RIPE?) A: We can look at the table and if we see irregularities; just ask them for the reason; many may not respond; but if everyone just talks to their neighbor.ask if it is done on purpose.. Q: I am tempted to place this on the agenda topic next time. Q: I want to ask people what addressing scheme they use for point-to-point links A: I use 127's. I have never seen any problems using them. D) Discussion on RPSL and IPv6 routing policies (Florent Parent, presentation available from http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-40/) Florent discussed whether the implications on RPSL regarding RPSL. He discussed the various options of adding attributes and classes. The decision was made to form a maillist to discuss the RPSLng: <rpslng(a)ripe.net> E) Pan-European IPv6 IX Backbone (Jordi Palet, presentation available from http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-40/) - Remarks on receiving funding for IX backbone - Began project in April 1983 - Project still under negotiation i. Hopefully, we'll start on December 1st - Correct pronunciation: 'Euro6IX' as in 'EuroSix' - Build a native IP structure i. Want it to be 'open' - Will receive funding from the EU - "Chicken and Egg" problem overcome - Gaining real IPv6 experience in the real world i. Simulates real commercial networks - Euro6IX Goals and Objectives i. Consortium numbers 1. Main Telco's represented by their research arms 2. Universities 3. Sponsors are international ("and it's just starting") ii. Network hierarchy iii.Network map iv. Infrastructure set-up v. Work package summary vi. Research activities vii.Users/User group involvement viii.Access Usage policy 1. For EU funding, we must stay clear of conflicts F) IPv6 in European Region Input from the audience requested: IST/6NET IPv6 testbed (Bernard Tuy, presentation available from http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-40/) Q: What is the difference between Euro6IX and IST? A: Membership is different Q: But the goals seem to be the same. A: Yes, most are the same. Both projects will incorporate a lot and be common but will never be equal. Money has been put into IPv6 development and that's important.

1 0

WG: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2013-update-01.txt
by Thomas Trede 27 Nov '01

27 Nov '01

FYI. Regards, Thomas Trede -----Ursprï¿½ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com [mailto:owner-ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com]Im Auftrag von Internet-Drafts(a)ietf.org Gesendet: Montag, 26. November 2001 12:14 An: IETF-Announce: Cc: ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com Betreff: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2013-update-01.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IPNG Working Group of the IETF. Title : Management Information Base for the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Author(s) : B. Fenner et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2013-update-01.txt Pages : 22 Date : 21-Nov-01 This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects used for implementations of the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [4] in an IP version independent manner A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2013-update-01.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2013-update-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv(a)ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2013-update-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2013-update-01.txt

1 0

WG: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2012-update-01.txt
by Thomas Trede 27 Nov '01

27 Nov '01

FYI. Regards, Thomas Trede -----Ursprï¿½ngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com [mailto:owner-ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com]Im Auftrag von Internet-Drafts(a)ietf.org Gesendet: Montag, 26. November 2001 12:14 An: IETF-Announce: Cc: ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com Betreff: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2012-update-01.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IPNG Working Group of the IETF. Title : Management Information Base for the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Author(s) : B. Fenner et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2012-update-01.txt Pages : 26 Date : 21-Nov-01 This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects used for implementations of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) [5] in an IP version independent manner. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2012-update-01.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2012-update-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv(a)ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2012-update-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2012-update-01.txt

1 0