- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

IPv6 database service
by Thu Thuy 07 Dec '05

07 Dec '05

Hi, all folk I would like to ask for your advise in IPv6 - support in database service. I don't know what kind of database now support IPv6. Could you pls advise me your knowleadge related to this matter. For IPv6 web service which require database, i don't know how is database service deployed. Do they used IPv6-supported database or they still use IPv4 database and the web server is dual-stack (IPv6 to handle user request and IPv4 to connect to database server). Thanks much for your help. Thu Thuy.

1 0

Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
by Daniel Roesen 06 Dec '05

06 Dec '05

On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 05:26:20PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > There are lots of similar examples as the NATO one. It make no sense > at all Not issueing PI for multihomed entities makes no sense at all, in face of the complete lack of a full replacement. I'm still waiting for the heads to come out of the sand, but I'm waiting since long and don't see _any_ light at the end of the tunnel (don't anybody dare to say "shim6" if he/she doesn't want to disqualify her/himself immediately). The folks all having their own /32 already allocated to them and trying to limit independent address space to "service providers" (or those who manage to pretend being it, which seems to be easy) are still arguing for "not for them!" paradigm - easy position with having their own dishes already done. Until we have a clear full replacement (that means a solution which does NOT ignore real requirements like shim6 does) there should be a very simple PI policy which issues a /48 or whatever to end sites at a nominal small fee, paid directly to the RIR. An initial setup fee and a yearly renewal fee, paid by credit card or something equally simple. No payment => assignment withdrawn. The initial fee covering the cost of evaluation of the request, doing the assignment and setting up the billing account and DNS reverse. The yearly fee covering the maintenance of the entries in the database and DNS rev NS RRset and the yearly recurring fee invoicing/billing. Done. Too simple, too scary, too much independence again to the endsites, eh? I think it's ridiculous to have folks become LIR (and pretend/lie being ISPish) just to get the PI space they need and having them pay the same money every *real* LIR (you remember what LIR means? Local Internet REGISTRY) which happens to open tickets with the hostmasters every now and then (or much more often). Setting aside my disbelieve in the FUD about the scalability problem of real BGP multihoming (noone yet has shown that the relative amount of multihomers does or will explode), I'm quite sure that we'd need a real locator/ID split which is NOT shim6 but something going farther than that. And we won't have it soon, if at all for IPv6. But keeping on ignoring user's needs for further years and waiting for the magically appearing 100% ideal solution is not the way forward. My 0.02EUR Regards, Daniel (having renumbered his IPv6 network already three times completely and hoping not having to do it a fourth time anytime soon, and not being able to properly multihome like I can do in IPv4 because I'm not a commercial ISP, nor can afford the thousands of EUR for LIR which usually finance MUCH more than just a one-time PI assignment and some DB slots) -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr(a)cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

4 8

Re: [ipv6-wg] a consensus, about what?
by peter.sherbin＠bell.ca 06 Dec '05

06 Dec '05

>Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 09:43:56 +0100 (CET) >From <rogerj(a)jorgensen.no> >To: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> > cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: [ipv6-wg] a consensus, about what? <snip> >so what sort of consensus are we aiming for...? A new policy >for AS, a net block, routing policy, multihoming, or just IPv6 in general? >...quite a lot of topics have been discussed ... but what are our goal with all this? Get rid of the current hierarchy which requires ISP in order to connect to the network. The Internet is an aggregation of interconnected networks. We want to replicate what the Mother Nature has already given us, i.e. a brain like structure where neurons (individual networks) have multiple direct connections with each other. As brain cells networks should have about the same size. Network prefix determines the size. Peter Sherbin Bell Canada

2 1

AW: [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fi x IPv6
by Bonness, Olaf 06 Dec '05

06 Dec '05

Hi Gerd, > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > Von: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] > Gesendet: Montag, 5. Dezember 2005 18:07 > An: Kurt Erik Lindqvist > Cc: Cameron C. Gray; Per Heldal; address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net; > ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > Betreff: Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: > Andre's guide to > fix IPv6 > > > Hi, > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 02:17:25PM +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > > I think each LIR should get a /32 and we should drop the 200 > > "customer" rule. But that is just me... > > Actually I like the "every AS should get a <network>" approach (with > a yearly recurring fee for AS and network, to guarantee return of the > resources as soon as the importance of having a slot in the global > routing table doesn't outweigh the costs anymore). > > "Every LIR gets a /32 (upon request), no questions asked" is a concept > that I'm also happy with - as I have said before. For those that are > afraid of the landrush: limit that policy to 5.000 LIRs per region. Not sure if that works. Kind of "First come - first serve" thing. Regards Olaf > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 81421 > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 >

4 7

De-aggregation of assigned IPv6 prefixes?
by Jeroen Massar 06 Dec '05

06 Dec '05

Hi, http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html#initial_criteria reads amongst others: 8<------------------- c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which it will assign /48s by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation -------------------->8 According to the above, after the /48, can one announce more specifics or should/must one not do this? (*) The RIPE Registry allows registering more specific route6 objects. If this is allowed, then why is the above parrt, after '/48', then included in the policy? What is the exact intention of the sentence? Greets, Jeroen *= of course one is lord of their own network and thus can announce whatever one wants and just hope/agree that others accept it.

