Hi, this may be a dump question , but does any body care to say that why RIRs or IANA itself should have this responsibility to IPv6 address space allocation? well, I know there has been a problem regarding IPv4 and that was limited address space which was available using IPv4.with IPv6 we do not have such problem then why should the things go on exactly as it was in IPv4? as Telecom engineer I know that the things is so easy when I am going to design a numbering/routing plan for telephony services. prefix "98 " is allocated to my country and deciding about the rest of number space (address space) is my business I am not going to get approval from ITU to allocate 98 31 to Isfehan for example, it is not ITU's business to care about the numbers that is assigned to end users in Iran. and I am not asked to report the address space consumption status to ITU. why shouldn't the things go on exactly the same while we have enough address space in IPv6? It is said that we would have enough address space to allocate to people who may live in moon or mars! let's leave it for future and just allocate address space for countries and end the allocation story there , address space is a resource just like frequency band width in US it FCC who should care about this and in Iran , PTT will decide how to use this resource. Best Regards Hamid Alipour ----- Original Message ----- From: David Kessens <david@qip.Qwest.net> To: <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> Cc: <meeting@ripe.net> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 8:27 AM Subject: minutes
Hi,
Please see below for the minutes of our last session.
I would like to thank Petra Zeidler for taking and preparing the minutes.
I would like to declare them the final version if I don't receive any major comments until January 31.
Thanks,
David K. PS I will not be very responsive for the next weeks due to a vacation ---
Slides available from http://whois.6bone.net/~david/presentations/
Minutes of the IPv6 WG meeting at RIPE 34
Agenda:
A. Administrative Stuff Scribe is Petra Zeidler Agenda got reshuffled, beside that no changes
B. Status of 6BONE (David Kessens) see slides for the contents of the presentation no Questions
C. Experience from the RIPE NCC with IPv6 allocations (Mirjam Kuehne)
http://www.ripe.net/meetings/ripe/ripe-34/pres/ipv6-alloc-experience/index.h tml
Questions: - Does RIPE NCC look at IPv4 allocations when deciding about IPv6 alloc.? - no, one can start out with IPv6 address space - How long does getting an allocation take? - about as long as a large IPv4 assignement now, but in the beginning it took longer due to necessary shakedown of procedures - What about the "exchange points distribute address space" point? - Neither the exchanges nor the registries are particularily keen to see that, maybe clear that up in the documentation - is the problem of how to handle different address spaces at the client site, their upstream and the exchange point worked out? - no. Input from the Exchange people needed, the IX wg is in parallel to this meeting - how does one find IPv6 database objects in the database? - by using whois, the object types are inet6num and ipv6site
D. Experience from APNIC with IPv6 allocations (Fabrina Hossain) http://www.ripe.net/meetings/ripe/ripe-34/pres/apnic-ipv6/index.html Questions: - what is a NIR, and what's the IPv6 problem with them? - a national internet registry, an intermediary between RIR and LIR; assigning a block of STLAs is not planned in the current regulations, but would be sensible. This point needs to be cleared up yet. - are there political problems with or for NIRs? - none up to date - what type of IPv6 usage happens in the APNIC region? - tunneled over IPv4
E. Experience from customers of the RIPE NCC with IPv6 allocations
(audience)
Stephen Burley, UUnet UK: requested at 3 registries due to their international character, got /35. Issues are Aggregation and looking at a whole continent /29 is reserved for them so they can expand contiguously UUnet is still staring up IPv6 operations, they have renumbered from their 6bone addresses and had questions from customers about IPv6, but did no assignments yet. general point: what about company mergers and splits? - renumbering is easy in theory Wilfried Woeber for Vienna Uni, RIPE IPv6 allocation #6: IPv6 requires quite different architecture considerations regarding wether to assign a /64 or a /48 actually using IPv6 found surprising, non-obvious traps (eg DNS) working with RIPE to get the allocation was nice planning for IPv6 is hard to do due to lack of experience on all sides the role of IXes is unclear. Are they to move from being a switch to being a router? How does one build infrastructure for a routed IX? What about the IPv6 multihoming issue? For an IXes own routing infrastructure there are no address issues
