Hi, Below follows the second version of the draft agenda (v2) for the ipv6 wg. 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 are a couple of items that ask for 'input of the audience' or 'need a volunteer'. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you are willing to help out, even if you can only talk for just a few minutes. Also, you are all invited to the ipv6 tutorial which has been scheduled on monday. See my previous mail for more details. Thanks, David K. --- Draft agenda (v2) for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE43 September 11, 2002, 14:00 - 17:30, Rhodes, Greece 1st slot A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Status of the 6bone (David Kessens) C. 6Bone Address Allocation and Registration Transition (Ray Plzak) D. IPv6 version of TTM (5-10m) (Henk Uijterwaal) E. Action point 42.1: Investigate the CNAME and other solutions for v6-reverse delegation (RIPE NCC) F. IPv6 capable RR DNS servers - what is needed, what are the issues ?!? (We are looking for a speaker from the RIPE NCC) G. Action point 42.2: Give an overview of 6-to-4 reverse delegation issues at RIPE 43 (RIPE NCC) Coffee break 15:30 - 16:00 H. Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering) I. Report about *actual* v6 traffic volume as compared to v4? what's *real* out there, not what's on powerpoint? (Proposed by Randy Bush, we are looking for a volunteer(s)) J. DNS and IPv6 - issues and current BCP: draft-ietf-dnsext-ipv6-addresses-01.txt (I am looking for a volunteer who is willing to cover this topic) K. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience) Z. AOB ---
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, David Kessens wrote:
I. Report about *actual* v6 traffic volume as compared to v4? what's *real* out there, not what's on powerpoint? (Proposed by Randy Bush, we are looking for a volunteer(s))
Hello. Im not volunteering for this, im just making a comment... Isnt this proposed topic of the kind: "See? no traffic, we should shut down IPv6!!! Nobody is using it!!!" or "Bahhhh, i was right... IPv6 is worthless..." We all know v6 traffic is 0.(some-zeros)1 % of v4 traffic, and that native IPv6 lines are very scarce. So this "report" will always be a very negative one. Instead of that, it would be more useful (and in a more positive way) to drive a continued survey/report on which % of ISPs/LIRs have IPv6 "projects", and which native lines exist, and not just tunnels. Having this data sorted out by country, could perhaps drive the people who decide where the money goes... (As far as i know, data related to my country is very easy to sort out... just 3 ISPs have IPv6 projects and only one native inter-as IPv6 native line exists...) Regards, ./Carlos "Networking is fun!" ------------------- http://www.fccn.pt <cfriacas@fccn.pt>, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax: +351 218472167
Hi, On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 12:43:58PM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote:
Isnt this proposed topic of the kind: "See? no traffic, we should shut down IPv6!!! Nobody is using it!!!" or "Bahhhh, i was right... IPv6 is worthless..."
It could be interpreted that way. On the other hand...
We all know v6 traffic is 0.(some-zeros)1 % of v4 traffic, and that native IPv6 lines are very scarce. So this "report" will always be a very negative one.
... I think it's an interesting long-term project - someone could do this comparison in regular intervals, and present his findings on the RIPE/IETF/...-Meetings. I, for one, would like to know how things are developing.
Instead of that, it would be more useful (and in a more positive way) to drive a continued survey/report on which % of ISPs/LIRs have IPv6 "projects", and which native lines exist, and not just tunnels.
This would be a useful number as well, but it's not easy either. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 46611 (45583) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
128-bit DNS does not imply that IPv6 packet headers are used.... Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think... http://www.ican.org/what's_new!!!.htm http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carlos Friacas" <cfriacas@fccn.pt> To: "David Kessens" <david@IPRG.nokia.com> Cc: <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 6:43 AM Subject: Re: draft agenda (v2) RIPE43
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, David Kessens wrote:
I. Report about *actual* v6 traffic volume as compared to v4? what's *real* out there, not what's on powerpoint? (Proposed by Randy Bush, we are looking for a volunteer(s))
Hello. Im not volunteering for this, im just making a comment...
Isnt this proposed topic of the kind: "See? no traffic, we should shut down IPv6!!! Nobody is using it!!!" or "Bahhhh, i was right... IPv6 is worthless..."
We all know v6 traffic is 0.(some-zeros)1 % of v4 traffic, and that native IPv6 lines are very scarce. So this "report" will always be a very negative one.
Instead of that, it would be more useful (and in a more positive way) to drive a continued survey/report on which % of ISPs/LIRs have IPv6 "projects", and which native lines exist, and not just tunnels.
Having this data sorted out by country, could perhaps drive the people who decide where the money goes...
(As far as i know, data related to my country is very easy to sort out... just 3 ISPs have IPv6 projects and only one native inter-as IPv6 native line exists...)
Regards,
./Carlos "Networking is fun!" ------------------- http://www.fccn.pt <cfriacas@fccn.pt>, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax: +351 218472167
Isnt this proposed topic of the kind: "See? no traffic, we should shut down IPv6!!! Nobody is using it!!!" or "Bahhhh, i was right... IPv6 is worthless..."
no. it is wanting baseline measurement. e.g. apnic is tracking hits on ip6.int service. five years from now, we will wish we have such data. randy
On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, Carlos Friacas wrote:
We all know v6 traffic is 0.(some-zeros)1 % of v4 traffic, and that native IPv6 lines are very scarce. So this "report" will always be a very negative one. [...]
We're doing e.g. some newsfeeding on native v6; 5-10+ Mbit/s of traffic constantly, easily, and could be more if the number of peers was increased from one. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
Hello All, I've noticed v6 global allocations by RIRs reached 200 ! Is it going slower of faster than expected ? It would be nice to see everyone's prefix on the global v6 table too. :-) ps: RIPE people, i've sent several times a v6 IX request to the address stated on the v6 IX request DOC/req.form, and i didnt get an error message, a reply, and not even a ticket number. need help!!! ./Carlos "Networking is fun!" -------------- [http://www6.ip6.rccn.net, IPv6 only] http://www.fccn.pt <cfriacas@fccn.pt>, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax: +351 218472167
participants (6)
-
Carlos Friacas -
David Kessens -
Gert Doering -
Jim Fleming -
Pekka Savola -
Randy Bush