[ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Action points from the RIPE 43 meeting
Dear Colleagues, Please find below a report regarding the status of the action point from the RIPE 43 ipv6-wg meeting. Regards, Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC E. IPv6 capable RR DNS servers ============================== RIPE NCC will provide IPv6 access to the ns.ripe.net by the end of November. D. Action point 42.1: ===================== Investigate the CNAME and other solutions for v6-reverse delegation. This action point came up from the request for support a smooth transition from ip6.int to ip6.arpa. To be done in consistent manner this is being coordinated with other RIRs. Also a technical discussion is planned at the IETF-55 in November. We'll let the community know about the outcome of these discussions. F. Action point 42.2: ===================== Give an overview of 6-to-4 reverse delegation issues This issue requires coordination between the RIRs and is being discussed. More information can be available after the IETF-55 meeting in November.
Hi, thanks for your overview. There's one thing that I'm missing, which is really important: reverse delegation for the 3FFE space under ip6.arpa (while I'm not sure whether this is an "official ipv6-wg action item", it has been mentioned in the IPv6-WG and the LIR-WG, and has been stressed as being important to solve quickly). As far as I could find out, this has been delayed due to unnecessary political games between the RIRs, and I'm very sorry to hear that. Always remember: we want IPv6 to succeed. Playing games that lead to broken reverse resolving and to non-deployment of "official" reverse domains will *hurt* - it's already very messy, as many of the operating system vendors don't go to ip6.arpa, because it's considered broken. gert On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 06:26:11PM +0100, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Please find below a report regarding the status of the action point from the RIPE 43 ipv6-wg meeting.
Regards,
Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC
E. IPv6 capable RR DNS servers ==============================
RIPE NCC will provide IPv6 access to the ns.ripe.net by the end of November.
D. Action point 42.1: ===================== Investigate the CNAME and other solutions for v6-reverse delegation.
This action point came up from the request for support a smooth transition from ip6.int to ip6.arpa. To be done in consistent manner this is being coordinated with other RIRs. Also a technical discussion is planned at the IETF-55 in November. We'll let the community know about the outcome of these discussions.
F. Action point 42.2: ===================== Give an overview of 6-to-4 reverse delegation issues
This issue requires coordination between the RIRs and is being discussed. More information can be available after the IETF-55 meeting in November.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48540 (48282) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Hi Gert, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
thanks for your overview. There's one thing that I'm missing, which is really important: reverse delegation for the 3FFE space under ip6.arpa (while I'm not sure whether this is an "official ipv6-wg action item", it has been mentioned in the IPv6-WG and the LIR-WG, and has been stressed as being important to solve quickly).
As far as I could find out, this has been delayed due to unnecessary political games between the RIRs, and I'm very sorry to hear that.
Always remember: we want IPv6 to succeed.
Playing games that lead to broken reverse resolving and to non-deployment of "official" reverse domains will *hurt* - it's already very messy, as many of the operating system vendors don't go to ip6.arpa, because it's considered broken.
Thanks for bringing this issue up on the list. When approached initially by the IETF the RIRs jointly worked with the 6bone to see how 6bone address space could be incorporated into the registry system, providing registration services to participants of the 6bone. Consequently, a proposal incorporating the 6bone requirements was submitted to the 6bone and RIR communities in August with a request for comment. We have seen active discussions on the 6bone list however the relevant RIPE community lists have provided little feedback. However, here is still ample opportunity to send comments as the deadline was set at 31 December 2002. We must have a clear community position on the way forward. We will also report IETF recommendations as they develop.
gert
Regards, Andrei -- Andrei Robachevsky Chief Technical Officer RIPE NCC
Is there a large market for people wanting to pay $25,000+ per year for an IPv6 block ? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrei Robachevsky" <andrei@ripe.net> To: "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> Cc: <ipv6-wg@ripe.net>; "David Kessens" <david@IPRG.nokia.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Action points from the RIPE 43 meeting
Hi Gert,
Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
thanks for your overview. There's one thing that I'm missing, which is really important: reverse delegation for the 3FFE space under ip6.arpa (while I'm not sure whether this is an "official ipv6-wg action item", it has been mentioned in the IPv6-WG and the LIR-WG, and has been stressed as being important to solve quickly).