4 3

IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
by Mohacsi Janos 03 Dec '05

03 Dec '05

Dear All, I have a question regarding the IPv6 address assignment to cc level DNS server. If you don't have answer to this question please forward it to an appropriate working group - sorry for cross-posting this mail to two wg. We have here in Hungary a dilemma: - Traditionally, the IPv4 address of the primary cc level DNS server in of belonged to NIIF/HUNGARNET. - The DNS registration service a while ago was delegated to Council of Hungarian Internet Providers (ISZT) who is also operating the biggest Internet Exchange of Hungary (BIX). All big ISPs in Hungary (including NIIF/HUNGARNET) has right to do the registration via a special interface. - The IPv4 address of the primary cc level DNS server announced by NIIF/HUNGARNET. But ISZT is reorganizing its infrastructure to allocate address from a new PI type IPv4 address space to DNS servers. - The primary hu DNS server is connected to BIX - to be well connected. What IPv6 address space should we allocate to hu primary DNS server? 1. Assign IPv6 address from /32 address space of NIIF/HUNGARNET? - not very optimal since the only transit to hu primary will be NIIF/HUNGARNET - not ISP neutral - easy, no problem from point of view of NIIF/HUNGARNET 2. Assign IPv6 address space from /48 allocated to BIX (based on ripe-256 and ripe-310)? - According to the RIPE documents: "Networks assigned under this policy may not be globally routable" - which problematical since primary DNS servers should be globally reachable. 3. Allocate multiple /48 from IPv6 providers in HUNGARY to primary hu DNS server? - This can be problematical since the answers to DNS queries might be quite big. 4. Allocate /48 to primary hu DNS server that is globally routable? Are there similar to /48 from 2001:0500::/30 in RIPE region? - I think this is the cleanest solution. Can we discuss this issue on the working group or mailing lists? I saw a proposal: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-2.html In my opinion this can solve the problem.... Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 00F9AF98: 8645 1312 D249 471B DBAE 21A2 9F52 0D1F 00F9 AF98

21 60

Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide tofix IPv6
by Randy Bush 01 Dec '05

01 Dec '05

[ something did some horrifying things to the header of your mail as i received it, in particular the references: line, see appended. so i had to chop the refs off my reply. apologies to those who thread based on it. ] > I might totaly missunderstand you, but I get the feeling you want > us to go back to the root of the IPv6 discussion when it all was > started and use some of the stuff that was done before instead of > trying to figure it all out again? yep. though, since i come from the perspective of living it all these years, the "go back" part is a recent view :-). i.e. sane operational folk have been sining this song for years. there has been an amazing lack of ears listening to it. randy --- line breaks are not from here! References: <Pine.LNX.4.56.0511211704050.10258(a)chandra.student.uit.no><87slt m3p3n.fsf(a)mid.deneb.enyo.de><Pine.LNX.4.56.0511251013060.10258(a)chandra.stud ent.uit.no><4386E053.73B661B3(a)networx.ch><43886509.6060600(a)unfix.org><87acf r1mjl.fsf(a)mid.deneb.enyo.de><002f01c5f43a$12631110$44eea2d5@l><6.2.0.14.2.2 0051129101355.02919160(a)kahuna.telstra.net><87fypfpm1e.fsf(a)mid.deneb.enyo.de ><6.2.0.14.2.20051130053430.02d015d0(a)kahuna.telstra.net><20051130161647.GA1 2947(a)srv01.cluenet.de><08D2E092-8FB3-4C5D-9837-4433C77F0B46(a)kurtis.pp.se><1 7294.55288.858722.708230(a)roam.psg.com><6.2.0.14.2.20051202045722.02de10b0@k ahuna.telstra.net> <17295.18210.797714.378814(a)roam.psg.com>

1 0

2001:4200::/32, 2001:4308::/32, 2001:4310::/32 AFRINIC, ARIN or RIPE?
by Jeroen Massar 01 Dec '05

