- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: minutes
by Simon Leinen 24 Jan '00

24 Jan '00

>>>>> "dk" == David Kessens <david(a)qip.Qwest.net> writes: > 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/ The IPv6 Forum Web site is http://www.ipv6forum.com/ . IPv6.org is an effort to disseminate information about IPv6. It has neither formal membership nor fees. To my knowledge it isn't related to the IPv6 Forum (other that some people may be active in both). > 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 -- Simon Leinen simon(a)babar.switch.ch SWITCH http://www.switch.ch/misc/leinen/ Who is General Failure & why's he reading my disk?

1 0

minutes
by David Kessens 22 Jan '00

22 Jan '00

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.… 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 :-) --

3 2

filtering against IPv& in IPv4
by Thomas Trede 21 Jan '00

21 Jan '00

Hello, FYI: The mentioned problem in the following message of the IPNG-Mailinglist might be interesting and an issue for the IPv6-WG at RIPE... I will not forward the whole thread of the IPNG-Mailing to this list; it has been suggested to take the issue to the IPv6-Forum. I suggest we should spend some time at the upcoming RIPE-Meeting for this issue (even, if we only check whether it is an issue for the IPv6-activities in RIPE-community). Regards, Thomas Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 20:04:56 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20000119.200456.23033996.kazu(a)iijlab.net> To: ngtrans(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com, ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com Subject: filtering against IPv6 in IPv4 From: Kazu Yamamoto (=?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCOzNLXE9CSScbKEI=?=) <kazu(a)iijlab.net> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.95b17 on Emacs 20.5 / Mule 4.0 (HANANOEN) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com Precedence: bulk Hi all, Some ISPs configure IP filters NOT to forward "IPv6 in IPv4" packets. This is obstacles for transition from IPv4 to IPv6. Are there any activities in IETF to recommend ISPs not to filter "IPv6 in IPv4" packets? (e.g. IAB recommendation) --Kazu -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to majordomo(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: LIR 34.11 Discuss moving IPv6 policy matters to lir-wg
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 12 Jan '00

12 Jan '00

Hi Hans Petter! >I would like to ask the lir-wg and the ipv6-wg to give its opinions on this >matter, and if possible to conclude. > >Conclusions could be: >1) Keep it as is >2) Move all policy discussions to lir-wg >3) Keep it as is for next n meetings My feeling is that the time has come to move IPv6 addressing policy and address distribution items to the LIR-WG, thus I'm proposing "option 2". I think it was indeed appropriate to take care of IPv6-specific issues in the framework of the IPv6-WG, in particular as long as we are/were living in a test-bed kind of environment. (Btw, 6Bone issues, as well as technical issues should still remain with the IPv6 WG) However, as LIRs now can request IPv6 address space *for production use* in much the same way as IPv4 addresses, there's not too much "special handling" requirements left, I suppose. Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Vienna University : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : RIPE-DB Handle: WW144 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : PGP public key ID 0xF0ACB369 __________________________________________________________________________

1 0

LIR 34.11 Discuss moving IPv6 policy matters to lir-wg
by hph＠infostream.no 11 Jan '00

11 Jan '00

At the two last lir-wg meetings ar RIPE meetings the question of wether IPv6 policy matters should be discussed in a separate working group or in the lir-wg where all other policy matters are discussed has been brough up. Two meetings ago I rejected this suggestions for two reasons: - I did'n feel qualified to chair the rather detailed technical discussions going on related to the v6 policies - The lir-wg agenda was filled with other matters The reasons for suggesting moving the discussions to the policy forum is to keep policy discussions in one place, thus making schedulig simpler for policy interested meeting attendants. I would like to ask the lir-wg and the ipv6-wg to give its opinions on this matter, and if possible to conclude. Conclusions could be: 1) Keep it as is 2) Move all policy discussions to lir-wg 3) Keep it as is for next n meetings Yours, the lir-wg chair.