As far as I could find out, this has been delayed due to unnecessary political games between the RIRs, and I'm very sorry to hear that.
Always remember: we want IPv6 to succeed.
Playing games that lead to broken reverse resolving and to non-deployment of "official" reverse domains will *hurt* - it's already very messy, as many of the operating system vendors don't go to ip6.arpa, because it's considered broken.
Thanks for bringing this issue up on the list. When approached initially by the IETF the RIRs jointly worked with the 6bone to see how 6bone address space could be incorporated into the registry system, providing registration services to participants of the 6bone.
Consequently, a proposal incorporating the 6bone requirements was submitted to the 6bone and RIR communities in August with a request for comment. We have seen active discussions on the 6bone list however the relevant RIPE community lists have provided little feedback. However, here is still ample opportunity to send comments as the deadline was set at 31 December 2002. We must have a clear community position on the way forward. We will also report IETF recommendations as they develop.
gert
Regards,
Andrei
-- Andrei Robachevsky Chief Technical Officer RIPE NCC
Hi, On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 07:03:13PM +0100, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
Gert Doering wrote:
thanks for your overview. There's one thing that I'm missing, which is really important: reverse delegation for the 3FFE space under ip6.arpa (while I'm not sure whether this is an "official ipv6-wg action item", it has been mentioned in the IPv6-WG and the LIR-WG, and has been stressed as being important to solve quickly). [..]
Thanks for bringing this issue up on the list. When approached initially by the IETF the RIRs jointly worked with the 6bone to see how 6bone address space could be incorporated into the registry system, providing registration services to participants of the 6bone.
I wasn't talking about the "6bone integration into the RIR system" proposal. We need to have reverse delegation for the 3FFE space, under ip6.arpa, and this has to happen *now*, not "at some point far away to the future when 6bone has ceased to exist and everybody is living peacefully under the RIR's hoods". There's no need for the RIRs to actually do anything, besides give up the blockade position "the 6bone is not a RIR and per the RFC, only RIRs can do reverse delegation under ip6.arpa". Have IANA delegate e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa to the same set of servers as e.f.f.3.ip6.int (as per Bill Manning's request that was denied due to RIR disapproval), and be done with it. This is really *really* annoying, and it's hurting IPv6 deployment. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48540 (48282) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
From: "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> "RIRs can do reverse delegation under ip6.arpa". Have IANA delegate e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa to the same set of servers as e.f.f.3.ip6.int (as per Bill Manning's request that was denied due to RIR disapproval), and be done with it." ===== What happened to the ITU doing all this under .INT ? Why would the RIRs want to get into this ?...who would pay for it ? The RIRs seem to be busy with the 32-bit 0:0 IN-ADDR.ARPA marketing... http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> To: "Andrei Robachevsky" <andrei@ripe.net> Cc: "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>; <ipv6-wg@ripe.net>; "David Kessens" <david@IPRG.nokia.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:37 PM Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Action points from the RIPE 43 meeting
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 07:03:13PM +0100, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
Gert Doering wrote:
thanks for your overview. There's one thing that I'm missing, which is really important: reverse delegation for the 3FFE space under ip6.arpa (while I'm not sure whether this is an "official ipv6-wg action item", it has been mentioned in the IPv6-WG and the LIR-WG, and has been stressed as being important to solve quickly). [..]
Thanks for bringing this issue up on the list. When approached initially by the IETF the RIRs jointly worked with the 6bone to see how 6bone address space could be incorporated into the registry system, providing registration services to participants of the 6bone.
I wasn't talking about the "6bone integration into the RIR system" proposal.
We need to have reverse delegation for the 3FFE space, under ip6.arpa, and this has to happen *now*, not "at some point far away to the future when 6bone has ceased to exist and everybody is living peacefully under the RIR's hoods".
There's no need for the RIRs to actually do anything, besides give up the blockade position "the 6bone is not a RIR and per the RFC, only RIRs can do reverse delegation under ip6.arpa". Have IANA delegate e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa to the same set of servers as e.f.f.3.ip6.int (as per Bill Manning's request that was denied due to RIR disapproval), and be done with it.
