- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC
by leo vegoda 12 Jan '04

12 Jan '04

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv6 address range 2001:1A00::/23 from the IANA in January 2004. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found on our web site at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/smallest-alloc-sizes.html> Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] FW: New IPv6 Allocation (2001:1a00::/23)
by Jeroen Massar 10 Jan '04

10 Jan '04

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- FYI, please adjust filters etc if you have set them. Reference filter set: http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html Greets, Jeroen - -----Original Message----- From: Steve Conte [conte(a)iana.org] Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 1:47 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: New IPv6 Allocation Greetings, This is to inform you that the IANA has allocated 2001:1A00::/23 to the RIPE NCC. For a full list of IANA IPv6 allocations please see: <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-tla-assignments>. Thanks, Steve - --------------- Steve Conte - IANA conte(a)iana.org PGP KeyID: 0x0972C473 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen iQA/AwUBP/9TrSmqKFIzPnwjEQK/gQCfaceFBP53zGBUGIqDXd7xkggNhk4An3Q0 li6/dxHnvSZm81DheQYCzRoM =/hGY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Call for agenda items and Draft Agenda (v1) for ipv6 wg RIPE47
by David Kessens 29 Dec '03

29 Dec '03

Hi, Below follows the draft agenda (v1) for the ipv6 wg for RIPE47. Note that we are meeting on tuesday instead of the usual wednesday slot. We occasionally change meeting time/date in order to make sure that we are not always scheduled with the same working group so that people who are interested in the other working group have a chance to go to that session for a change. I need your help to make the working group session interesting. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for agenda topics that you would like to have covered during the meeting or if you would like to contribute to one of the 'input of the audience' agenda items. Thanks, David K. --- Draft Agenda (v1) for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE47 When: 14:00 - 15:30, Tuesday January 27, 2004 Where: St Johns II, Hotel Krasnapolsky, Amsterdam A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Ranges of allocated ipv6 addresses and their use (Jeroen Massar) C. Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering) D. Report(s) about *actual* v6 traffic volume as compared to v4? *what's real* out there, not what's on powerpoint? (input from the audience) E. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience) F. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan (input from the audience) Z. AOB ---

2 1

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security
by Jeroen Massar 16 Dec '03

16 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Paul Vixie wrote: > > /35 routes are being discouraged in favor of /32 entries... > > 4,064,000,000 addresses to ensure that just one host -might- > > have global reachability. IMHO, a /48 is even overkill... :) > > i think the important points for ietf@ to know about are (a) that this > is an open issue, (b) that it's generally agreed that all the > RIR's ought to have the same rules regarding microallocations, and (c) > exactly where (as in what working group or mailing list or smoke filled room) the > discussion is being held. for example, bill says above that > "/35 routes are being discouraged" and that's probably true but "by > whom?" and "where?" There are currently quite some ISP's who filter anything >/35. Generally ISP's should be filtering on allocation boundaries. Thus if a certain prefix is allocated as a /32, they should not be accepting anything smaller (/33, /34 etc) Checking http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/all/ 8<------------ The database currently holds 630 IPv6 TLA's. Of which 18 (2.86%) are returned to the pool, 202 (32.06%) IPv6 TLA's didn't have a routing entry. Thus 410 (65.08%) networks are currently announced. 0 (0.00%) only announced a /35 while they have been assigned a /32. 13 (2.06%) announce both their /32 and their /35. - ------------>8 I have to add that there is an error here as 2001:dc0::/35 is in the tables, but doesn't get picked up by the software, will be fixing that soonish. Generally if you announce a /35 it will get through to most ISP's. But we should be avoiding that. Currently the ipv6 global routing table is quite small, but it could grow quite large and when ISP's still don't filter correctly, or better if ISP's don't aggregate it will explode and we will be needing the follow up to BGP soon, which is more work for the IETF :) As for which smoked filled room, this should be a task of the RIRs, thus RIPE's IPv6 WG etc. but it usually takes place when communicating between ISP's. Notice that many ISP's use Gerts list: http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html I would applaud a generic /32 that is 'allowed' to being cut up into multiple /48's for the purpose of critical infrastructure. But please, keep it to 1 *documented* /32. That way people will know that they will see more specifics from that prefix and that they should be accepting it too. Currently the !3! IX blocks (2001:7f8::/32 + 2001:504::/32 + 2001:7fa::/32) are seen being announced in pieces too. Maybe these IX blocks, which are common already could be used for assigning 'critical infra' from? This is a RIR thing and should be discussed there (ipv6-wg cc'd). The IETF though should ofcourse advise in all matters. Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen(a)unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP9TmwCmqKFIzPnwjEQIk9gCfWIZU0RJA3OGyrbOFTa1+ZIvSDE4AniOW qOqG5k7653xd5LaLSLUAglde =mqwa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

11 18

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] (no subject)
by Ilias Markantonis 16 Dec '03

16 Dec '03

hi!I am working in a mobile ip6 testbed and i hope you can tell me of a software better than ethereal which can print the binding updates and caches.also if this software has a plotting tool for the desired outputs,it would be perfect.