1 0

Fw: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipngwg-mld-mib-02.txt
by Thomas Trede 11 Jan '00

11 Jan '00

FYI. Regards, Thomas Trede ----- Original Message ----- From: <Internet-Drafts(a)ietf.org> To: <IETF-Announce: ;> Cc: <ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 12:39 PM Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipngwg-mld-mib-02.txt > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the IPNG Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : IP Version 6 Management Information Base for The > Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol > Author(s) : B. Haberman, R. Worzella > Filename : draft-ietf-ipngwg-mld-mib-02.txt > Pages : 12 > Date : 10-Jan-00 > > This document defines an experimental portion of the Management > Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in > Internet Protocol Version 6 internets. Specifically, this document > is the MIB module which defines managed objects for implementations > of the Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol [MLD]. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-mld-mib-02.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-ipngwg-mld-mib-02.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv(a)ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-mld-mib-02.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. >

1 0

Fw: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipngwg-iana-tla-02.txt
by Thomas Trede 10 Jan '00

10 Jan '00

FYI. Regards, Thomas Trede ----- Original Message ----- From: <Internet-Drafts(a)ietf.org> To: <IETF-Announce: ;> Cc: <ipng(a)sunroof.eng.sun.com> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 1999 12:49 PM Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipngwg-iana-tla-02.txt > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the IPNG Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Initial IPv6 Sub-TLA ID Assignments > Author(s) : B. Hinden, S. Deering, B. Fink, T. Hain > Filename : draft-ietf-ipngwg-iana-tla-02.txt > Pages : 6 > Date : 29-Dec-99 > > This document defines initial assignments of IPv6 Sub-TLA Aggregation > Identifiers (Sub-TLA ID) to the Address Registries and continued > management of the IP6.INT domain. It is intended as technical input > to the IANA from the IETF IP Next Generation (IPNG) and Next > Generation Transition (NGTRANS) working groups, as an input to the > process of developing guidelines for the allocation of IPv6 > addresses. > The IAB and IESG have authorized the Internet Assigned Numbers > Authority (IANA) as the appropriate entity to have the responsibility > for the management of the IPv6 address space as defined in [ALLOC]. > The proposed initial assignment described in the document is > consistent with: > - RFC 2373,'IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture' [ARCH] > - RFC 2374 'An Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format' [AGGR] > - RFC 2450 'Proposed TLA and NLA Assignment Rules' [TLA-RULES]. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-iana-tla-02.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-ipngwg-iana-tla-02.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv(a)ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-iana-tla-02.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. >

1 0

IPv6 Policy Document Review - Call for comments
by RIPE NCC Staff 21 Dec '99

21 Dec '99

Dear colleagues, In July 1999, the three Regional Internet Registries (APNIC, ARIN, and the RIPE NCC) released the "Provisional IPv6 Assignment and Allocation Policy Document" (see http://www.ripe.net/lir/registries/ipv6.html) These initial policies and procedures have been carefully discussed within the community before publishing them. A formal review of the document was scheduled to start in October 1999, so that early experiences of IPv6 operation and administration could be fully evaluated and any necessary amendments made. The RIPE NCC, together with the other RIRs, now calls for comments to assist in this first review. We would like you to re-visit this document and we invite you to make any comments you feel would be constructive to the development of the next version. In particular, the RIRs seek your comments on the following sections of the document: * 4.2.3.2 Multihomed Sites This section was left unwritten in the first release, as there was insufficient experience to draw on in formulating a policy. We encourage any members of the community who have operational experience or interest in IPv6 and multi-homing to contribute suggestions for this section. * 4.2.8 Allocations to NLA Registries * 4.3.1 Assignments to End-users Review of these two sections is sought from members of the community who have relevant operational experience. * Definition of 'transit provider' A definition for the above term was not included in the current document. Comments and suggestions for an appropriate definition are encouraged. Finally, we also encourage you to take a look at the "IPv6 sub-TLA Request Form" (http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-195.html) and provide any comments or suggestions for improvements. Discussion will take place on the IPv6-WG mailing list <ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net>. If you prefer to submit any private comments, please do not hesitate to contact Nurani Nimpuno <nurani(a)ripe.net>. We would like to receive comments before the end of January. Kind Regards, Nurani Nimpuno Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC

2 1

request for an IPv6 tutorial speaker
by David Kessens 10 Dec '99

10 Dec '99

Hi, As we did last year, I would like to try to organize a tutorial on IPv6 again. For this to happen, I need volunteer(s) to give such a tutorial. Please contact me if you are willing to help us out. The next RIPE meeting is planned for: feb 22-25, 2000 in Amsterdam Duration and exact content of the tutorial can be determined by the speaker(s), the best day to hold the tutorial is probably feb 22. Feel free to forward this message to potential candidates that you might know. Thanks in advance for your help, David K. ---

1 0

[Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6multihome-with-aggr-00.txt]
by Thomas Trede 30 Nov '99

30 Nov '99

FYI. Regards, Thomas Trede

1 0