This is really *really* annoying, and it's hurting IPv6 deployment.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48540 (48282)
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
From: "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>
We need to have reverse delegation for the 3FFE space, under ip6.arpa, and this has to happen *now*, not "at some point far away to the future when 6bone has ceased to exist and everybody is living peacefully under the RIR's hoods".
http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc920.txt "Now it is seen that there is no strong motivation for there to be a top level ARPA domain. The plan is for the current ARPA domain to go out of business as soon as possible. Hosts that are currently members of the ARPA domain should make arrangements to join another domain." ==== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> To: "Andrei Robachevsky" <andrei@ripe.net> Cc: "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>; <ipv6-wg@ripe.net>; "David Kessens" <david@IPRG.nokia.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:37 PM Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Action points from the RIPE 43 meeting
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 07:03:13PM +0100, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
Gert Doering wrote:
thanks for your overview. There's one thing that I'm missing, which is really important: reverse delegation for the 3FFE space under ip6.arpa (while I'm not sure whether this is an "official ipv6-wg action item", it has been mentioned in the IPv6-WG and the LIR-WG, and has been stressed as being important to solve quickly). [..]
Thanks for bringing this issue up on the list. When approached initially by the IETF the RIRs jointly worked with the 6bone to see how 6bone address space could be incorporated into the registry system, providing registration services to participants of the 6bone.
I wasn't talking about the "6bone integration into the RIR system" proposal.
We need to have reverse delegation for the 3FFE space, under ip6.arpa, and this has to happen *now*, not "at some point far away to the future when 6bone has ceased to exist and everybody is living peacefully under the RIR's hoods".
There's no need for the RIRs to actually do anything, besides give up the blockade position "the 6bone is not a RIR and per the RFC, only RIRs can do reverse delegation under ip6.arpa". Have IANA delegate e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa to the same set of servers as e.f.f.3.ip6.int (as per Bill Manning's request that was denied due to RIR disapproval), and be done with it.
This is really *really* annoying, and it's hurting IPv6 deployment.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48540 (48282)
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Hi, On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 12:59:47PM -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:
From: "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>
We need to have reverse delegation for the 3FFE space, under ip6.arpa, and this has to happen *now*, not "at some point far away to the future when 6bone has ceased to exist and everybody is living peacefully under the RIR's hoods".
Written in 1984, Status: UNKNOWN. This is not an official standard RFC, and nevertheless the essential statement (there should not be any *hosts* under .arpa) is still true. Reverse delegation doesn't put *hosts* under .arpa. Jim, as you do seem to be fairly intelligent and have read quite a lot of the relevant standards: why can't you just quit to be a nuisance? Many of your points are valid, but you mix them with lots of ridiculous things that just waste people's time. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48540 (48282) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gert Doering" <gert@Space.Net>
Reverse delegation doesn't put *hosts* under .arpa.
Are you saying that 0:0 .ARPA should remain in the root zone ?...and will not be going out of business... What do you think should be the 8 (or 9) essential TLDs ? How many TLDs do you think the legacy root servers can really handle ? Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... COM...DE...NET...ORG...INFO...BIZ...US...ONLINE http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au
Hi, On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:33:23PM -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:
From: "Gert Doering" <gert@Space.Net>
Reverse delegation doesn't put *hosts* under .arpa.
Are you saying that 0:0 .ARPA should remain in the root zone ?...and will not be going out of business...
What do you think should be the 8 (or 9) essential TLDs ?
How many TLDs do you think the legacy root servers can really handle ?
It's highly unlikely that any of the existing TLDs is going to disappear, no matter how much FUD so-called experts are going to spread. If the US government does weird things, chances are very high that someone else in a different countrly is going to take up maintenance of "." - and there are enough root name servers outside of the US that we don't need them. I don't see any hard technical limit on the number of TLDs (but that doesn't mean that I think there should be more of them than there are today - moving the .com mess upwards the tree doesn't solve anything). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48540 (48282) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>
there are enough root name servers outside of the US that we don't need them.
If that is the case, then why do you need this *now* ?
We need to have reverse delegation for the 3FFE space, under ip6.arpa, and this has to happen *now*, not "at some point far away to the future when 6bone has ceased to exist and everybody is living peacefully under the RIR's hoods".
Also, do you really think control of .ARPA will move outside of the U.S. ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space At $168,000,000 per /8 per year, that is a nice revenue stream to have. How can RIPE pay that ? Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... COM...DE...NET...ORG...INFO...BIZ...US...ONLINE http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au
Hi, On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:55:13PM -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:
If that is the case, then why do you need this *now* ?