01 Dec '05

According to IANA: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments They are ARIN space. According to ARIN(*1) it is RIPE space. According to RIPE, it is AFRINIC. What needs to be fixed here? The IANA allocs or something else? Also it would be nice of course if ARIN directly pointed to AFRINIC instead of making AFRINIC the little sister of RIPE. 2001:970::/32 and 2001:4300::/32 are also AFRINIC now, before they where from the RIPE region, but the IANA file doesn't reflect this. The delegated-afrinic-latest indicates AFRINIC now, which is a bit odd. Greets, Jeroen *1 = 8<--------------------------------------------------------- OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre OrgID: RIPE Address: P.O. Box 10096 City: Amsterdam StateProv: PostalCode: 1001EB Country: NL ReferralServer: whois://whois.ripe.net:43 NetRange: 2001:4300:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 - 2001:430F:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF CIDR: 2001:4300:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000/28 NetName: RIPE1 NetHandle: NET6-2001-4300-1 Parent: NET6-2001-4200-0 NetType: Direct Allocation NameServer: NS-PRI.RIPE.NET NameServer: SEC1.APNIC.NET NameServer: SEC3.APNIC.NET NameServer: TINNIE.ARIN.NET NameServer: NS.LACNIC.NET Comment: RegDate: 2004-08-24 Updated: 2004-08-24 RTechHandle: RIPE-NCC-ARIN RTechName: RIPE NCC Hostmaster RTechPhone: +31 20 535 4444 RTechEmail: search-ripe-ncc-not-arin(a)ripe.net <SNIP> inet6num: 2001:4300::/25 netname: EU-ZZ-2001-4300 descr: RIPE NCC (AFRINIC) descr: European Regional Registry country: EU --------------------------------------------------------->8