1 0

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] "...convene a public meeting to gather information about IPv6."
by Jim Fleming 12 Dec '03

12 Dec '03

December 12, 2003 http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2003/IPv6_10142003.html October 14, 2003 "Specifically, the task force will issue a request for public comments in the next 45 days and will subsequently convene a public meeting to gather information about IPv6." ====

1 0

RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] 2001:1700::/27 / CH-SUNRISE-20031124, check your prefix filters
by matthew.ford＠bt.com 12 Dec '03

12 Dec '03

Gert, You should probably change 2001:500::/32 to 2001:500::/30. This is now documented at http://www.arin.net/registration/ipv6/micro_alloc.html. Regards, Mat > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net] > On Behalf Of Gert Doering > Sent: 12 December 2003 13:11 > To: Jeroen Massar > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.edu; ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net] 2001:1700::/27 / > CH-SUNRISE-20031124, check your prefix filters > > Hi, > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 10:42:22PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > At 2003-11-24 RIPE allocated 2001:1700::/27. > > ISP's doing IPv6 prefixlenght filtering should watch out > that they are > > not filtering out the above prefix > [..] > > Easiest way to avoid problems is to regulary check: > > http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html > > Thanks for pointing that out to me :-) - I have made the > accompanying text more explicit regarding the > already-allocated /31 and /27. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: > 57386 (57785) > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 > >

2 1

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] 2001:1700::/27 / CH-SUNRISE-20031124, check your prefix filters
by Jeroen Massar 12 Dec '03

12 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi, At 2003-11-24 RIPE allocated 2001:1700::/27. ISP's doing IPv6 prefixlenght filtering should watch out that they are not filtering out the above prefix It is visible in most parts of the world, check: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/lg/?find=2001:1700::/27 But it is also quite easy to see from that list that many ISP's do filter, somewhat fortunatly, but they do have to update their prefix filters ;) Easiest way to avoid problems is to regulary check: http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html Even Gert's 'strict' filters allows the above prefix as it is based on the RIR's policies. A 'golden IPv6 network' page will be created to be able to lookup these prefixes without much problems Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen(a)unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP9eTOimqKFIzPnwjEQKz4wCgn7m7+puSY3uXxoQP+wZ6jPilfpwAn2ru wmQh1E574sqE/iqy6xtK+QS/ =97kN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 connectivity in Iran
by Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) 11 Dec '03

11 Dec '03

Dear All, At the RIPE NCC regional meeting earlier this week, one of the participants asked me about IPv6 connectivity between a local network there and the rest of the world. I had no idea, but promised to post the question here. So: Is there anybody on this list who offers IPv6 connectivity in Iran _today_? Please reply privately, I'll forward the responses and summarize if there is interest. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(a)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)

2 1

[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] ip6.arpa broken because of arrowroot.arin.net + buchu.arin.net wrongly in .net gtld servers
by Jeroen Massar 28 Nov '03

28 Nov '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- ip6.arpa is, according to the root-servers.net boxes hosted on: ip6.arpa. 172800 IN NS ARROWROOT.ARIN.NET. ip6.arpa. 172800 IN NS BUCHU.ARIN.NET. ip6.arpa. 172800 IN NS NS.APNIC.NET. ip6.arpa. 172800 IN NS NS.ICANN.ORG. ip6.arpa. 172800 IN NS NS.RIPE.NET. ip6.arpa. 172800 IN NS SVC00.APNIC.NET. ;; Received 241 bytes from 198.41.0.4#53(A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET) in 97 ms But: $ dig @ARROWROOT.ARIN.NET ip6.arpa ns ; <<>> DiG 9.2.3 <<>> @ARROWROOT.ARIN.NET ip6.arpa ns ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 22022 ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 13, ADDITIONAL: 13 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;ip6.arpa. IN NS ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: . 86400 IN NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 86400 IN NS B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 86400 IN NS C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 86400 IN NS D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 86400 IN NS E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 86400 IN NS F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 86400 IN NS G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 86400 IN NS H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 86400 IN NS I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 86400 IN NS J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 86400 IN NS K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 86400 IN NS L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 86400 IN NS M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ;; Query time: 28 msec ;; SERVER: 198.133.199.110#53(ARROWROOT.ARIN.NET) ;; WHEN: Thu Nov 27 22:16:01 2003 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 445 There is a oddness here btw: $ dig @aloe.arin.net arrowroot.arin.net ;; ANSWER SECTION: arrowroot.arin.net. 10800 IN A 63.146.182.189 BUT according to the .net servers: $ dig @A.GTLD-SERVERS.net. arrowroot.arin.net ; <<>> DiG 9.2.3 <<>> @A.GTLD-SERVERS.net. arrowroot.arin.net ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 16818 ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 8, ADDITIONAL: 8 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;arrowroot.arin.net. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: arrowroot.arin.net. 172800 IN A 198.133.199.110 Which is the address that is used above and in queries, the arin.net version does work btw. But this does break many queries. Btw ns.ripe.net reports: ip6.arpa. 172800 IN NS ns.ripe.net. ip6.arpa. 172800 IN NS ns.apnic.net. ip6.arpa. 172800 IN NS ns.icann.org. ip6.arpa. 172800 IN NS tinnie.arin.net. So please get these in sync as it is breaking stuff miracously. Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen(a)unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP8ZsNymqKFIzPnwjEQJbCwCgg/1Fbu/XOhFCY3iM6chmjDc51VEAoLjI jyFWB1H+/c/xJSu/B65Av7LU =oRLs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1