- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: (IPng 4997) Re: Last Call: IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture to Proposed Standard
by huitema＠bellcore.com 01 Dec '97

01 Dec '97

Daniel, There were two basic arguments for limiting the length of the TLA prefix: 1) Routing table size. All TLA have to be in all tables in all defaultless routers. Thus, the number of TLAs becomes a minorant of the size of the tables. 2) Address space size. The current document only specifies 1/8th of the address space. If it turns out that there is a need for many more TLA's in three years, it will actually be possible to make some. The particular value chosen, 13 bits, as only one advantage. The combination of format and TLA fits in 16 bits, which provides for easy writing of routing prefixes. The point that you note re: allocation practices is, however, perfectly true. ISPs should not receive a TLA 'a priori", they should graduate to it. If I remeber correctly, an ISP that starts operating in Europe today receives a /19, and will gradually receive more space as it connects more customers. An ISP that starts operating with IPv6 should receive one or several NLAs from established transit providers; it should only receive a global entry in the routing tables once it has passed some "graduation" criteria. -- Christian Huitema

1 0

Re: Last Call: IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture to Proposed Standard
by Daniel Karrenberg 01 Dec '97

01 Dec '97

Authors Robert Blokzijl RIPE Chair Daniel Karrenberg RIPE NCC General Manager Background RIPE is an organisation founded in 1989 wich aims to ensure the technical and administrative coordination necessary for the operation of the Internet in Europe [ripe-01]. The RIPE NCC performs activities for the benefit of the Internet service providers (ISPs) in Europe and the surrounding areas; primarily activities that the ISPs need to organise as a group, although they may be competing with each other in other areas. In particular the RIPE NCC, as Regional Internet Registry, allocates and assigns IPv4 address space in Europe and surrounding areas [ripe-162]. The RIPE NCC started operations in 1992. It currently allocates address space to more than 800 local Internet Registries almost all of which are operated by ISPs. The number of local IRs is expected to reach 1250 in 1998. There are currently no indications that the number of local IRs will stop growing. The authors have contributed significantly to the development of the distributed Internet registry system which is used for the allocation and assignment of provider based IPv4 address space today. As such they have ample experience with the development of address space allocation and assignment policies. One important element of current policies is that the size of address space allocations is determined by previous justified use of address space. A prerequisite for this policy is that the size of allocations can start small and increase or decrease according to previous justified usage [ripe-159]. Argument We believe <draft-ietf-ipngwg-unicast-aggr-02.txt> is critically flawed because it standardises address aggregation boundaries without any explicit technical justification. In particular the length of the TLA and NLA fields are proposed to be standardised as fixed at prarticular values with no technical justification for either the fact that these lengths need to be fixed nor for the particular values chosen. The lack of technical justification is significant because the standardisation of TLA and NLA lengths directly influences many elements of Internet operations including address space allocation policies. In particular the TLA being fixed at 13bit length makes only 8K TLAs available per FP. Consequently Internet Registries will not be able to use proven allocation policies but rather engage in regulatory practises. The rules proposed in <draft-ietf-ipngwg-tla-assignment-01.txt> are clear evidence of this. Broad acceptance of such rules and their implementation is extremely unlikely unless there is convincing technical reasoning behind the constraints that necessitate the rules. Because of this critical flaw we request that the IESG not advance <draft-ietf-ipngwg-unicast-aggr-02.txt> and <draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v2-05.txt> to proposed standard yet. We suggest that the IESG refer these documents back to the authors and the WG with the request to provide technical justification for the placement of aggregation boundaries and to consider making these boundaries variable where technically feasible. References The referenced RIPE documents can be accessed at http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-xxx.html HTML ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-xxx.txt ASCII ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-xxx.ps PostScript