2 1

unsubscribe jkuijer@dds.nl
by jkuijer＠dds.nl 30 Nov '05

30 Nov '05

Citeren ipv6-wg-request(a)ripe.net: > Send ipv6-wg mailing list submissions to > ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ipv6-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > ipv6-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ipv6-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Per Heldal) > 2. unsubscibe jkuijer(a)dds.nl (jkuijer(a)dds.nl) > 3. Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6 (Florian > Weimer) > 4. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Randy Bush) > 5. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Geoff Huston) > 6. Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix > IPv6 (Geoff Huston) > 7. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Geoff Huston) > 8. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (william(at)elan.net) > 9. Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6 (Max Tulyev) > > --__--__-- > > Message: 1 > From: "Per Heldal" <heldal(a)eml.cc> > To: "Salman Asadullah" <sasad(a)cisco.com> > Cc: "ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net" <ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net>, "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI > Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:21:52 +0100 > > > On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:55:16 -0800, "Salman Asadullah" <sasad(a)cisco.com> > said: > > You seem to be far away from the ground realities. > > > > Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these real > > issues for a good reason. > > > > Regardless of the efforts, from a provider POV it's only "work in > progress". Make sure your preferred technology is implemented across all > platforms and accompanied by solutions for traffic-engineering, > filtering and other issues. Then you may have a viable alternative to > present to the operators community. Don't expect anybody to adopt new > technologies unless they represent some progress. > > I'm not saying that shim6 is DOA. It *may become* an alternative, but it > *is not*. Unless you can convince content-providers to trust their > upstream to provide redundancy and thus eliminate the need for end-site > multihoming you have the following realistic short-term alternatives: > > * Keep ipv6 experimental and postpone operational > deployment until there's a good technical solution > to the multi-homing problem or a way to eliminate > the DFZ and the related concerns about routing- > table size. > > * Adopt a PI policy for v6 similar to the current > v4-policy, and hope that moore can keep up with > the growth of the routing-table. > > From there policies will have to evolve, along with the development of > new technology. Evolution is a perpetual process, not a project with a > finite deadline. > > PS! am I missing something, or is IETF/IAB trying to copy the ITU in the > way they produce paper-standards? Is that really such a good idea? > > //per > -- > Per Heldal > heldal(a)eml.cc > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:25:08 +0100 > From: jkuijer(a)dds.nl > To: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: [ipv6-wg] unsubscibe jkuijer(a)dds.nl > > Citeren ipv6-wg-request(a)ripe.net: > > > Send ipv6-wg mailing list submissions to > > ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > ipv6-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > ipv6-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of ipv6-wg digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6 (McTim) > > 2. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6 (Geoff Huston) > > 3. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Randy Bush) > > 4. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Andre Oppermann) > > > > -- __--__-- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 07:19:49 +0300 > > From: McTim <dogwallah(a)gmail.com> > > To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen_Hovland?= <jorgen(a)hovland.cx> > > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix > IPv6 > > Cc: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > > > > hiya, > > > > (removed address-policy-wg from the cc:) > > > > On 11/28/05, J=F8rgen Hovland <jorgen(a)hovland.cx> wrote: > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com] > > > > > > > >#2 sounds like PI to me. What have I missed? > > > > > > Hello McTim, > > > You are correct. That's why I wrote PI in the email:-). > > > > I guess I misread the below wrong then ;-) > > > > J=F8rgen Hovland wrote: > > > > >> - > > >> 1. No PI. _Only_ network operators get a prefix. > > > > > It is an attempt to suggest an alternative idea to the PI discussion. > > > Don't get me wrong. I am for PI. This idea is perhaps a bit more > > > hierarchical instead of the standard flat one. Just making sure we have > > > thought of everything before we reach consensus > > > > I am sure thiat consensus will take a very long tiime on this one! We > > will probably have to talk about grotopological v6 adressing (as they > > are doing on the ARIN ppml) and a host of other issues. I reckon we > > ought to wait for shim6 to do their work as well. > > > > > because this PI discussion > > > is very important to ipv6. > > > > v. true. > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > > > > > > -- __--__-- > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:15:27 +1100 > > To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen?= Hovland <jorgen(a)hovland.cx>, > > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>, <ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net> > > From: Geoff Huston <gih(a)apnic.net> > > Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6 > > > > At 03:37 AM 29/11/2005, J=F8rgen Hovland wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Florian Weimer" <fw(a)deneb.enyo.de> > > >Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 4:00 PM > > > > > > > > >>* Jeroen Massar: > > >> > > >>>>1. Make /32 the only routable entity so we can use perfect match in > > >>>> the DFZ instead of longest-prefix match. > > >>> > > >>>What about the organizations that have say a /19, want them to inject > > >>>all their more specific /32's? > > >> > > >>You can inject a /19 as 8192 /32s. Shouldn't make a difference if the > > >>/19 is really used. > > >> > > >>At this stage, it's probably not too wise to embed the /32--/48--/64 > > >>in silicon, but vendors will undoubtedly do this if they can save a > > >>few bucks and current policies remain as inflexible as they are. > > > > > >Hi, > > >Perfect match is faster but far from better. What I think perhaps would > be= > > =20 > > >interesting to see in the future with regards to IPv6 and PI is the= > > following: > > > > > >1. No PI. _Only_ network operators get a prefix. > > >2. Customers of network operators can at any time change provider and > take= > > =20 > > >their