F. IPv6 forum creation (David Kessens) there has been a mailinglist created ~2-3 months ago with subject deployment of IPv6. It contains technical questions & answers There's a website too, http://www.ipv6.org/ It is meant to be a formal organisation to promote IPv6 It currently has 55 members, the membership fee is ~$2500 a year) The IPv6 forum sponsors meetings to spread information about IPv6 It has two main goals: inform and help in deployment by collecting useful information next meeting will be in October near Paris named "Global IPv6 summit" on the 8/9 dec there will be a meeting in Berlin to be help in German language, but translations will be offered too a meeting in Japan is planned, but there's no date yet
H. IPv6 test project done by TF-TANT (Simon Nybroe,
http://www.tbit.dk/quantum/slides/ripe34qtpv6/index.htm)
Questions/comments: DNS still needs IPv4 connectivity to be able to do its "tree walk" There are more applications needed that work with IPv6 A IPv6 routing registry needs to be considered
G. European developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 - there's a project to link 6TAP and AMS-IX using a native IPv6 link AMS-IX has IPv6 on the Ethernet and at 6TAP it's available over the peering router. Question: is it an experiment or are there plans to offer "ordinary" transit? - no transit yet, currently it will run in a ~3month test period
X. Any Other Business - there's IPv6 in the RIPE terminal room, with www.ipv6.surfnet.nl as tunnel router - IPv6 policies are to be dicussed in the LIR WG, only implementation matters at IPv6 WG, as IPv6 is now in assignment production. Anyone may take part in the LIR WG (only the LIRs really ought to :-)
--
Message-ID: <EXECMAIL.1000121183132.A@mbazo.dblab.ece.ntua.gr> Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 Version 5.0.1 Build (55) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:46:08 +0330 Hamid Alipour <alipour@technologist.com> wrote:
as Telecom engineer I know that the things is so easy when I am going to design a numbering/routing plan for telephony services. prefix "98 " is allocated to my country and deciding about the rest of number space (address space) is my business
Among other things, Internet networks are not geographically bounded the way that telephone networks are. Hence, what you propose has no meaning. ------------------------------------ Yiorgos Adamopoulos <adamo@ieee.org>
I would like to mention that my main job is designing and implementing internet rather than telephony network. I know that there is some similarities and differences between this two networks. the thing that I didn't know was that telephony services are geographically bounded!! well, I am not going to do a comparison between this two networks and I leave talking about this subject here. The thing that I would like to remind is that the decision making about two letter country TLDs subdomains are given to LIRs residing in the same country.I would like to ask why the same approach is not implemented about IPv6 address space allocation. there is a large address space and we can allocate a prefix to each country.the allocation inside country's allocated address space can be left for a LIR inside that country.in this way address space fragmentation can be avoided. it was not possible in IPv4 because of small address space that was available by IPv4. all policies ( classless address space allocation, designing procedures by which a LIR or RIR to become sure that address space is really needed and so on) was because the address space was limited and IR's decided to extend the life of IPv4 and minimize address space consumption.the things are different in IPv6.why should the same procedures be used in IPv6 address space allocation?having a large address space the network can be designed very easier and better Best Regards Hamid Alipour ----- Original Message ----- From: Yiorgos Adamopoulos <adamo@dblab.ece.ntua.gr> To: Hamid Alipour <alipour@technologist.com> Cc: David Kessens <david@qip.Qwest.net>; <ipv6-wg@ripe.net>; <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 8:01 PM Subject: Re: minutes
Message-ID: <EXECMAIL.1000121183132.A@mbazo.dblab.ece.ntua.gr> Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 Version 5.0.1 Build (55) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:46:08 +0330 Hamid Alipour <alipour@technologist.com> wrote:
as Telecom engineer I know that the things is so easy when I am going to design a numbering/routing plan for telephony services. prefix "98 " is allocated to my country and deciding about the rest of number space (address space) is my business
Among other things, Internet networks are not geographically bounded the way that telephone networks are. Hence, what you propose has no meaning. ------------------------------------ Yiorgos Adamopoulos <adamo@ieee.org>
Message-ID: <EXECMAIL.1000121211536.G@mbazo.dblab.ece.ntua.gr> Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 Version 5.0.1 Build (55) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" On Fri, 21 Jan 2000 21:56:33 +0330 Hamid Alipour <alipour@technologist.com> wrote:
The thing that I would like to remind is that the decision making about two letter country TLDs subdomains are given to LIRs residing in the same country.I would like to ask why the same approach is not implemented about IPv6 address space allocation.