2 3

Minutes of the IPv6 WG at RIPE 28th
by Bernard.Tuy＠urec.cnrs.fr 30 Nov '97

30 Nov '97

---------- X-Sun-Data-Type: text X-Sun-Data-Description: text X-Sun-Data-Name: text X-Sun-Charset: us-ascii X-Sun-Content-Lines: 14 Hi everybody, Here enclosed a proposal for the minutes of the IPv6 WG at the RIPE 28th meeting held in A'dam on last September. Comments, additions, corrections please to me directly :tuy@urec.fr Thanx for your careful reading and help, Regards, +Bernard Tuy. ---------- X-Sun-Data-Type: default X-Sun-Data-Name: IPv6-wg X-Sun-Charset: us-ascii X-Sun-Content-Lines: 114 OD: CNRS/U.R.E.C Tx: B. Tuy Dt: 20.10.1997 NV: 1.0 ------- Minutes from the RIPE IPv6-wg ** DRAFT ** Chairman : Thomas Trede, Nacamar, Germany Scribe : Bernard Tuy, UREC, France Attendance: xx persons present Agenda : sent to the mailing list before the meeting Reports . 6bone (F. Dupont) Presenting 6bone maps (sites and core) more than 120 sites are now connected to the 6bone (representing #30 countries) A new addressing scheme (cf related IETF IDs at http://playground.sun.com) is being to be deployed. Top Level Aggregators (in fact, pseudo TLAs) have begun to be allocated to people matching the conditions to get one. The pseudo TLAs (pTLAs) list is available at http://www.6bone.net/6bone_pTLA_list.html As an example the aggregated addressing plan in France is shown. To a question from BT : 4 people claimed to be deploying this aggregated plan, many are connected to the 6bone and less are using IPv6 ... ! . IPv6 Registry (D. Kessens) fully operational yet (whois.6bone.net) miror sites : whois.nic.fr and whois.ra.net 26 countries are now registered One can find a new whois client able to solve external references at www.isi.edu/~davidk/6bone/ Inet-num-ipv6 object attributes : (refer to David's Internet Draft for the syntax to use to fill every attribute) ipv6-site : prefix: multiple if needed application : apps running at that site tunnel: multiple if needed to describe the topology of the site contact: NIC-handle from RIPE, InterNIC or 6bone-NIC ... url: how to get more info on this site Test address allocation: same object as in IPv4 except the inetnum label ! . Last IETF meeting (Munich, Germany, Aug. 1997) (Francis Dupont) NGtrans-wg : see the minutes of the meeting already sent by email . tools : the translation between IPv4 and IPv6 headers (NAT,...) is under discussion, various solutions are being considered. Cisco has an implementation (the S/w is available from P. Marques) . 6bone : a new domain has been set up (6bone.net) BGP4+ is getting the consensus. Strong opposition from Cisco to BGP5 Implemented by : Cisco, Digital, GateD, Telebit Core backbone sites of the 6bone as to move to the new aggregated addressing scheme before Dec 1st. IPng-wg : see the minutes of the meeting already sent by email . Advancing the IPv6 specifications and related documents to standards . large discussion with the flow label identifier (why and how to use it ?), still open over the mailing list . strong consensus for the MTU specifications (minimal is moving from 576 to 1300) ION-wg : . G. Armitage proposal is the only one today using MARS for multicasting, NHRP for external routing and Neighbor Discovery for local routing. NBMA's are limited to ATM only today IDR-wg : BGP4+ will replace RIPng in the core backbone, before the end of the year. IPSEC-wg : New drafts are expected, since the 182x serie seems to be obsolete Multicast : no consistent progress except we have to have new specs based on the new IGMPv2 RFC. Implementations : refer to the SUN web page (http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/ipng-implementations.2.html) RIPE IPv6 address assignment : Noone in the audience claimed to need an IPv6 address space allocated yet. Other wg's input : DNS ? ____ EoF.

2 1

Re: Draft Agenda for IPV6-Working Group at RIPE28 Meeting
by Bernard.Tuy＠urec.cnrs.fr 19 Sep '97

19 Sep '97

| Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 23:57:59 +0200 (CEST) | From: Thomas Trede <tom(a)nacamar.de> | | Proposed Agenda for the IPV6 Working Group | | RIPE-28, September 1997, Amsterdam | | 1st Draft, 17.9.1997 | | | 2. Reports | | - 6Bone | - presentation by Francis Dupont ====BT: It seems to me that it's quite mandatory to discuss, under this topic, the new addressing scheme that is to be deployed in the 6bone core and 6bone connected test sites these days. But I'm confident Francis is well aware of this. | | - IETF, proceedings IPV6 | - presentation by Francis Dupont | | - News about dynamic routing protocols | - BGP 4 Plus | | - News about manufacturers implementation | - input from the audience (so prepare yourself !) | | 3. Current status of RIPE regarding address assignments in IPV6 ====BT: have you asked someone from the NCC to chair this item ? | | 4. General Input from other Working Groups | | - Database Working Group: IPV6 object ====BT: and what about DNS-wg ? Thank you for your attention. Regards, +Bernard Tuy.

