- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

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

11 May '05

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

13 44

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

10 May '05

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

2 1

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

10 May '05

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

1 0

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

05 May '05

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

1 0

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

04 May '05

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

1 0

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

03 May '05

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

4 4

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

26 Apr '05

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

2 1

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

20 Apr '05

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2A00::/21 from the IANA in April 2005. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found on our web site at: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/smallest-alloc-sizes.html> Regards, -- Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC

1 0

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

16 Apr '05

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

1 0

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

14 Mar '05

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

2 2