RIPE 42

RIPE Meeting: 42
Working Group: IPv6
Status: Final
Revision Number: 1

Please mail comments/suggestions on:


Draft Minutes of the IPv6 Working Group session of the RIPE 42 Meeting,
29 April - 3 May 2002 at the Krasnapolsky Hotel, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

The session was held on May 2, 14:00 - 17:30

-----------------------------------
Chair: David Kessens
Scribe: Rainer Ruecker
Attendees: 113
-----------------------------------

Agenda:
1st slot
A. Administrative stuff
- appointment of scribe
- agenda bashing
(David Kessens)

B. IPv6 roadmaps of network equipment vendors
a. Juniper
(Jean-Marc Uze, Elise Gerich)
b. Cisco
(Simon Pollard)

C. Global IPv6 routing table status
(Gert Doering)

D. Tunnelbrokers & ipv6 in practice
(Pim van Pelt)
related discussion topic: do we prefer to use 6to4 instead
of tunnelbrokers ?!?

2nd slot

E. IPv6 Promotion Council Activities Overview
(Kosuke Ito)

F. IPv6 capable RR DNS servers - what is needed, what are the issues ?!?
(Joao Luis Silva Damas, RIPE NCC)

G. IPv6 RR DNS - is it ip6.int or ip6.arpa? Why? Documented where?
(Joao Luis Silva Damas, RIPE NCC)
related topic: 6to4 reverse delegations

H. lbnamed Bug Discussion

I. IPv6 allocation survey
(Mirjam Kuehne, RIPE NCC)

J. Euro6IX and layer 3 IX addressing
(Raffaele D'Albenzio)

K. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond
(input from the audience)

- French NIC initiative regarding DNSv6 deployment
(Mohsen Souissi)

L. LIR-WG session on IPv6 policy

Z. AOB

========================
A: Scribe, Agenda bashing
========================
Two scribes from the RIPE NCC.

One additional presentation from the tipster project was accepted for point K
on the agenda.

The Agenda was accepted.


========================
B. IPv6 roadmaps of network equipment vendors
a. Juniper
========================
Jean Marc Uze (JMU) presented Junipers Roadmap for IPv6.


Pim van Pelt (PVP): What about Filtering and OSPF6 ?
JMU: OSPF6 for Junos will come in the second half of 2002
Filtering will come soon.
?: Are you working on 6-to-4 transition?
JMU: Are there already applications that need it?
?: 6-to-4 relays will need it, these will be important for the users
?: What about 6PE? (MPLS over IPv6)
JMU: Should be avoided on core routers, since it degrades performance.
?: Will you implement NAT/PAT for v6?
JMU: Not on the short term.

========================
B. IPv6 roadmaps of network equipment vendors
b. Cisco
========================
Simon Pollard (SP) presented Ciscos Roadmap for IPv6.


Gert Doering (GD): The IOS upgrade is not really free available - you need to
buy the IP+ option package before you can make the upgrade.
SP: This is true for the low-end platforms - but most people have IP+ anyway
PVP: What about filtering and OSPF6.
SP: Available - a beta of OSPFv3 will be out in October 2002.
?: What about Layer3 Switches?
SP: They will come in Q3/2002
?: Will there be a Ciso-PIX for IPv6?
SP: This is planned for Q1/2003
?: Is there 6PE and NAT/PAT for v6?
SP: Yes, we have this for the PE-routers
GD: IOS has become very large - you can't fit it into the small
routers without upgrading Flash and Memory. Customers are not willing
to spend money in order to upgrade. Make IOS smaller. An Image-size of 4MB
would be good.
SP: Customers will pay for the router-upgrade if they see the business drive of
IPv6. However, Cisco is working on re-packaged IOS for the lower platforms.
The memory-footprint will probably be 8 MB.
GD: 4MB should be the target.


========================
C. Global IPv6 routing table status
========================

Gert Doerings presentation is available at:

http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/R42-v6-table/

Conclusions: - Downstream filtering recommended
- You should watch the announcements of your peers.

PVP: 6bone has changed it's policy to give out /32 now, four of these
prefixes should be visible. 15 are in the table.

?: Is there a canonical filter-list for IPv6 ?
GD: Not yet.
?: Would you be up to maintain such a list?
GD: I will discuss this with David Kessens and we should move the discussion on
this topic to the mailing-list.

===
COFFEE BREAK
10:35 - 10:50
===

?: Is it easy to filter unassigned ASNs ?
GD: Technically this is possible but it's preferable to talk to the people that
are making the mistakes.


========================
D. Tunnelbrokers & ipv6 in practice
========================

Pim van Pelts presentation is available at:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-42/presentations/ripe42-ipv6-ipng/

PVP: Sixxs, a IPv6 tunnel-broker for LIRs in the RIPE-region is
looking for participants that are willing to be a POP for this service.