assigned prefix with them. The new provider will announce it as a=20 > > >more specific overriding the aggregate. If the customer decides to get=20 > > >multiple providers, then the network operator with the /32 could also=20 > > >announce a more specific. > > > > > >In the country I live in I can change telecom provider and take my > phone=20 > > >number with me to the new provider. Why shouldn't I be able to do that=20 > > >with internet providers? > > >Yes, it will somehow create millions/billions of prefixes (atleasat > with=20 > > >todays routing technology/protocols). Network operators should be able to= > > =20 > > >handle that hence rule #1. > > > > > > Interesting - it will work for a while, and then you will get to the limit= > > =20 > > of deployed capability of routing. > > > > Then what? > > > > Geoff > > > > > > > > > > > > -- __--__-- > > > > Message: 3 > > From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> > > Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:49:17 -1000 > > To: Salman Asadullah <sasad(a)cisco.com> > > Cc: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj(a)jorgensen.no>, > > Oliver Bartels <oliver(a)bartels.de>, > > "ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net" <ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net>, > > "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>, > > roger(a)jorgensen.no > > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI > > > > > Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these real > > > issues for a good reason. > > > > i gather that the message that leslie daigle was given at the > > last nanog was not well-transmitted to the ietf. no big > > surprise. > > > > you may want to look at http://nanog.org/mtg-0510/real/ipv6-bof.ram > > > > randy > > > > > > -- __--__-- > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:13:39 +0100 > > From: Andre Oppermann <oppermann(a)networx.ch> > > To: Salman Asadullah <sasad(a)cisco.com> > > CC: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj(a)jorgensen.no>, > > Oliver Bartels <oliver(a)bartels.de>, > > "ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net" <ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net>, > > "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>, > > roger(a)jorgensen.no > > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI > > > > Salman Asadullah wrote: > > > > > > You seem to be far away from the ground realities. > > > > > > Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these real > > > issues for a good reason. > > > > Neither Multi6 nor SHIM6 are even in an draft RFC state yet and to be > > workable they'd have to be implemented on every end-host out there. > > That is every operating system in sufficient existence. That puts IPv6 > > even further in the already distant future considering common OS upgrade > > and replacement cycles. > > > > Second this doesn't solve the renumbering problem. Renumbering is not > > just giving hosts new IP addresses but alost managing DNS and Firewalls. > > No even remotely workable and scaleable solution has been presented yet. > > > > So nice try but no cookie. > > > > -- > > Andre > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Salman > > > > > > At 10:55 AM 11/25/2005 +0100, Roger Jorgensen wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Oliver Bartels wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:10:10 +0100 (CET), Roger Jorgensen wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > If IPv4 offers PI = provider _independence_ and multihoming > > > > > and IPv6 doesn't, then IPv4 is obviously the better solution for > > > > > those who requires this functionallity. > > > > > > > > > > Thus they won't use IPv6. > > > > > > > > > > Please keep in mind: The _customer_ votes, not you, not me. > > > > > > > > > > And as the majority of the large and a significant portion of medium > > > > > size businesses are obviously not willing to accept an IP protocol > not > > > > > providing this functionallity, IPv6 will remain at it's current > status: > > > > > > > > > > A technical playground for technically interested people. > > > > > > > > a very true point in one way but that is again as I see it, we're still > > > > thinking IPv4 when talking IPv6. > > > > > > > > Why do they need multihoming and PI? They don't trust the ISP and > vendors > > > > to deliver them uptime and freedom... isn't this a problem the ISP and > > > > vendors should try to solve? Of course, the idea of easy renumbering > was > > > > suppose to solve this but again, we're thinking IPv4 so it's not easy > to > > > > understand. > > > > > > > > Again, we don't need PI space and multihoming, what we need are a way > to > > > > give the users and GOOD connectivity (uptime, speed etc) and make it > easy > > > > for them to switch providers as they see fit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, please let me translate: > > > > > "Even if the car doesn't drive and the engine doesn't deliver a > single > > > > > horse power at the wheels, drop the thought about driving, > > > > > start to think about other way to use the possibility this great car > > > > > gives us." > > > > > > > > > > Sound like newspeak: > > > > > If we _think_ we can't solve the problem, drop discussing the > problem. > > > > > > > > for several years this discussion have been going on, still no real > > > > solution. IPv6 give us the freedom todo ALOT of things, USE those > > > > possibilities, if we have to change how IP are done, some TCP headers > > etc, > > > > then do it... propose a good idea and prove it. That could give us > > > > multihoming. Actually there is a master thesis about howto create > > > > connectivity for TCP session even if one of the links went down, the > > > > session just used another IP (1)... the user don't notice anything > > > > either and it have zero problem working with standard tcp-stacks since > it > > > > use the extended header of IPv6. > > > > > > > > That's just ONE of many possible ways... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1) it's a master thesis writting by a student related to University of > > > > TromsÃ¸ as part of the Pasta project, www.pasta.cs.uit.no > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Roger Jorgensen | > > > > rogerj(a)stud.cs.uit.no | - IPv6 is The Key! > > > > http://www.jorgensen.no | roger(a)jorgensen.no > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > End of ipv6-wg Digest > > > > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 3 > From: Florian Weimer <fw(a)deneb.enyo.de> > To: Geoff Huston <gih(a)apnic.net> > Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen?= Hovland <jorgen(a)hovland.cx>, > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>, <ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6 > Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:26:53 +0100 > > * Geoff Huston: > > > Interesting - it will work for a while, and then you will get to the limit > > of deployed capability of routing. > > > > Then what? > > You buy new routers. > > What's next? Do you plan to lobby Hollywood to reduce the number of > movies create per year, so that your customers have fewer of them to > download, and the capacity of your pipes is not exceeded? > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 4 > From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> > Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 06:17:54 -1000 > To: Per Heldal <heldal(a)eml.cc> > Cc: Salman Asadullah <sasad(a)cisco.com>, > ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net, > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI > > >> Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these real > >> issues for a good reason. > > Regardless of the efforts, from a provider POV it's only "work in > > progress". > > one of the key points from the nanog session was that shim6 is the > *wrong* work in progress. what is needed is _site_ multi-homing, > not host multi-homing. > > randy > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 05:34:05 +1100 > To: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com>, Per Heldal <heldal(a)eml.cc> > From: Geoff Huston <gih(a)apnic.net> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI > Cc: Salman Asadullah <sasad(a)cisco.com>, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net, > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > At 03:17 AM 30/11/2005, Randy Bush wrote: > > >> Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these real > > >> issues for a good reason. > > > Regardless of the efforts, from a provider POV it's only "work in > > > progress". > > > >one of the key points from the nanog session was that shim6 is the > >*wrong* work in progress. what is needed is _site_ multi-homing, > >not host multi-homing. > > "wrong"? "right"? > > Usual response - if you believe that there is a better way of doing this > work through the issues here, then write up an approach, gather support, > get peer review etc etc. > > As I said at NANOG, part of the problem with distributed models where there > is action at a distance is to understand and clearly identify instances of > gratuitous packet header rewriting by hostile agents as compared to packet > rewriting by agents who believe that they are doing this in a friendly and > helpful fashion. This becomes a challenging problem,of course. > > I don't think any single approach today is the one true right approach at > this point, but unless we explore this space with some diligence, allow for > experimentation and keep an open mind on this work then you are going to > get intractably wedged between the desire for greater flexibility in the > use of addresses as a form of semi-persistent endpoint identifiers and the > desire for reduced flexibility in the use of addresses as forwarding tokens > in order to keep the routing space confined to readily computable dimensions. > > But of course _all_ this will be solved in MPLS - right? :-) > > Geoff > > > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 05:36:11 +1100 > To: Florian Weimer <fw(a)deneb.enyo.de> > From: Geoff Huston <gih(a)apnic.net> > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix > IPv6 > Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen?= Hovland <jorgen(a)hovland.cx>, > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>, <ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net> > > At 01:26 AM 30/11/2005, Florian Weimer wrote: > >* Geoff Huston: > > > > > Interesting - it will work for a while, and then you will get to the > limit > > > of deployed capability of routing. > > > > > > Then what? > > > >You buy new routers. > > > So what you are saying is that _I_ want address portability and _you_ have > to buy new routers. > > > Well that sure works for me! How's the chequebook feeling on your side? > > (I'm not convinced that you've selected the best of business models, as > there does appear to be a significant inconsistency going on in your model > in that cost and benefit are not related all that well.) > > Geoff > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:01:56 +1100 > To: Andre Oppermann <oppermann(a)networx.ch>, Salman Asadullah > <sasad(a)cisco.com> > From: Geoff Huston <gih(a)apnic.net> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI > Cc: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj(a)jorgensen.no>, Oliver Bartels > <oliver(a)bartels.de>, > "ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net" <ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net>, > "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>, > roger(a)jorgensen.no > > At 08:13 PM 29/11/2005, Andre Oppermann wrote: > >Salman Asadullah wrote: > > > > > > You seem to be far away from the ground realities. > > > > > > Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these real > > > issues for a good reason. > > > >Neither Multi6 nor SHIM6 are even in an draft RFC state yet > > Multi6 produced 5 WG drafts, all of which have been published as RFCs You > can (and probably should) read through RFCs 3582, 4116, 4177, 4219, and 4218 > > SHIM6 is working on the following drafts - again I would recommend that you > read though all of them:... > draft-ietf-shim6-app-refer, draft-ietf-shim6-applicability, > draft-ietf-shim6-arch, draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection, > draft-ietf-shim6-hba, draft-ietf-shim6-proto, > and draft-ietf-shim6-reach-detect. > > > > and to be > >workable they'd have to be implemented on every end-host out there. > >That is every operating system in sufficient existence. That puts IPv6 > >even further in the already distant future considering common OS upgrade > >and replacement cycles. > > yep - any form of locator / identity split is such a basic shift in the > architectural model used by IP that changes to the stack are required. This > is the case in mobility, nomadism, ad-hoc networking and this form of > multi-homing. If you want agile locators and any form of persistence in > endpoint identifiers then you are not going to get that without changes to > the stack. Now if you are arguing that the deployed base of IPv6 is so > large that further changes are impossible in this particular technology due > to the inertia of the deployed IPv6 base, then that's certainly an > interesting perspective, and not one I've heard all that often so far. If > you are saying that this will take time to develop and deploy, then you are > probably right, and a model that can use incremental deployment using a > conventional initial context followed by a capability exchange to explore > if there is mutual support for this form of communication capability, then > you may well be onto something interesting. Although I'd hasten to add