Your IP Address is: 18.224.59.231
Tip: try using "quotes around your search phrase"
You're viewing an archived page. It is no longer being updated.
RIPE Meeting: |
26 |
Working Group: |
Ipv6 |
Status: |
FINAL |
Revision Number: |
2 |
Please mail comments/suggestions on:
RIPE 26, January 20-22, 1997
Thomas trede is the new chair since last RIPE Meeting.
- volunteering of the scribe
Mirjam Kuehne volunteered as scribe.
- co-chairs
Geert Jan de Groot and Francis Dupont will be co chairs of the RIPE IPv6-WG.
- agenda bashing
Geert Jan would like to add a report about upcoming IP routing protocols.
- 6Bone connectivity
Francis Dupont reported from the 6bone activities:
Geert Jan reports on developments of new IP routing protocols:
IGP | EGP |
---|---|
RIP2 |
IDRP (probably not initially) |
OSPF (no implementation yet) |
M-BGP (multiprotocol BGP) |
IS-IS ( " ) |
BGP5 |
AS number space can be made largr by BGP enhancements (BGP5 wants to do this)
DFK: if more than 64k ASes used, BGP also need to support this Erik: How could you multihome a customer without using an additional AS?
Geert Jan gave a brief summary of possible ways how to multihome a customer to the same ISP (not to multiple ISPs)
Erik: real problem is multihoming to different ISPs possible solution: 8+8 proposal from Mike O'Dell
Juergen: Why is IDRP not pushed forward anymore (in favour of BGP)? Geert Jan: People are afraid of change and BGP is known
Geert Jan reports on IETF developments:
- News about manufacturers implementation
Geert Jan:
Francis:
Marten:
DFK:
DFKs opinion: too early to allocate high order bits for two reasons:
DFKs proposal: continue with the way we allocate IPv4, because it works add warning that scheme might change
Geert Jan: other reasons not start with IPv6 allocation yet:
Juergen: right attempt to start discussion
we all learned from it how to proceed further
we need more hierachy somewhere, either in the protocols or in the allocation scheme Guido gave an overview of the 8+8 proposals from Mike O'Dell and Masataka Ohta (slides are available at: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/presentations/ripe-m25-gl-8+8.ps)
There will be a meeting about 8+8 soon. Shall we be present there?
DFK:
Conclusion: general opinion to wait for new proposal
DFK: RIPE is not a standards making body (the IETF is), but we can take a message to the 8+8 meeting from the RIPE IPv6 WG
Action Point: 26.I1: action on Guido to report there from our discussion and to express our input in new draft and to report back to us at the next RIPE meeting or on the mailing list.
DFK: Do people want provider based IPv6 addresses now?
general opinion: no
Juergen: We need to further think about long term allocation policies/structures.
Geert Jan and DFK: as long as renumbering is not possible without pain, we shouldn't start assigning IPv6 addresses
Database Working Group: IPV6 object
report on this issue hadn't been given yet in DB WG