Please see below for the minutes of the IPv6 wg session during RIPE41. The only changes that were made from the draft (v1) were some small corrections as requested by Mohsen Souissi on the list. Thanks, David K. --- ----------------------------- RIPE 41 Amsterdam Ipv6 Working Group Wednesday 16th January 2002 16:00 - 17:30 Chair - David Kessens 117 attendees present A Administrative Stuff Added agenda items: Status of ip6.int to ip6.arpa transition and the use of ipv6 capable nameservers for ip6.arpa B Status of the 6bone (David Kessens, http://www.kessens.com/~david/presentations/) Summary: There are now over 1000 ipv6 sites in 55 countries. Q: size definition, what is a site? A: an administrative entity that has an ipv6 network, can be very small, i.e. one machine, or a large ISP. Q: Is it necessarily the same as a site for a nla allocation? A: No! C Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering, SpaceNet AG, http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-41/presentations.html#ipv6) Q: Why can't you announce 2001::16? I do this because I want to have a default free announcement. A: This does not belong to you specifically so should not be announced. Q: What is preferable? A: It should not be announced in the default free zone, there is no problem with you announcing this internally. Q: Are there invalid AS numbers in some registries i.e. the 6bone registry? A: I didn't check there, most likely they are because the 6bone registry does not check to see if an AS number is valid or invalid. Q: Are we now in the right phase to filter based on registry databases? A: I don't think so! We don't have RPSL for Ipv6. Comment: For your info, in Japan the exchanges are not exchanging routes anymore, for example NTT are charging for transit. Q: Where do you connect to for these bgp tables? A: Mainly Germany, but also some US and European sites. Q: would it be worth having a discussion regarding filtering policies for our routers in the next meeting ? Q: can you volunteer for this ? A: yep! D Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience requested) Comment: French NIC has a secondary DNS IPv6-capable server which already hosts .fr zone and other TLD zones such as .re, .es, .br and .dz. We are looking forward to do some collaboration in DNSv6 field with other European TLDs. A: Can I volunteer you to discuss this at the next meeting? A: Yep! Q: Does this mean that you do accept quad A or A6 records because there are some parts that just have it as transport to ship a query to the server and to receive the result? A: The transit of DNS messages is they need them in Ipv6 dative mode only where they are supported in OUR zone file we don't object to the use of zone files containing AS's. Global Ipv6 Summit Madrid 13th - 14th March 2002 www.ipv6-es.com Jordi Palet gave slides to David to present Euro6IX Status. David presented the slides (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-41/presentations.html#ipv6) Q: 6link is a coordination of different v6 projects. Similar updates to Euro6IX! Z AOB Reverse Delegation in v6 I would like to talk about the slowdown of DNSv6 service deployment. There is a plan of migration from ip6.int to ip6.arpa for the IPv6 revese tree. RIRs have already asked for reverse delegation of their blocs and that has already been done. But no name server among the authoritative ones for ip6.arpa talks IPv6! In November we sent a mail to IANA hostmaster to tell them, we can also be a secondary for ip6.arpa. So far we have had no response! I am therefore concerned of willingness for deploying IPv6. Things are going well from a standardization point of view but from a practical point of view people are not encouraged! Q: We received a request from Bill reagrding the various ranges which we have passed on to the people running the ip6.arpa. Should this be in our operational area? Probably most people feel that yes it should! We are trying to do this as fast as we can.. Q: can we at ripe get independent v6 addresses A: no, not enough for everyone!!! Q: good question, where do the registries get it from? Q: Is ICANN considering using new records for the route zone? A: I don't make policy on the route zone, discussion has been made which has not yet been concluded. I will hand over to Bill.. A: testing regarding this is still ongoing, a preliminary set of recommendations still has to be tested. It is going very slow as people are being very careful. Q: does the registry process of RIPE NCC allow me to register name servers without having v4 address? A: yes Q: is there anything we can do as a community, i.e. make it clear to the ripe community that we want this? A: yes A: we can then approach Icann about this. You should be asking the RIPE NCC when we can use v6 in the name server. Conclusion Hopefully the agenda will be fuller next time, if you have any suggestions please let David know so that we can have more agenda points. It could be interesting to see a road map plan, I see we have Cisco and Juniper here so can you help me do this for next time? A: Yep! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ <<< Chronological Index >>> <<< Thread Index >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------