4 3

2nd Draft Agenda
by Thomas Trede 18 Sep '97

18 Sep '97

Hello, please find enclosed the 2nd Draft Agenda for IPV6-WG. Regards, Thomas Proposed Agenda for the IPV6 Working Group RIPE-28, September 1997, Amsterdam 2nd Draft, 18.9.1997 1. Administrative stuff (Thomas Trede, chair) - volunteering of the scribe - agenda bashing 2. Reports - 6Bone - presentation by Francis Dupont - new addressing scheme to be deployed in the 6bone - status report on the 6bone registry including an overview of the new objects, by David Kessens - IETF, proceedings IPV6 - presentation by Francis Dupont - News about dynamic routing protocols - BGP 4 Plus - News about manufacturers implementation - input from the audience (so prepare yourself !) 3. Current status of RIPE regarding address assignments in IPV6 - with input from RIPE NCC 4. General Input from other Working Groups - Database Working Group: IPV6 object - DNS Working Group 5. AOB

1 0

RIPE27: minutes, draft
by Thomas Trede 18 Sep '97

18 Sep '97

Hello, with delay here are finally the draft minutes of IPV6-WG odf RIPE 27. Regards, Thomas Minutes of the RIPE 27 IPv6 working group thursday may 27 The meeting is chaired by Francis Dupont. The chair excused himself before the meeting. Agenda: 1: Administrative stuff 2: Reports - 6Bone - IETF - routing - Implementations 3: RIPE and address assignment 4: Other WG - IPv6 DB object 5: Any other business 1: Administrative stuff The audience has no additions to the Agenda 2: Reports - 6Bone Francis gives a short overview of the current status of the 6Bone. He refers to the information on www.6bone.net for more detailed information. - IETF Francis gives a short overview of what happened at the IETF meetings on IPv6 - After long discussions the proposal by Mike O'Dell on addressing schemes (8+8, JSE) has been withdrawn by himself. There is now a new draft on addressing: draft-ietf-ipngwg-unicast-aggr-00.txt This draft proposes a addressing scheme that is optimized for aggregation. This draft is supposed to replace RFC2073 on provider based addressing. - Routing Currently there are draft proposals and beta implementations for three dynamic routing protocols with support for IPng. RIPng, there is an RFC and is widely used on the 6Bone OSPFng, there is a draft proposal. BGP4+, there is a draft proposal by Tony Bates from Cisco and there is a beta implementation by Cisco already implemented and running on core routers in the 6Bone. - Implementations No news on new implementations - RIPE and address assignment. [Francis I couldn't here what you had to tell here !!! ] - Other WG - DB The Ipv6 DB object. Francis stresses the importance of the RIPE IPv6 registration database since routing on the 6Bone is still not as dynamic as we would like. - AOB According to Francis Dupont there has been a IPv6 demonstration at the last JENC conference in Edinburg. On his question to the audience if anybody had seen this and could tell something about it, nobody reacted.

1 0

Draft Agenda for IPV6-Working Group at RIPE28 Meeting
by Thomas Trede 18 Sep '97

18 Sep '97

Hello, here is the first draft agenda for the upcoming RIPE Meeting. Comments/Suggestions welcome. Regards, Thomas Proposed Agenda for the IPV6 Working Group RIPE-28, September 1997, Amsterdam 1st Draft, 17.9.1997 1. Administrative stuff (Thomas Trede, chair) - volunteering of the scribe - agenda bashing 2. Reports - 6Bone - presentation by Francis Dupont - IETF, proceedings IPV6 - presentation by Francis Dupont - News about dynamic routing protocols - BGP 4 Plus - News about manufacturers implementation - input from the audience (so prepare yourself !) 3. Current status of RIPE regarding address assignments in IPV6 4. General Input from other Working Groups - Database Working Group: IPV6 object 5. AOB ------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Trede NACAMAR Data Communications Senior Network Engineer P.O.Box 102262 63268 Dreieich / Germany e-mail: trede(a)nacamar.net voice: +49-6103-993-910 www : www.nacamar.net fax : +49-6103-993-999 -------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Is Your Web Site A Secret?
by owl＠owlsnest.com 17 Sep '97