We need to have reverse delegation for the 3FFE space, under ip6.arpa, and this has to happen *now*, not "at some point far away to the future when 6bone has ceased to exist and everybody is living peacefully under the RIR's hoods".
This is necessary to make reverse resolving with standard-compliant programs work. This is completely unrelated to the location or number of root name servers.
Also, do you really think control of .ARPA will move outside of the U.S. ?
Control of .ARPA is a completely unrelated topic, but if necessary, I'm sure it would be possible.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
At $168,000,000 per /8 per year, that is a nice revenue stream to have. How can RIPE pay that ?
I have no idea why you keep repeating those figures again and again, but as I have told you in a private mail already today: this is pure nonsense. The RIRs and ccTLDs do participate in IANA funding, but the amount of money is in no way related to the amount of address space issued. Straighten your facts, and stop spreading FUD. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48540 (48282) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gert Doering" <gert@Space.Net> Subject: Re: 0:0 .ARPA...Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Action points from the RIPE 43 meeting
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:55:13PM -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:
If that is the case, then why do you need this *now* ?
We need to have reverse delegation for the 3FFE space, under ip6.arpa, and this has to happen *now*, not "at some point far away to the future when 6bone has ceased to exist and everybody is living peacefully under the RIR's hoods".
This is necessary to make reverse resolving with standard-compliant programs work.
What happened to using the .INT TLD ?...for your IPv6 experiments.... Isn't 3FFE some sort of "experimental prefix" ? Why do you think experimental systems should be converted over-night (*now*) when production-grade operations have no time for that ?...or no one to apparently pay for it...
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gert Doering" <gert@Space.Net> Subject: Re: 0:0 .ARPA...Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Action points from the RIPE 43 meeting
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:55:13PM -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:
If that is the case, then why do you need this *now* ?
We need to have reverse delegation for the 3FFE space, under ip6.arpa, and this has to happen *now*, not "at some point far away to the future when 6bone has ceased to exist and everybody is living peacefully under the RIR's hoods".
This is necessary to make reverse resolving with standard-compliant programs work.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2471.txt This document describes an allocation plan for IPv6 addresses to be used in testing IPv6 prototype software. These addresses are temporary and will be reclaimed in the future. Any IPv6 system using these addresses will have to renumber at some time in the future. These addresses will not to be routable in the Internet other than for IPv6 testing. FP = 001 = Format Prefix This is the Format Prefix used to identify aggregatable global unicast addresses. TLA = 0x1FFE = Top-Level Aggregation Identifier ======= 1+1 = 3 ?...as in 0x3FFE ?
hi, On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 05:21:21PM -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:
FP = 001 = Format Prefix This is the Format Prefix used to identify aggregatable global unicast addresses. =======
1+1 = 3 ?...as in 0x3FFE ?
0x3 is binary 0011. This perfectly matches the FP 001. (The other prefix matching FP 001 is 0x2, as in 2001:*) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48540 (48282) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gert Doering" <gert@Space.Net> Subject: Re: 0:0 .ARPA...Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Action points from the RIPE 43 meeting
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 05:21:21PM -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:
FP = 001 = Format Prefix This is the Format Prefix used to identify aggregatable global unicast addresses. =======
1+1 = 3 ?...as in 0x3FFE ?
0x3 is binary 0011. This perfectly matches the FP 001.
(The other prefix matching FP 001 is 0x2, as in 2001:*)
As far as I know, last year's addresses are still for sale. 2002 is here now, and anyone with one IPv4 address gets a /48... As for next year...2003....stay tuned... 128-bit DNS AAAA Record Flag Day Formats 2002:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address] [YMDD]:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address] 1-bit to set the Reserved/Spare ("SNOOPY") bit in Fragment Offset [S] 1-bit to set the Don't Fragment (DF) bit [D] 2-bits to select 1 of 4 common TTL values (255, 128, 32, 8) [LL] 1-bit for Options Control [O] 7-bits to set the Identification Field(dst) [FFFFFFF] 4-bits to set the TOS(dst) Field [TTTT] Default SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT = 0000.0000.0000.0000 FFF.FFFF.TTTT = GGG.SSSS.SSSS http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt IPv8 0QQQQGGGSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port] IPv16 0QQQQGGGSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port] 1WWWWWWWSSSSSSSS[32-bits][Port]
We need to have reverse delegation for the 3FFE space, under ip6.arpa, and this has to happen *now*, not "at some point far away to the future when 6bone has ceased to exist and everybody is living peacefully under the RIR's hoods".
