RIPE Working Groups

Minutes from RIPE 41

Please mail comments/suggestions on:

• content to the Chair of the working group.
  
• format to webmaster@ripe.net.

RIPE 41
Amsterdam
Ipv6 Working Group
Wednesday 16th January 2002 16:00 - 17:30
Chair - David Kessens
117 attendees present

A Administrative Stuff
  Added agenda items:
  Status of ip6.int to ip6.arpa transition and the use of ipv6 capable
  nameservers for ip6.arpa

B Status of the 6bone
  (David Kessens, http://www.kessens.com/~david/presentations/)

  Summary: There are now over 1000 ipv6 sites in 55 countries.

  Q: size definition, what is a site?
  A: an administrative entity that has an ipv6 network, can be very
     small, i.e. one machine, or a large ISP.
  Q: Is it necessarily the same as a site for a nla allocation?
  A: No!

C Global IPv6 routing table status
  (Gert Doering, SpaceNet AG,
   http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-41/presentations.html#ipv6)

  Q: Why can't you announce 2001::16? I do this because I want to have
     a default free announcement.
  A: This does not belong to you specifically so should not be announced.
  Q: What is preferable?
  A: It should not be announced in the default free zone, there is no
     problem with you announcing this internally.

  Q: Are there invalid AS numbers in some registries i.e. the 6bone registry?
  A: I didn't check there, most likely they are because the 6bone
     registry does not check to see if an AS number is valid or
     invalid.

  Q: Are we now in the right phase to filter based on registry databases?
  A: I don't think so! We don't have RPSL for Ipv6.

  Comment: For your info, in Japan the exchanges are not exchanging
           routes anymore, for example NTT are charging for transit.

  Q: Where do you connect to for these bgp tables?
  A: Mainly Germany, but also some US and European sites.

  Q: would it be worth having a discussion regarding filtering
     policies for our routers in the next meeting ?
  Q: can you volunteer for this ?
  A: yep!

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

  Comment: French NIC has a secondary DNS IPv6-capable server which already
           hosts .fr zone and other TLD zones such as .re, .es, .br and .dz.
           We are looking forward to do some collaboration in DNSv6 field
           with other European TLDs.

  A: Can I volunteer you to discuss this at the next meeting?
  A: Yep!

  Q: Does this mean that you do accept quad A or A6 records because
     there are some parts that just have it as transport to ship a
     query to the server and to receive the result?

  A: The transit of DNS messages is they need them in Ipv6 dative mode
     only where they are supported in OUR zone file we don't object to
     the use of zone files containing AS's.

  Global Ipv6 Summit Madrid 13th - 14th March 2002 www.ipv6-es.com

  Jordi Palet gave slides to David to present Euro6IX Status.
  David presented the slides
  (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-41/presentations.html#ipv6)

  Q: 6link is a coordination of different v6 projects. Similar updates
     to Euro6IX!

Z AOB

  Reverse Delegation in v6

  I would like to talk about the slowdown of DNSv6 service deployment. 
  There is a plan of migration from ip6.int to ip6.arpa for the IPv6 revese
  tree. RIRs have already asked for reverse delegation of their blocs and
  that has already been done. But no name server among the authoritative
  ones for ip6.arpa talks IPv6! In November we sent a mail to IANA
  hostmaster to tell them, we can also be a secondary for ip6.arpa. So far
  we have had no response! I am therefore concerned of willingness for
  deploying IPv6. Things are going well from a standardization point of view
  but from a practical point of view people are not encouraged!

  Q: We received a request from Bill reagrding the various ranges
     which we have passed on to the people running the ip6.arpa.
     Should this be in our operational area? Probably most people feel
     that yes it should! We are trying to do this as fast as we can..

  Q: can we at ripe get independent v6 addresses
  A: no, not enough for everyone!!!

  Q: good question, where do the registries get it from?

  Q: Is ICANN considering using new records for the route zone?
  A: I don't make policy on the route zone, discussion has been made
     which has not yet been concluded. I will hand over to Bill..
  A: testing regarding this is still ongoing, a preliminary set of
     recommendations still has to be tested. It is going very slow as
     people are being very careful.

  Q: does the registry process of RIPE NCC allow me to register name
     servers without having v4 address?
  A: yes
  Q: is there anything we can do as a community, i.e. make it clear to
     the ripe community that we want this?
  A: yes
  A: we can then approach Icann about this. You should be asking the
     RIPE NCC when we can use v6 in the name server.

  Conclusion

  Hopefully the agenda will be fuller next time, if you have any
  suggestions please let David know so that we can have more agenda
  points.

  It could be interesting to see a road map plan, I see we have Cisco
  and Juniper here so can you help me do this for next time?
  A: Yep!



-----------------------------