that > this is the approach being taken within the SHIM6 architecture. > > >Second this doesn't solve the renumbering problem. Renumbering is not > >just giving hosts new IP addresses but alost managing DNS and Firewalls. > >No even remotely workable and scaleable solution has been presented yet. > > I'm not sure I agree with you about the DNS and renumbering - its not a > clearly defined space, and the implications relating to the DNS are not > clearly understood in communication models where feasible locator sets are > dynamically exchanged rather than always loaded into third party rendezvous > points, as in the DNS model. > > > >So nice try but no cookie. > > Thank you, > > Geoff > > > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 01:53:49 -0800 (PST) > From: "william(at)elan.net" <william(a)elan.net> > To: Geoff Huston <gih(a)apnic.net> > cc: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com>, Per Heldal <heldal(a)eml.cc>, > Salman Asadullah <sasad(a)cisco.com>, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net, > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI > > > On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Geoff Huston wrote: > > > At 03:17 AM 30/11/2005, Randy Bush wrote: > >> >> Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these > >> real > >> >> issues for a good reason. > >> > Regardless of the efforts, from a provider POV it's only "work in > >> > progress". > >> > >> one of the key points from the nanog session was that shim6 is the > >> *wrong* work in progress. what is needed is _site_ multi-homing, > >> not host multi-homing. > > Yes, well if it goes forward, it may well end up being used for setting > up site-multihoming: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/architecture- discuss/current/msg00095.html > and will be seen as friendly and right solution (on what "friendly" and > "right" can mean seen below). > > > "wrong"? "right"? > > > > Usual response - if you believe that there is a better way of doing this > > work through the issues here, then write up an approach, gather support, > get > > peer review etc etc. > > > > As I said at NANOG, part of the problem with distributed models where there > > is action at a distance is to understand and clearly identify instances of > > gratuitous packet header rewriting by hostile agents as compared to packet > > rewriting by agents who believe that they are doing this in a friendly and > > helpful fashion. This becomes a challenging problem,of course. > > If its hostile or friendly behavior is in the eye of the beholder - but > in fact it may not even be only one side or the other for the same person. > > If I sit under a NAT and it prevents my application from running, I'm > hostile to that behavior. But same NAT box may well be protecting my > home network from intrusion and allowing me to have multiple computers > connected through the same dsl/cable/wireless connection, so I'd view > it as a friendly. Since most people don't notice its hostile behavior > (due to kind of applications they run) and all notice its friendly > behavior it will overall be seen as a friend and "right" solution. > > So is there better way to do it and without NAT? Of course there is - > have real firewall and have block of ips - but NAT is winning as a > business case because it can do those several friendly things well for > almost everyone and without dependence on network provider and those > few users who are inconvenienced and their application are viewed as > minor percentage and not a problem in the overall business case. > So business case won but IETF end-end tcp/ip architecture broken ... > > > I don't think any single approach today is the one true right approach at > > this point, but unless we explore this space with some diligence, > > Diligence is the right word. But is it really the size of the routing > table that we're being most concerned (considering #of routes in ipv6 > will most definitely be smaller then with ipv4 because of less > fragmentation - generally one ip block per ASN) or business case of > users who do not want to be dependent on IP provider and RIR to be > able to multihome? > > And should due diligence be applied so that proposed solution both > makes sense to do for those who will use it (i.e. small businesses > in case of shim6) an does not break applications when that is done? > > -- > William Leibzon > Elan Networks > william(a)elan.net > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 9 > From: Max Tulyev <president(a)ukraine.su> > To: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6 > Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:33:52 +0300 > > Hi! > > > > 1. No PI. _Only_ network operators get a prefix. > > > > I am an operator of a network - do I get a prefix ? (we have lots of > > computers and need lots of IP addresses: currently the 5 PCs, 2 > > printers, a phone and some PDA and a server online) > > > > I guess you need to define the criteria in some other way. Perhaps > > beeing registered with the national regulator > > I'm looking at all of that and begin to think that all this discussion about > PI vs PA (and only [large] operators can get a prefix) is just for > implementing some unfair rules in ISP market. > > Wise customers wants to have PI because of to be multihoming and have stable > and really _provider_independent_ (i.e. not depending on upstream's faults) > connection. > Small operators wants to have PI because of LIR is often too expensive for > them. > > Large operators do NOT want PI because of they can hold a client with their > address space ("if you are going to change ISP - you will have a large > trouble with renumbering your network and changing domains" or even "if you > do not do ... - we will immediately shut down your connection"). Large > operators (can pay for LIR) do NOT want PI because of it makes the extra > money barrier to be an operator (LIR cost). > > See more on. Imagine there is no PI. If somebody really-really-really needs > to > be multihoming - he will be a LIR and do the LIR initial request (/20 PA for > IPv4 instead of /24 PI he really need for years). So in this case we do not > conserve one row of route table, but slightly loss in conserving space (/20 > instead of /24). > > Even more. Who is making the most noise about no PI? As I can see, large > operators. People who have enough powerful routers to not to think about > extra routes there. > > P.S. And please do not compare IP connectivity with global dynamic routing > (it > is a really BIG achievement of the Internet!) with PSTN and global static > routing where switching routes to certain number plan can take several > monthes. Of course, in PSTN we can't ever think about hot backup and upstream > reservation (multihoming). > > -- > WBR, > Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO) > > > > > End of ipv6-wg Digest >