To summarize... 3FFE was supposed to be "experimental" but now it appears people want to change that... IPv6 is supposed to use A6 DNS RRs but now people appear to want to change that... .INT was supposed to be used by IPv6 but now people are demanding putting load on .ARPA servers... ...and of course, no one wants to pay for any of these demands...and the cost of the changes is viewed as non-important... ...and to really sum it up...the claim is made that the U.S. is not needed, yet the demands are sent to the U.S.
Hi, On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 03:28:00PM -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:
We need to have reverse delegation for the 3FFE space, under ip6.arpa, and this has to happen *now*, not "at some point far away to the future when 6bone has ceased to exist and everybody is living peacefully under the RIR's hoods".
To summarize...
3FFE was supposed to be "experimental" but now it appears people want to change that...
No, but for the migration period, it will exist, and should coexist in a useful way with 2001.
IPv6 is supposed to use A6 DNS RRs but now people appear to want to change that...
A6 has been reclassified as experimental by the IETF after good consideration. Take this up with them.
.INT was supposed to be used by IPv6 but now people are demanding putting load on .ARPA servers...
This was a move that many people have problems understanding. Indeed.
...and of course, no one wants to pay for any of these demands...and the cost of the changes is viewed as non-important...
I haven't seen anybody claiming that e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa isn't happening due to fiscal problems. If that's the case, I'm convinced it can be solved. (Besides - there are no dedicated .ARPA servers. .ARPA is served by the root servers, while ip6.arpa is served by ICANN and the RIRs, which thus pay the cost for what they need)
...and to really sum it up...the claim is made that the U.S. is not needed, yet the demands are sent to the U.S.
The current technical situation being what it is, funding and requests are sent to the U.S. - but if the US government insists to mess with TLD operations (as you claim) it would be possible to move the stuff away from there. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48540 (48282) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gert Doering" <gert@Space.Net> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 5:46 PM Subject: Re: 0:0 .ARPA...summary...Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Action points from the RIPE 43 meeting
.INT was supposed to be used by IPv6 but now people are demanding putting load on .ARPA servers...
This was a move that many people have problems understanding. Indeed.
What is the problem with continuing with that approach ? The ITU is right there, in Europe, somewhere, why can't they help ? As for other TLDs....some people seem to think that .EU will replace (absorb) a bunch of TLDs... ...it is not clear which TLDs would be removed...it seems better to be adding TLDs... 3:127 EU Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... COM...DE...NET...ORG...INFO...BIZ...US...ONLINE http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au
Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 03:28:00PM -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:
We need to have reverse delegation for the 3FFE space, under ip6.arpa, and this has to happen *now*, not "at some point far away to the future when 6bone has ceased to exist and everybody is living peacefully under the RIR's hoods".
To summarize...
3FFE was supposed to be "experimental" but now it appears people want to change that...
No, but for the migration period, it will exist, and should coexist in a useful way with 2001.
[..snip] I strongly support Gert proposal: we really need the reverse delegation of the 6bone space under ip6.arpa. ....
away from there.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
-- -- Dimitrios K. Kalogeras Electrical Engineer Ph.D. Network Manager NTUA/GR-Net Network Management Center _____________________________________ voice: +30-10-772 1863 fax: +30-10-772 1866 e-mail: D.Kalogeras@noc.ntua.gr
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:42:30PM +0200, Dimitrios Kalogeras wrote:
I strongly support Gert proposal: we really need the reverse delegation of the 6bone space under ip6.arpa. ....
Please yes. The sooner the better. I don't quite understand the reasons for any further delay. Tim
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Jim Fleming wrote:
We need to have reverse delegation for the 3FFE space, under ip6.arpa, and this has to happen *now*, not "at some point far away to the future when 6bone has ceased to exist and everybody is living peacefully under the RIR's hoods".
To summarize...
3FFE was supposed to be "experimental" but now it appears people want to change that...
