From bernard.Tuy at renater.fr Mon May 3 18:50:09 2004 From: bernard.Tuy at renater.fr (Bernard Tuy) Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 18:50:09 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE48 (updated) In-Reply-To: <20040430062318.GC31595@nokia.com> References: <20040430062318.GC31595@nokia.com> Message-ID: <40967841.3000403@renater.fr> ====BT: Hi David, If this time I'm not stuck in CdG airport because of snow, strike or whatever else I should be able to give the presentation I prepared for the January meeting ... Title is : IPv6 networks management (IETF MIBs status, NetFlow v9, SNMPv6, and monitoring tools are the agenda items). I've updated it with inputs I got from various vendors and reach now 35+ slides. So is it possible to have a 30 mn time slot for this ? My understanding at the moment is most of the netadmins don't know how to start with IPv6 management and even what they can ask to their favourite vendor ... I'll be arriving in A'dam by tomorrow lunch time, so if you want to discuss this it should be quite easy. Cheers, +Bernard T. --- David Kessens wrote: > Below follows an updated agenda for the ipv6 wg for RIPE48. > > I managed to find a a volunteer for: > > What are the deployment plans behind the larger ipv6 allocations? > > (more volunteers are welcome) > > I also changed the scheduling to accomodate some of our speakers. > > We probably still have some time left so I will allow last minute > additions to the agenda. > > Please read: > > http://ip6.de.easynet.net/ipv6-minimum-peering.txt > > so we can discuss this document. > > Thanks, > > David Kessens > --- > > Updated agenda for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE48 > > When: 14:00 - 18:00, Wednesday May 5, 2004 > Where: Grand Ballroom, Hotel Krasnapolsky, Amsterdam > > A. Administrative stuff > - appointment of scribe > - agenda bashing > (David Kessens) > > B. Global IPv6 routing table status > (Gert Doering) > > C. 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) > > D. Raising RPSLng awareness > (Carlos Friacas, Simon Leinen and Joao Damas) > > E. Discussion of: > http://ip6.de.easynet.net/ipv6-minimum-peering.txt > > > -- break -- > > > G. Latest IPv6 Land Speed Record > (Edoardo Martelli) > (we might cover this topic before the break) > > H. What are the deployment plans behind the larger ipv6 allocations ? > (Jordi Palet Martinez for Vodafoon) > > I. IPv6 home automation > (Jordi Palet Martinez) > > J. (brief) update from the RIPE NCC on ipv6 enabled services > (tentative) > > K. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond > (input from the audience) > > L. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan > (input from the audience) > > Z. AOB > --- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 2397 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From iljitsch at muada.com Tue May 4 10:18:06 2004 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 10:18:06 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Actual IPv6 traffic Message-ID: <9269757C-9DA3-11D8-A821-000A95CD987A@muada.com> From the agenda: > C. 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) My input in advance: I've been running some web measurements using a small image that can be linked on web pages to see whether the visitors are v6-capable or not. (The host that has the image has an IPv6 address and notes whether the image is requested over v4 or v6.) The results over the past months: Site IPv4 IPv6 Total 0 151 ( 98.05%) 3 ( 1.95%) 154 3 334 ( 94.35%) 20 ( 5.65%) 354 6 1355 ( 82.02%) 297 ( 17.98%) 1652 7 57 ( 75.00%) 19 ( 25.00%) 76 8 20107 ( 99.85%) 31 ( 0.15%) 20138 10 2918 ( 84.43%) 538 ( 15.57%) 3456 Totals 24925 ( 96.49%) 908 ( 3.51%) 25833 Note that the numbers refer to different sites with very different usage and IPv6 interest levels. Only number 8 is a very mainstream non-networking site (in Dutch) so I think this one represents average IPv6 capability for the web surfing public fairly well, at around 1 user in 666 requesting the counter image over IPv6. :-) See http://www.muada.com/ to see the counter in action and for a link to the results page. (BTW, it would help if someone would type sysctl -w net.inet6.ip6.forwarding=1 on router.ripemtg.ripe.net, or, failing that, kill the rtadvd.) From tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk Tue May 4 11:18:02 2004 From: tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 10:18:02 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Actual IPv6 traffic In-Reply-To: <9269757C-9DA3-11D8-A821-000A95CD987A@muada.com> References: <9269757C-9DA3-11D8-A821-000A95CD987A@muada.com> Message-ID: <20040504091802.GA9910@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 10:18:06AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > From the agenda: > > >C. 