1 0

unsubscibe jkuijer@dds.nl
by jkuijer＠dds.nl 29 Nov '05

29 Nov '05

Citeren ipv6-wg-request(a)ripe.net: > Send ipv6-wg mailing list submissions to > ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ipv6-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > ipv6-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ipv6-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6 (McTim) > 2. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6 (Geoff Huston) > 3. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Randy Bush) > 4. Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Andre Oppermann) > > --__--__-- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 07:19:49 +0300 > From: McTim <dogwallah(a)gmail.com> > To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen_Hovland?= <jorgen(a)hovland.cx> > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6 > Cc: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > > hiya, > > (removed address-policy-wg from the cc:) > > On 11/28/05, J=F8rgen Hovland <jorgen(a)hovland.cx> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com] > > > > > >#2 sounds like PI to me. What have I missed? > > > > Hello McTim, > > You are correct. That's why I wrote PI in the email:-). > > I guess I misread the below wrong then ;-) > > J=F8rgen Hovland wrote: > > >> - > >> 1. No PI. _Only_ network operators get a prefix. > > > It is an attempt to suggest an alternative idea to the PI discussion. > > Don't get me wrong. I am for PI. This idea is perhaps a bit more > > hierarchical instead of the standard flat one. Just making sure we have > > thought of everything before we reach consensus > > I am sure thiat consensus will take a very long tiime on this one! We > will probably have to talk about grotopological v6 adressing (as they > are doing on the ARIN ppml) and a host of other issues. I reckon we > ought to wait for shim6 to do their work as well. > > > because this PI discussion > > is very important to ipv6. > > v. true. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:15:27 +1100 > To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen?= Hovland <jorgen(a)hovland.cx>, > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>, <ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net> > From: Geoff Huston <gih(a)apnic.net> > Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6 > > At 03:37 AM 29/11/2005, J=F8rgen Hovland wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Florian Weimer" <fw(a)deneb.enyo.de> > >Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 4:00 PM > > > > > >>* Jeroen Massar: > >> > >>>>1. Make /32 the only routable entity so we can use perfect match in > >>>> the DFZ instead of longest-prefix match. > >>> > >>>What about the organizations that have say a /19, want them to inject > >>>all their more specific /32's? > >> > >>You can inject a /19 as 8192 /32s. Shouldn't make a difference if the > >>/19 is really used. > >> > >>At this stage, it's probably not too wise to embed the /32--/48--/64 > >>in silicon, but vendors will undoubtedly do this if they can save a > >>few bucks and current policies remain as inflexible as they are. > > > >Hi, > >Perfect match is faster but far from better. What I think perhaps would be= > =20 > >interesting to see in the future with regards to IPv6 and PI is the= > following: > > > >1. No PI. _Only_ network operators get a prefix. > >2. Customers of network operators can at any time change provider and take= > =20 > >their assigned prefix with them. The new provider will announce it as a=20 > >more specific overriding the aggregate. If the customer decides to get=20 > >multiple providers, then the network operator with the /32 could also=20 > >announce a more specific. > > > >In the country I live in I can change telecom provider and take my phone=20 > >number with me to the new provider. Why shouldn't I be able to do that=20 > >with internet providers? > >Yes, it will somehow create millions/billions of prefixes (atleasat with=20 > >todays routing technology/protocols). Network operators should be able to= > =20 > >handle that hence rule #1. > > > Interesting - it will work for a while, and then you will get to the limit= > =20 > of deployed capability of routing. > > Then what? > > Geoff > > > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 3 > From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> > Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:49:17 -1000 > To: Salman Asadullah <sasad(a)cisco.com> > Cc: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj(a)jorgensen.no>, > Oliver Bartels <oliver(a)bartels.de>, > "ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net" <ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net>, > "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>, > roger(a)jorgensen.no > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI > > > Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these real > > issues for a good reason. > > i gather that the message that leslie daigle was given at the > last nanog was not well-transmitted to the ietf. no big > surprise. > > you may want to look at http://nanog.org/mtg-0510/real/ipv6-bof.ram > > randy > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:13:39 +0100 > From: Andre Oppermann <oppermann(a)networx.ch> > To: Salman Asadullah <sasad(a)cisco.com> > CC: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj(a)jorgensen.no>, > Oliver Bartels <oliver(a)bartels.de>, > "ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net" <ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net>, > "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>, > roger(a)jorgensen.no > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI > > Salman Asadullah wrote: > > > > You seem to be far away from the ground realities. > > > > Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these real > > issues for a good reason. > > Neither Multi6 nor SHIM6 are even in an draft RFC state yet and to be > workable they'd have to be implemented on every end-host out there. > That is every operating system in sufficient existence. That puts IPv6 > even further in the already distant future considering common OS upgrade > and replacement cycles. > > Second this doesn't solve the renumbering problem. Renumbering is not > just giving hosts new IP addresses but alost managing DNS and Firewalls. > No even remotely workable and scaleable solution has been presented yet. > > So nice try but no cookie. > > -- > Andre > > > > Regards, > > Salman > > > > At 10:55 AM 11/25/2005 +0100, Roger Jorgensen wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Oliver Bartels wrote: > > > > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:10:10 +0100 (CET), Roger Jorgensen wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > If IPv4 offers PI = provider _independence_ and multihoming > > > > and IPv6 doesn't, then IPv4 is obviously the better solution for > > > > those who requires this functionallity. > > > > > > > > Thus they won't use IPv6. > > > > > > > > Please keep in mind: The _customer_ votes, not you, not me. > > > > > > > > And as the majority of the large and a significant portion of medium > > > > size businesses are obviously not willing to accept an IP protocol not > > > > providing this functionallity, IPv6 will remain at it's current status: > > > > > > > > A technical playground for technically interested people. > > > > > > a very true point in one way but that is again as I see it, we're still > > > thinking IPv4 when talking IPv6. > > > > > > Why do they need multihoming and PI? They don't trust the ISP and vendors > > > to deliver them uptime and freedom... isn't this a problem the ISP and > > > vendors should try to solve? Of course, the idea of easy renumbering was > > > suppose to solve this but again, we're thinking IPv4 so it's not easy to > > > understand. > > > > > > Again, we don't need PI space and multihoming, what we need are a way to > > > give the users and GOOD connectivity (uptime, speed etc) and make it easy > > > for them to switch providers as they see fit. > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > Hmm, please let me translate: > > > > "Even if the car doesn't drive and the engine doesn't deliver a single > > > > horse power at the wheels, drop the thought about driving, > > > > start to think about other way to use the possibility this great car > > > > gives us." > > > > > > > > Sound like newspeak: > > > > If we _think_ we can't solve the problem, drop discussing the problem. > > > > > > for several years this discussion have been going on, still no real > > > solution. IPv6 give us the freedom todo ALOT of things, USE those > > > possibilities, if we have to change how IP are done, some TCP headers > etc, > > > then do it... propose a good idea and prove it. That could give us > > > multihoming. Actually there is a master thesis about howto create > > > connectivity for TCP session even if one of the links went down, the > > > session just used another IP (1)... the user don't notice anything > > > either and it have zero problem working with standard tcp-stacks since it > > > use the extended header of IPv6. > > > > > > That's just ONE of many possible ways... > > > > > > > > > > > > (1) it's a master thesis writting by a student related to University of > > > TromsÃ¸ as part of the Pasta project, www.pasta.cs.uit.no > > > > > > -- > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > Roger Jorgensen | > > > rogerj(a)stud.cs.uit.no | - IPv6 is The Key! > > > http://www.jorgensen.no | roger(a)jorgensen.no > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > End of ipv6-wg Digest >

1 0