Draft Agenda (v1) for ipv6 wg RIPE51
Hi, Please see below for the draft agenda (v1) of the ipv6 working group. This is the first version of the agenda so we are still looking for agenda topics and contributions for the various standard sections of the agenda. Please let me know if there is anything that you would like to discuss. I would also like to draw your attention to the plenary part of the meeting that has various interesting ipv6 presentations on the agenda (see below). David Kessens --- Draft Agenda (v1) for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE51 When: Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 17:00-18:00 Where: Grand Ballroom, Hotel Krasnapolsky, Amsterdam A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Quick update from the RIPE NCC regarding ipv6 services (RIPE NCC) C. Discussion on: 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 --- Interesting topics in the plenary section: TUESDAY 09:00 - 10:30 6. IPv6 Routing Update. Gert Doering. Spacenet (20 min) Update on observations on the state of the IPv6 default free routing table. 7. IPv6 Multihoming Status. Kurtis Lindqvist. Netnod (30 min) An up-to-date status report on the progress towards scalable IPv6 multihoming. 8. IPv6 Address Allocation --An Alternative Algorithm for the Sparse Allocation Process. Mae Wang (30 min) IP address allocation policies significantly impact the Internet infrastructure, affecting many parties such as router manufacturers, ISPs, and end users. An address allocation policy can also directly affect the performance of the Internet. For example, address fragmentation, a key problem in IPv4, degrades address lookup performance in routers. Thus, a well-designed address allocation policy needs to minimise fragmentation while using the address space efficiently. This paper attempts to quantify the performance of address allocation policies by modelling key features that lead to fragmentation and inefficient address space usage. Our main contributions are: (i) we identify a drawback of the current IPv6 address allocation policy, which treats all entities uniformly, (ii) we propose a scheme that takes future growth rate into account for allocations, and (iii) an analytical model for measuring the efficiency of allocation schemes, allowing us to quantify the improvement our proposal offers over the current scheme. We believe that a quantitative study of allocation policies is timely since IPv6 address allocation is just beginning in earnest. ------
On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 20:46 -0700, David Kessens wrote: One discussion point you might want to raise: - what are people going to do with 6bone address space as per 6/6/6 ? - filter it? - keep it going? - warn people? In january I will send out a note to all the folks still announcing 6bone prefixes to remind them that they should be shutting it down per 6/6/6. There doesn't seem to be a large movement in doing so yet...
C. Discussion on: Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering)
Maybe something related might be noted here, in the global routing tables I've seen for instance, just a 'random' targetted pick. http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/lg/?find=2001:2000::/20 [Notez bien: the question here is about what is going to become the common policy and what is going to happen to the ipv6 routing, it is not to 'attack' or critize an ISP on what they are doing] 2001:2000::/20 announced by AS1299 (TELIANET) 2001:2040::/32 AS3301 (TELIA-SWEDEN) 2001:2060::/32 AS1759 (SONERA-TRANSIT-AS) No route6 for these 3 prefixes and no inet6nums exist for the the two /32's. Which leads me to a couple of questions: - is it mandatory to register route6's and inet6num's or is it just 'being nice' - is the trend going to be that >/32's will be announced as separate /32's? This of course means that the ISP can be found under one block but still affects the number of routes in the routing table. One could filter the smaller ones if the parent route is present. The idea of minimizing routing table size (yes that is not an issue now, but behold the future) is totally gone when ISP's will do this. I do understand why: to make the branches independant and attract the traffic as local as possible. On the otherside there are also ISP's simply requesting multiple separate /32's from the various RIR's. eg UUNet: 2001:0600::/32 - Europe 2001:4440::/32 - Hongkong 2001:4441::/32 - Australia 2001:4442::/32 - Japan 2001:0588::/32 - South Africa (I am ignoring the 6bone block they still have, with 1 other already returned, as that one will disappear anyway) The question in case of this setup is, why didn't they get 1 block? The generic question: what is the correct plan for these setups?
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)
http://www.sixxs.net/misc/traffic/ :) Not much, but it is a bit and for the moment declining a bit weirdly enough. <SNIP>
For example, address fragmentation, a key problem in IPv4, degrades address lookup performance in routers. Thus, a well-designed address allocation policy needs to minimise fragmentation while using the address space efficiently.
See my related note above. Greets, Jeroen
====BT: Hi David, I'd appreciate to have a 10-15 mn slot to present 6DISS a new european project started last April 1st. Thanx & cheers, +Bernard T. --- David Kessens wrote:
Hi,
Please see below for the draft agenda (v1) of the ipv6 working group.
This is the first version of the agenda so we are still looking for agenda topics and contributions for the various standard sections of the agenda. Please let me know if there is anything that you would like to discuss.
I would also like to draw your attention to the plenary part of the meeting that has various interesting ipv6 presentations on the agenda (see below).
David Kessens ---
Draft Agenda (v1) for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE51
When: Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 17:00-18:00 Where: Grand Ballroom, Hotel Krasnapolsky, Amsterdam
A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens)
B. Quick update from the RIPE NCC regarding ipv6 services (RIPE NCC)
C. Discussion on: 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 ---
Interesting topics in the plenary section:
TUESDAY 09:00 - 10:30
6. IPv6 Routing Update. Gert Doering. Spacenet (20 min)
Update on observations on the state of the IPv6 default free routing table.
7. IPv6 Multihoming Status. Kurtis Lindqvist. Netnod (30 min)
An up-to-date status report on the progress towards scalable IPv6 multihoming.
8. IPv6 Address Allocation --An Alternative Algorithm for the Sparse Allocation Process. Mae Wang (30 min)
IP address allocation policies significantly impact the Internet infrastructure, affecting many parties such as router manufacturers, ISPs, and end users. An address allocation policy can also directly affect the performance of the Internet.
For example, address fragmentation, a key problem in IPv4, degrades address lookup performance in routers. Thus, a well-designed address allocation policy needs to minimise fragmentation while using the address space efficiently.
This paper attempts to quantify the performance of address allocation policies by modelling key features that lead to fragmentation and inefficient address space usage.
Our main contributions are: (i) we identify a drawback of the current IPv6 address allocation policy, which treats all entities uniformly, (ii) we propose a scheme that takes future growth rate into account for allocations, and (iii) an analytical model for measuring the efficiency of allocation schemes, allowing us to quantify the improvement our proposal offers over the current scheme. We believe that a quantitative study of allocation policies is timely since IPv6 address allocation is just beginning in earnest.
------
participants (3)
-
Bernard Tuy -
David Kessens -
Jeroen Massar