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) > > My input in advance: > Totals 24925 ( 96.49%) 908 ( 3.51%) 25833 Hi, The IPv6 Cluster site at www.ist-ipv6.org for April 2004 had 3,460 visits of which 309 (8.9%) were over IPv6. This as a ratio is down from the peak in Jan 2004 where we had 3,520 visits, of which 568 (16.2%) were over IPv6. Probably due to the Global IPv6 Launch event in Brussels. This is a pretty niche v6 site, so you'd expect more v6 visitors than anywhere else. Tim From pim at ipng.nl Tue May 4 13:55:32 2004 From: pim at ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 13:55:32 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Actual IPv6 traffic In-Reply-To: <20040504091802.GA9910@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> References: <9269757C-9DA3-11D8-A821-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <20040504091802.GA9910@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Message-ID: <20040504115532.GB18864@bfib.colo.bit.nl> Hi, There's somebody out there doing IPv6 webcounter stats: http://6bone.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/ipv6/stats/stats.php3 Looking at the rankings, clearly a mathematician :) -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim at ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From david.kessens at nokia.com Wed May 5 12:38:51 2004 From: david.kessens at nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 03:38:51 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE48 (update 2) Message-ID: <20040505103851.GB21572@nokia.com> Hi, Below follows an updated agenda (update 2) for the ipv6 wg for RIPE48. Thanks, David Kessens --- Updated agenda (update 2) for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE48 When: 14:00 - 18:00, Wednesday May 5, 2004 Where: Grand Ballroom, Hotel Krasnapolsky, Amsterdam A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering) C. "per country view" about IPv6 allocation on the RIPE/NCC http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/v6top.html (Carlos Friacas) 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. Raising RPSLng Awareness (Carlos Friacas, Simon Leinen and Joao Damas) F. Discussion of: http://ip6.de.easynet.net/ipv6-minimum-peering.txt -- break -- G. IETF multi6 update (Kurtis Erik Lindqvist) H. Latest IPv6 Land Speed Record (Edoardo Martelli) (we might cover this topic before the break) I. What are the deployment plans behind the larger ipv6 allocations ? (Jordi Palet Martinez for Vodafoon) J. IPv6 home automation (Jordi Palet Martinez) K. (brief) update from the RIPE NCC on ipv6 enabled services (Andrei Robachevsky) L. IPv6 network management (IETF MIBs status, NetFlow v9, SNMPv6, and monitoring tools are the agenda items). (Bernard Tuy) M. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience) N. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan (input from the audience) Z. AOB --- From jeroen at unfix.org Wed May 5 14:44:04 2004 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 14:44:04 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE48 (update 2) In-Reply-To: <20040505103851.GB21572@nokia.com> References: <20040505103851.GB21572@nokia.com> Message-ID: <1083761043.14318.607.camel@segesta.zurich.ibm.com> On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 12:38, David Kessens wrote: > Hi, Watching the live stream this time, though no audio due to no earplugs/speakers. Video stream runs great, thus thank the RIPE team!, if I could read lips I would be able to understand what is being said :) > C. "per country view" about IPv6 allocation on the RIPE/NCC > http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/v6top.html > (Carlos Friacas) /me additionally points to http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/ripe/ At the bottom, also available for apnic, arin and lacnic. (But without the nice country pictures, only flags ;) > 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/ Going up since last time, 15mbit/s on average, but divided over approx 2000 users it still isn't that much. There is a peak of about 40mbit/s though, thus volume is rising. > F. Discussion of: > http://ip6.de.easynet.net/ipv6-minimum-peering.txt Great doc and fortunatly getting used by a number of ISP's already. It did help in cleaning up many of the 6bone-mess problems which have been documented by Pekka Savola. > J. IPv6 home automation > (Jordi Palet Martinez) This should be interresting and something that shows a good place for IPv6 and where it can be used for. (of course can be done with IPv4 but no enduser gets that many IP's...) > L. IPv6 network management (IETF MIBs status, NetFlow v9, > SNMPv6, and monitoring tools are the agenda items). > (Bernard Tuy) I think that is supposedto read 'Netflow v9 & IPFIX' but they are practically the same as it is a followup. Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From gert at space.net Mon May 10 17:56:51 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 17:56:51 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters! Message-ID: <20040510155651.GA13854@Space.Net> Hi, the first IPv6 /20 allocation ever has been made today: inet6num: 2001:2000::/20 netname: EU-TELIANET-20040510 org: ORG-TIC2-RIPE descr: PROVIDER Local Registry descr: TeliaSonera AB country: EU and this means that "if you have been following my filtering recommendations, this network will not be accepted right now" (the current filters had a minimum accepted prefix length of a /24). I have updated the prefix filter recommendation page: http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html and urge you to check whether your filters are prepared for these large prefixes. (There is a /23 upcoming, and rumors speak of a /19 being requested "real soon now"). TODO: the "strict" filter could do some grouping for different IPv6 allocation ranges, but this is dangerous today, as we don't know how future allocations will look like. Note: ICANN just doesn't get it. They have not allocated a reasonable prefix size to RIPE (like a /8), not even a /19, but "a big chunk of 14 sucessive /23s, summing up to a /20+/21+/22" - see the list at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-tla-assignments Gert Doering -- RIPE Address Policy WG Co-Chair, keeper of the IPv6 filter list -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From Jason.Everard at telecom.co.nz Mon May 10 23:15:43 2004 From: Jason.Everard at telecom.co.nz (Jason Everard) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 09:15:43 +1200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [6bone] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters! Message-ID: Hi Gert, Having lived in Europe for most of my life, EU is not a country, rather a collection of countries. I'm not sure if it is just standard practice to list the European country under "EU", but wouldn't it be better to have "ES" for Espania? Just being picky. Kind regards, Jason Everard SANS Certified, CISSP, CCIE Security Senior Technical Consultant Network & Security Design Telecom Advanced Solutions Telecom New Zealand Tel: +64-9-363-3002 ext: 93002 Mobile: +64-27-478-3931 -----Original Message----- From: 6bone-bounces at mailman.isi.edu [mailto:6bone-bounces at mailman.isi.edu] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: Tuesday, 11 May 2004 3:57 a.m. To: 6bone at ISI.EDU; ipv6-wg at ripe.net Subject: [6bone] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters! Hi, the first IPv6 /20 allocation ever has been made today: inet6num: 2001:2000::/20 netname: EU-TELIANET-20040510 org: ORG-TIC2-RIPE descr: PROVIDER Local Registry descr: TeliaSonera AB country: EU and this means that "if you have been following my filtering recommendations, this network will not be accepted right now" (the current filters had a minimum accepted prefix length of a /24). I have updated the prefix filter recommendation page: http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html and urge you to check whether your filters are prepared for these large prefixes. (There is a /23 upcoming, and rumors speak of a /19 being requested "real soon now"). TODO: the "strict" filter could do some grouping for different IPv6 allocation ranges, but this is dangerous today, as we don't know how future allocations will look like. Note: ICANN just doesn't get it. They have not allocated a reasonable prefix size to RIPE (like a /8), not even a /19, but "a big chunk of 14 sucessive /23s, summing up to a /20+/21+/22" - see the list at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-tla-assignments Gert Doering -- RIPE Address Policy WG Co-Chair, keeper of the IPv6 filter list -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list 6bone at mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From jeroen at unfix.org Tue May 11 09:26:13 2004 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 09:26:13 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [6bone] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1084260372.2409.2252.camel@segesta.zurich.ibm.com> On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 23:15, Jason Everard wrote: > Hi Gert, > > Having lived in Europe for most of my life, EU is not a country, rather > a collection of countries. I'm not sure if it is just standard practice > to list the European country under "EU", but wouldn't it be better to > have "ES" for Espania? It is an allocation for the 'country/region' of Europe. Just like there are allocations being made to 'ap' which stands for Asian Pacific. There are also some allocations to be found which are used by global operators. http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/ lists the following regions: 105x US (the collection of all the states ;) 10x Europe 2x Asia Pacific I only see one allocation from New Zealand though and it isn't visible yet... Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From gert at space.net Tue May 11 09:40:10 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 09:40:10 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [6bone] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20040511074010.GK13090@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:15:43AM +1200, Jason Everard wrote: > Having lived in Europe for most of my life, EU is not a country, rather > a collection of countries. I'm not sure if it is just standard practice > to list the European country under "EU", but wouldn't it be better to > have "ES" for Espania? In this context, "EU" means "multinational network in the RIPE region". It's not necessarily confined to actual EU countries, nor does it mean "all of the EU" - just "more than one country so you can't easily tack a single country code on it". This definition isn't perfect, but does the job... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From shane at ripe.net Tue May 11 10:54:26 2004 From: shane at ripe.net (Shane Kerr) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:54:26 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [6bone] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters! In-Reply-To: <20040511074010.GK13090@Space.Net> References: <20040511074010.GK13090@Space.Net> Message-ID: <40A094C2.3060008@ripe.net> Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:15:43AM +1200, Jason Everard wrote: > >>Having lived in Europe for most of my life, EU is not a country, rather >>a collection of countries. I'm not sure if it is just standard practice >>to list the European country under "EU", but wouldn't it be better to >>have "ES" for Espania? > > > In this context, "EU" means "multinational network in the RIPE region". > > It's not necessarily confined to actual EU countries, nor does it mean > "all of the EU" - just "more than one country so you can't easily tack > a single country code on it". > > This definition isn't perfect, but does the job... FYI: Because of the ambiguities in the meaning of the "country:" attribute when applied to a network, the Database Working Group recommended at the recent RIPE meeting to either get rid of "country:" completely, or at least to make it optional. -- Shane Kerr RIPE NCC From engin at ripe.net Tue May 11 10:57:04 2004 From: engin at ripe.net (Engin Gunduz) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:57:04 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [6bone] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters! In-Reply-To: <20040511074010.GK13090@Space.Net> References: <20040511074010.GK13090@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20040511085703.GD14704@x47.ripe.net> Hi, On 2004-05-11 09:40:10 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:15:43AM +1200, Jason Everard wrote: > > Having lived in Europe for most of my life, EU is not a country, rather > > a collection of countries. I'm not sure if it is just standard practice > > to list the European country under "EU", but wouldn't it be better to > > have "ES" for Espania? > > In this context, "EU" means "multinational network in the RIPE region". > > It's not necessarily confined to actual EU countries, nor does it mean > "all of the EU" - just "more than one country so you can't easily tack > a single country code on it". > > This definition isn't perfect, but does the job... I'm not too sure about it. 'EU' is ambiguous here: does the data owner mean European Union? Or Europe as a continent? Or the RIPE service region? Or just 'many countries'? Unfortunately, we allow the code 'EU' without defining what it actually means in the RIPE Whois Database... In different inetnums/inet6nums it is used to mean different things. At the end of last year we had a discussion about this issue in the DB WG mailing list, which I tried to summarize in the last week's RIPE meeting in the DB WG session (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-db-country.pdf) We will post the outcome of the discussion that took place in the session later to db-wg and address-policy mailing lists. As far as I can remember, although there wasn't a real consensus, the working group advised to either remove "country:" attribute from inet(6)nums or make it optional. regards, -engin > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 -- Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Software Engineering Department From jeroen at unfix.org Tue May 11 11:11:59 2004 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 11:11:59 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [6bone] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters! In-Reply-To: <20040511085703.GD14704@x47.ripe.net> References: <20040511074010.GK13090@Space.Net> <20040511085703.GD14704@x47.ripe.net> Message-ID: <1084266719.2409.2314.camel@segesta.zurich.ibm.com> On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 10:57, Engin Gunduz wrote: > Hi, > > On 2004-05-11 09:40:10 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > > Hi, > > It's not necessarily confined to actual EU countries, nor does it mean > > "all of the EU" - just "more than one country so you can't easily tack > > a single country code on it". > > > > This definition isn't perfect, but does the job... > > I'm not too sure about it. 