Because a host ending in .gr is not obliged to reside withing the geographical boundaries of Greece (and this is true for many country TLDs). Also, you have .com, .net, .org, .edu (and comming .inc .whatever) TLDs that are not bounded within a country. This is the case for TLDs. Now immagine this: You have company A based say in Greece. Now company A opens offices AB in Bulgaria. Should company A get another address space slice for AB offices, or should it use addresses from the A slice, assuming there exists a direct connection from A to AB? Why make things more complicate than they already are? The geography on the Internet is different that the "physical" one, which is the one the Telcos use. ------------------------------------ Yiorgos Adamopoulos <adamo@ieee.org>
The thing that I would like to remind is that the decision making about two letter country TLDs subdomains are given to LIRs residing in the same country.I would like to ask why the same approach is not implemented about IPv6 address space allocation.
Because a host ending in .gr is not obliged to reside withing the geographical boundaries of Greece (and this is true for many country TLDs). Also, you have .com, .net, .org, .edu (and comming .inc .whatever) TLDs that are not bounded within a country. This is the case for TLDs.
Now immagine this:
You have company A based say in Greece. Now company A opens offices AB in Bulgaria. Should company A get another address space slice for AB offices, or should it use addresses from the A slice, assuming there exists a direct connection from A to AB?
Why make things more complicate than they already are? The geography on the Internet is different that the "physical" one, which is the one the Telcos use.
The thing that I would like you consider is that we have enough address space availble trough IPv6.I have two remarks here: 1- why should IPv6 address space alocation follow the same procedure as IPv4 while we had address space limitation there and we do not have address space limitation in IPv6 then we must ease address space allocation in IPv6. currently I have to run a procedure for each end user who whishes to get address space and I have ensure RIPE that the address space is really needed.end users do not have this permistion to reserve address space. that's ok while we are dealing with IPv4 , but what about IPv6? all of us know that designing a network with larger address space is easier and we can consider further developments too, address space is not fragmented and the network can run with higher performance. routers will have smaller routing tables and we can save RAM and CPU resources.due to limited address space in IPv4 it was not possible. optimizations was based on minimizing required address space , with IPv6 we can optimize the network design based on less resource usage and higher performance. 2- make address space allocation in IPv6 Localized. we can allocate some prefixes for countries , say put aside 2 bytes of address space. no? put aside 3 bytes, more or less put some space for countries. in 2 byte version we would have 65536 country codes while we do not have such amount of countries.RIRs can assign some prefix to companies which act international.let say a company whishes to act nation wide after a while he decides to have an office in an other country. he must register his office in that country and get some permission for his activities there, let they get an address space assignment from LIR in that country besides other permissions they have to get.they can do this or negotiate with a IR to get a multi-national or international prefix. how much effort is needed for this? and compare it with this procedure that I have to negotiate and get approval from RIPE whenever an ISP in my country needs address space. Best Regards Hamid Alipour
------------------------------------ Yiorgos Adamopoulos <adamo@ieee.org>
On 22-Jan-2000 Hamid Alipour wrote:
The thing that I would like you consider is that we have enough address space availble trough IPv6.I have two remarks here:
One of the goals of the current RIR system is not just conservation of address space but aggregation of routes. Many companies and ISPs span several countries. A Europe-wide company, under a telephone-style routing-prefix system, would require 30 or so independant routing prefixes. Similar situations exist in America and Asia-Pacific. Even a four-fold increase in the size of the routing tables would bring most of the backbone routers to their knees. -- Ryan O'Connell - On:Line Finance IT Department - <roconnell@olf.co.uk> Direct Voice Line: 01932 704320 Fax: 0870 242 2201 "Hey, girls, watch out for the wierdos" "Mister, we ARE the wierdos"
participants (3)
-
Hamid Alipour -
Ryan O`Connell -
Yiorgos Adamopoulos