Where do you draw the line between "experimental" and "production" Cant a 3FFE::/16 host speak with a 2001::/16 host? or an IPv4 host? Is it forbidden?
IPv6 is supposed to use A6 DNS RRs but now people appear to want to change that...
Guess what? People worked on that issues and came up with a recomendation!
.INT was supposed to be used by IPv6 but now people are demanding putting load on .ARPA servers...
Its a negligible load.
...and of course, no one wants to pay for any of these demands...and the cost of the changes is viewed as non-important...
Well. Some people do want IPv6, some others dont.
...and to really sum it up...the claim is made that the U.S. is not needed, yet the demands are sent to the U.S.
If RIPE and APNIC can support the approval for Bill Manning's request, does the request status remain denied? ./Carlos "Networking is fun!" -------------- [http://www.ip6.fccn.pt] 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
In your previous mail you wrote: We need to have reverse delegation for the 3FFE space, under ip6.arpa, and this has to happen *now*, not "at some point far away to the future when 6bone has ceased to exist and everybody is living peacefully under the RIR's hoods". ... => I strongly support Gert proposal: we really need the reverse delegation of the 6bone space under ip6.arpa. Regards Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Francis Dupont wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
We need to have reverse delegation for the 3FFE space, under ip6.arpa, and this has to happen *now*, not "at some point far away to the future when 6bone has ceased to exist and everybody is living peacefully under the RIR's hoods".
...
=> I strongly support Gert proposal: we really need the reverse delegation of the 6bone space under ip6.arpa.
I also strongly support it. Is it on the wg's agenda for RIPE-44? Is it possible to put it up for voting? Regards, ./Carlos "Networking is fun!" -------------- [http://www.ip6.fccn.pt] 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, Gert Doering wrote:
[..]
Thanks for bringing this issue up on the list. When approached initially by the IETF the RIRs jointly worked with the 6bone to see how 6bone address space could be incorporated into the registry system, providing registration services to participants of the 6bone.
I wasn't talking about the "6bone integration into the RIR system" proposal.
We need to have reverse delegation for the 3FFE space, under ip6.arpa, and this has to happen *now*, not "at some point far away to the future when 6bone has ceased to exist and everybody is living peacefully under the RIR's hoods".
With regards to the proposal we are seeking a complete solution but do understand the urgency for this operational issue.
There's no need for the RIRs to actually do anything, besides give up the blockade position "the 6bone is not a RIR and per the RFC, only RIRs can do reverse delegation under ip6.arpa". Have IANA delegate e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa to the same set of servers as e.f.f.3.ip6.int (as per Bill Manning's request that was denied due to RIR disapproval), and be done with it.
We are looking for a pragmatic solution to this technical problem. This will be discussed with the other RIRs in the course of the next week and at IETF. We expect to have a solution in place by the end of November.
This is really *really* annoying, and it's hurting IPv6 deployment.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
Regards, Andrei Robachevsky CTO, RIPE NCC
Hi, On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 12:31:33PM +0100, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
We are looking for a pragmatic solution to this technical problem. This will be discussed with the other RIRs in the course of the next week and at IETF. We expect to have a solution in place by the end of November.
Thanks. This is good news. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48540 (48282) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Dear diary, on Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 12:31:33PM CET, I got a letter, where Andrei Robachevsky <andrei@ripe.net> told me, that...
Hi,
Hello,
There's no need for the RIRs to actually do anything, besides give up the blockade position "the 6bone is not a RIR and per the RFC, only RIRs can do reverse delegation under ip6.arpa". Have IANA delegate e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa to the same set of servers as e.f.f.3.ip6.int (as per Bill Manning's request that was denied due to RIR disapproval), and be done with it.
We are looking for a pragmatic solution to this technical problem. This will be discussed with the other RIRs in the course of the next week and at IETF. We expect to have a solution in place by the end of November.
since it's Nov 30 today, I would like to ask about progress in this issue. Thanks in advance, -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis .
I don't know why people still want ACL's. There were noises about them for samba, but I'v enot heard anything since. Are vendors using this? Because People Are Stupid(tm). Because it's cheaper to put "ACL support: yes" in the feature list under "Security" than to make sure than userland can cope with anything more complex than "Me Og. Og see directory. Directory Og's. Nobody change it". C.f. snake oil, P.T.Barnum and esp. LSM users -- Al Viro . Crap: http://pasky.ji.cz/
Dear Colleagues, Petr Baudis wrote:
Dear diary, on Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 12:31:33PM CET, I got a letter, where Andrei Robachevsky <andrei@ripe.net> told me, that...
Hi,
Hello,
There's no need for the RIRs to actually do anything, besides give up the blockade position "the 6bone is not a RIR and per the RFC, only RIRs can do reverse delegation under ip6.arpa". Have IANA delegate e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa to the same set of servers as e.f.f.3.ip6.int (as per Bill Manning's request that was denied due to RIR disapproval), and be done with it.
We are looking for a pragmatic solution to this technical problem. This will be discussed with the other RIRs in the course of the next week and at IETF. We expect to have a solution in place by the end of November.
since it's Nov 30 today, I would like to ask about progress in this issue.
Thanks in advance,
Following the request from the community we investigated possibilities to provide a pragmatic technical solution for reverse DNS delegation under ip6.arpa, for the space allocated for 6bone purposes (3ffe). It was understood that the request was to provide a solution before a final decision is made on the future management of the 3ffe address space. This issue was discussed between the RIRs at the IETF-55 meeting. As a result the RIRs have forwarded the request to place the 3ffe space in the ip6.arpa zone to the IAB, seeing that it would be an action that is contrary to RFC 3152. If the request is honoured we will be able to present a proposal for your review. Best regards, Andrei Robachevsky CTO, RIPE NCC
Hello, On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
Following the request from the community we investigated possibilities to provide a pragmatic technical solution for reverse DNS delegation under ip6.arpa, for the space allocated for 6bone purposes (3ffe). It was understood that the request was to provide a solution before a final decision is made on the future management of the 3ffe address space.
This issue was discussed between the RIRs at the IETF-55 meeting. As a result the RIRs have forwarded the request to place the 3ffe space in the ip6.arpa zone to the IAB, seeing that it would be an action that is contrary to RFC 3152. If the request is honoured we will be able to present a proposal for your review.
I really didnt see any express referral to "6bone space" on RFC 3152. Should i assume there are parts of older RFCs that do have those referrals, and RFC 3152 doesnt obsolete it? The only expression i've read was "IPv6 space". This issue is still a serious barrier in v6 development in my own view. I've been looking at the BGP4+ data for the last months (since august) and 3ffe prefixes are not "going away"... i had 172 entries in the 1st of August and four months later i get 169.
Best regards,
Andrei Robachevsky CTO, RIPE NCC
Regards, ./Carlos "Networking is fun!" -------------- [http://www.ip6.fccn.pt] 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
At 15:26 +0000 2/12/02, Carlos Friacas wrote:
Hello,
I really didnt see any express referral to "6bone space" on RFC 3152. Should i assume there are parts of older RFCs that do have those referrals, and RFC 3152 doesnt obsolete it? The only expression i've read was "IPv6 space".
which is supposed to mean "all IPv6 space", but also says "following instructions to be provided by the IAB. Names within this zone are to be further delegated to the regional IP registries in accordance with the delegation of IPv6 address space to those registries." and I guess the IAB is confused because it has to give the instructions to the IANA but the 6bone address space has not been delegated to "those registries". This is what Andrei must be referring to, I guess. Remember that there is more IPv6 space not assigned to the registries, eg. 2002::/16 and there is an i-d specific for that space. Would be nice to see the proposal and an estimated time frame though. Joao PS: Jim, this is about IPv6. IPv8 and IPv16 are unrelated to this discussion. No need to bother.
Dear diary, on Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 04:06:17PM CET, I got a letter, where Andrei Robachevsky <andrei@ripe.net> told me, that...
Dear Colleagues,
Hello,
Following the request from the community we investigated possibilities to provide a pragmatic technical solution for reverse DNS delegation under ip6.arpa, for the space allocated for 6bone purposes (3ffe). It was understood that the request was to provide a solution before a final decision is made on the future management of the 3ffe address space.