?: What about the 6-to-4 tunnels?
PVP: At the time we started, static tunneling was the only thing available.
Today, if you run a 6-to-4 relay, it's easy for everyone to join, so it's
also easy for everyone to abuse the service. If you host the relay, you
also have to filter the incoming IPv4 traffic which is not easy.
Attacks by script-kiddies on the next-hop of the relay (which is
IPv4) are common today.
DK: There have also been native V6-DoS-attacks, it's really scary.

========================
E. IPv6 Promotion Council Activities Overview
========================

Kosuke Ito's presentation
See also http://www.v6pc.jp/index_e.html

- The audience had no questions or comments.


========================
F. IPv6 capable RR DNS servers - what is needed, what are the issues ?!?
========================

DK: IPv6 capable RR DNS Servers should be discussed in the LIR-WG.
- the audience agreed


========================
G. IPv6 RR DNS - is it ip6.int or ip6.arpa? Why? Documented where?
========================

Joao Luis Silva Damas presentation is available at:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-42/presentations/ripe42-ipv6-dns/

The recommendation is to populate ip6.arpa and phase out ip6.int - but what is
wanted and how shall we proceed?

?: Software currently relies on ip6.int - you can't just switch it off.
?: Can't we just duplicate the delegation-records?
GD: A good solution would be a CNAME very high in the hierarchy
DK: Can't we just do automatic delegation in both domains?
Joao: ip6.int should be abandoned soon - if we duplicate it will not go away.
GD: But older machines all use ip6.int.
Joao: OK, for the time being both delegations are possible. But should it be
done automatically or do we only delegate in ip6.int if someone really
wants it?
GD: RIPE NCC should investigate if it's possible to do away with ip6.int and
make a solution with CNAMEs. Make some experiments and report at RIPE 43

ACTION on RIPE NCC: Investigate the CNAME solution for v6-reverse delegation.

Wilfried Woeber: Automatic delegation for ip6.int and ip6.arpa appears the
best solution, but if someone requests different delegations
in ip6.arpa and ip6.int, RIPE NCC should not prevent this.
Mohsen Suissis: RIPE NCC did this in the past, at least for 2002:0660::/35
both delegations were made.
DK: RIPE NCC, could you investigate the possibilities?
Joao: OK, we will do the automatic delegation in both trees by default and we
will allow different configuration if the user wants it.

?: But would this approach not lead to inconsistent data in the two domains?
DK: It's only reverse delegation, that should have no big impact.

DK: OK, 6-to-4 reverse delegation will also happen in ip6.arpa. What about
this?
Joao: The draft on 6 to 4 DNS (draft-ietf-ngtrans-6to4-dns-00.txt) is not very
specific. RIRs will do the delegation based on the IPv4 /8s that they
are authoritative for, but anything else is not clear yet.
DK: What about the 6bone addresses and ip6.arpa
Joao: I am not familiar with that.
DK: Could you investigate this and give a more specific presentation at RIPE
43?
Joao: Sure.

ACTION on RIPE NCC: Give an overview of 6-to-4 reverse delegation issues at
RIPE 43


========================
H. lbnamed Bug Discussion
========================

Francis Dupont explained that an updated version of lbnamed is available and
urged everyone using lbnamed to update to the latest version.

========================
I. IPv6 allocation survey
========================

Mirjam Kuehne announced that the survey will be published on the web. The
presentation was not given in this session due to shortage of time.

The survey is available at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-42/presentations/ripe42-ipv6-survey/

========================
J. Euro6IX and layer 3 IX addressing
========================

Raffaele D'Albenzio's presentation is available at:
http://www.euro6ix.org/ingles/Presentations/020430-TILAB-DalbenzioGuardini-RIPEPresentation.pdf


- The audience had no questions or comments.


==

DK reminded that there is not much time left. The time for each of
the following presentations was restricted to less than 5 minutes.

==

========================
K. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond
The Hungarian Tipster6 project
========================

Geza Turchanyi gave a short overview on the tipster6-project and provided some
statistics on the v6-capability of several unix-distributions. (Sun, BSD,
Linux)

========================
K. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond
French NIC initiative regarding DNSv6 deployment
========================

Mohsen Suissis presentation is available at
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-42/presentations/ripe42-ipv6-souissi.pdf

Mohsen Suissis pointed out that currently not many TLD-Nameservers are native
v6-speakers. AFNIC is willing to help other NICs to roll out v6 DNS.

AFNIC also applied to become secondary for ip6.arpa. The request was submitted
to IANA but nothing happened so far.


========================
L. LIR-WG session on IPv6 policy
========================

The iproposal for a global interim IPv6 Allocation Policy was accepted by the
LIR-WG.


========================
Z. AOB
========================

Nothing reported


========================
Summary of actions arising from this meeting
========================

42.1
ACTION on RIPE NCC: Investigate the CNAME solution for v6-reverse delegation
in the ip6.int tree.

42.2
ACTION on RIPE NCC: Give an overview of 6-to-4 reverse delegation issues at
RIPE 43