17 Sep '97

Is your web site the best kept secret on the Internet? We'll promote it to 50 search engines and indexes for $85 and complete the job in 2 business days. Satisfaction is guaranteed! If you have a great product, but are not getting many inquiries from your Web site, you may not be adequately listed on the Web's search engines and indexes. Millions of viewers daily use these facilities to find the products and services they are looking for. But if your site is not listed, no one will see it. Listings on most of these services are free. However, locating and filling out the forms required to get a listing can take several days, and most people just don't have the time to do it. That is why we offer a web site promotion service. WHAT'S THE DEAL? We will submit your site to 50 indexes and search engines for $85. We will accept the return of this E-mail, with the form below filled out, as an order. We will bill you upon completion of the promotion. Our terms are net 15 days from date of invoice. Satisfaction guaranteed! HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE? Generally, we complete the submissions within 48 hours of receiving your order. It can take any individual search engine or index up to three weeks to process your submission, although most are much faster. WHAT SEARCH ENGINES AND INDEXES ARE INCLUDED IN THE PROMOTION? The list changes from time to time. This is our current list: Abaweb!, Alta Vista, Been There, BizWeb, Central Source Yellow Pages, Enterpreneurs on the Web, Excite, Four11, Galaxy, I-Network I-Systems Spiral Business Directory, I-World Web Pointer, Infoseek, Inktomi, Innovator's Network Yellow Pages, Internet Mall, Jayde Online Directory, Jumpcity, Jumper Hot Links, Linkmaster, Lycos, Magellan, Mega Mall, Net-Happenings, Net Navigator, Net Mall, NTG's List, NYNEX Big Yellow, One World Plaza, OnLine's WWWeb Index, Rex, Starting Point, Truenorth, URL Tree, Virtual Lynx, Web Point, WebCentral, Web Venture Hotlist, Webcrawler, Websurf, Win Mag/NetGuide Hotspots, WhatUSeek, Worldwide Announce Archive, WWW Business Yellow Pages, World Wide Yellow Pages, WWW Worm, YelloWWWeb. HOW WILL I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE PROMOTED MY SITE? When we have completed the promotion, we will send you an HTML file as an attachment to your E-mail bill. Save this file to your disk, and view it through your Web browser. It provides links to the search engine we submitted your site to, plus any comments we received from them when we did it. ARE THERE ANY GUARANTEES? We do not require prepayment. Your satisfaction is guaranteed or you don't pay the bill. WHO IS OWL'S EYE PRODUCTIONS? We are a web site promotion company located at: Owl's Eye Productions, Inc. 260 E. Main Street Brewster, NY 10509 Phone: (914) 278-4933 Fax: (914) 278-4507 Email: owl(a)owlsnest.com HOW DO I ORDER? The easiest way to order is by e-mail. Just hit the REPLY button on your e-mail program and fill out the following information. (This information will be posted to the search engines/indexes): Your name: Company Name: Address: City: State/Prov: Zip/Postal Code: Telephone: Fax: Email address: URL: http:// Site Title: Description (about 25 words): Key words (maximum of 25, in descending order of importance): Proofs (Where shall we e-mail proofs): If billing a different address, please complete the following: Addressee: Company Name: Address: City: State/Prov: Zip/Postal Code: Telephone: Fax: Email address: We will bill via Email. (7519) Terms: By returning this document via Email, you agree as follows: You have the authority to purchase this service on behalf of your company. Terms are net 15 days. Accounts sent to collections will be liable for collection costs. You agree to protect and indemnify Owl's Eye Productions, Inc. in any claim for libel, copyright violations, plagiarism, or privacy and other suits or claims based on the content or subject matter of your site. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? When we receive your order, we will input the information into our system, and send you a proof. After we process any corrections, we will run your promotion, capturing any comments from search engines as we go. We will incorporate these into an HTML-formatted report to you, which we will attach to your bill. ===Web Promotions=====Press Releases=====Link Exchanges========= Owl's Eye Productions, Inc. 260 E. Main Street Brewster, NY 10509 Ph: 914-278-4933 Fx: 914-278-4507 E-mail: owlseye(a)owlsnest.com

1 0

Next meeting?
by Leigh Porter 08 Sep '97

08 Sep '97

Hi, I know you have probobly been asked this before but do you folks have any get-together at the next RIPE meeting at all? Thanks, Leigh Porter Wisper Bandwidth Plc.

2 1

None
by Patrik Backstrom 03 Sep '97

03 Sep '97

subscribe

1 0