This issue was discussed between the RIRs at the IETF-55 meeting. As a result the RIRs have forwarded the request to place the 3ffe space in the ip6.arpa zone to the IAB, seeing that it would be an action that is contrary to RFC 3152. If the request is honoured we will be able to present a proposal for your review.
since another month passed in silence, I would like to ask again about the progress in this issue. Apparently, the request was already honoured by IAB at 2002 Dec 10 (http://www.iab.org/Documents/3ffe.html). Thanks in advance, -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis . Retribution: I'm going to kill you because you killed my brother. Anticipation: I'm going to kill you because I killed your brother. Diplomacy: I'm going to kill my brother and then kill you on the pretext that your brother did it. . Crap: http://pasky.ji.cz/
Hi, On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 10:39:04PM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote:
since another month passed in silence, I would like to ask again about the progress in this issue. Apparently, the request was already honoured by IAB at 2002 Dec 10 (http://www.iab.org/Documents/3ffe.html).
Interesting question. I haven't heard anything from anyone either (and I'm somewhat disappointed, as this really looks like "what do we care?" politics :-/ ). Thanks for pointing out this IAB document, I wasn't aware of that. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54707 (54686) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Dear Petr, Petr Baudis wrote:
Dear diary, on Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 04:06:17PM CET, I got a letter, where Andrei Robachevsky <andrei@ripe.net> told me, that...
Dear Colleagues,
Hello,
Following the request from the community we investigated possibilities to provide a pragmatic technical solution for reverse DNS delegation under ip6.arpa, for the space allocated for 6bone purposes (3ffe). It was understood that the request was to provide a solution before a final decision is made on the future management of the 3ffe address space.
This issue was discussed between the RIRs at the IETF-55 meeting. As a result the RIRs have forwarded the request to place the 3ffe space in the ip6.arpa zone to the IAB, seeing that it would be an action that is contrary to RFC 3152. If the request is honoured we will be able to present a proposal for your review.
since another month passed in silence, I would like to ask again about the progress in this issue. Apparently, the request was already honoured by IAB at 2002 Dec 10 (http://www.iab.org/Documents/3ffe.html).
Thanks in advance,
Based on IAB's go ahead we have been working on a technical solution that we plan to propose to the community (please expect next week). Unfortunately other projects have delayed release of this proposal. Thanks, Andrei Robachevsky CTO, RIPE NCC
Andrei, At 10:19 PM 1/2/2003 +0100, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
Dear Petr,
Petr Baudis wrote:
Dear diary, on Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 04:06:17PM CET, I got a letter, where Andrei Robachevsky <andrei@ripe.net> told me, that...
Dear Colleagues,
Hello,
Following the request from the community we investigated possibilities to provide a pragmatic technical solution for reverse DNS delegation under ip6.arpa, for the space allocated for 6bone purposes (3ffe). It was understood that the request was to provide a solution before a final decision is made on the future management of the 3ffe address space.
This issue was discussed between the RIRs at the IETF-55 meeting. As a result the RIRs have forwarded the request to place the 3ffe space in the ip6.arpa zone to the IAB, seeing that it would be an action that is contrary to RFC 3152. If the request is honoured we will be able to present a proposal for your review.
since another month passed in silence, I would like to ask again about the progress in this issue. Apparently, the request was already honoured by IAB at 2002 Dec 10 (http://www.iab.org/Documents/3ffe.html). Thanks in advance,
Based on IAB's go ahead we have been working on a technical solution that we plan to propose to the community (please expect next week). Unfortunately other projects have delayed release of this proposal.
Would you please let me know what your plan is so I can make sure one of us can announces it to the 6bone list when you are ready? Thanks, Bob Fink
Hi, On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 10:19:09PM +0100, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
Based on IAB's go ahead we have been working on a technical solution that we plan to propose to the community (please expect next week). Unfortunately other projects have delayed release of this proposal.
Sorry if sounding impatient. But what's so difficult in delegating e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa to the same set of name servers as e.f.f.3.ip6.int? Nobody expects the RIRs to actually manage the reverse delegations right now - what's needed is a delegation of the /16, no more. I just don't understand why all of this has to be so incredibly difficult. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 55180 (54707) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
participants (8)
-
Andrei Robachevsky -
Bob Fink -
Carlos Friacas -
Dimitrios Kalogeras -
Francis Dupont -
Gert Doering -
Jim Fleming -
Joao Luis Silva Damas -
Petr Baudis -
Tim Chown