'EU' is ambiguous here: does the data owner > mean European Union? Or Europe as a continent? Or the RIPE service region? > Or just 'many countries'? > Unfortunately, we allow the code 'EU' without defining what it actually means in the > RIPE Whois Database... In different inetnums/inet6nums it is used to mean > different things. > We will post the outcome of the discussion that took place in the session > later to db-wg and address-policy mailing lists. As far as I can remember, > although there wasn't a real consensus, the working group advised to either > remove "country:" attribute from inet(6)nums or make it optional. Removing the attribute would loose a lot of precious information especially when trying to do statistics and looking where there is real usage of certain netblocks. This is for instance also used by many services to 'localize' the data. Eg when you use www.google.com you will be redirected to google.nl when in .nl or google.ch when in .ch. Same for eg php.net and quite some others. Or even simpler, just showing the correct language based on the origin IP (okay people could use the language-accept in HTTP for this ;) Another example of use is IRC servers which generate I-lines based on country of origin. Next to that some people just like to know where connections are coming from and using whois is a great tool to at least know the source country (of course someone could ssh to a box in another country etc... blabla) Making it optional thus is a possibility, another option would be to define the 'eu' wording or better add 'global' as a value. Anyhow, removing it is a no-go IMHO. Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From amar at telia.net Tue May 11 11:23:40 2004 From: amar at telia.net (amar) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 11:23:40 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [6bone] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters! References: <20040511074010.GK13090@Space.Net> <20040511085703.GD14704@x47.ripe.net> Message-ID: <40A09B9C.687609E@telia.net> Engin Gunduz wrote: > I'm not too sure about it. 'EU' is ambiguous here: does the data owner > mean European Union? Or Europe as a continent? Or the RIPE service region? > Or just 'many countries'? Maybe I should clearify this. This goes back to the time when we created a LIR that would span over all european countries - eu.telianet. This LIR was created to provide addresses for our global backbone and not for a specific country. Hence the name EU. >From a geographic standpoint its is based in sweden but it provides services for all our operations within europe - and outside as well. When we started to do the IPv6 request for TeliaSonera we had two options: 1) To request thru each LIR we have today wich would result in a number of "small" blocks. or 2) Do a single request for the whole global TeliaSonera wich would result in one large address block. We went for 2) and the natural choice was to use a LIR that was already covering most countries. So the choice became our "EU LIR". Regards -- amar TeliaSonera /Telia Net From gert at space.net Tue May 11 11:30:33 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 11:30:33 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [6bone] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters! In-Reply-To: <40A09B9C.687609E@telia.net> References: <20040511074010.GK13090@Space.Net> <20040511085703.GD14704@x47.ripe.net> <40A09B9C.687609E@telia.net> Message-ID: <20040511093033.GR13090@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 11:23:40AM +0200, amar wrote: > 2) Do a single request for the whole global TeliaSonera wich > would result in one large address block. > > We went for 2) and the natural choice was to use a LIR > that was already covering most countries. So the choice > became our "EU LIR". I appreciate that approach. It has the potential to keep down the number of routes - but even if that doesn't work out, due to different per-country routing policies, it definitely served to wake up those people that still think "a /23 allocation per RIR is plenty". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From amar at telia.net Tue May 11 11:36:57 2004 From: amar at telia.net (amar) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 11:36:57 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [6bone] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters! References: <20040511074010.GK13090@Space.Net> <20040511085703.GD14704@x47.ripe.net> <40A09B9C.687609E@telia.net> <20040511093033.GR13090@Space.Net> Message-ID: <40A09EB9.C12A4E76@telia.net> Gert Doering wrote: Hi, > I appreciate that approach. It has the potential to keep down the > number of routes - but even if that doesn't work out, due to different > per-country routing policies, it definitely served to wake up those > people that still think "a /23 allocation per RIR is plenty". I fully agree. There is a lot that needs to be done. I hope I will have more time in the future to get engaged in WG regarding the issues that we have seen during the process of the request. Not to mention all other issues ;-) -- amar TeliaSonera /Telia Net From iljitsch at muada.com Tue May 11 11:37:34 2004 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 11:37:34 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [6bone] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters! In-Reply-To: <20040511093033.GR13090@Space.Net> References: <20040511074010.GK13090@Space.Net> <20040511085703.GD14704@x47.ripe.net> <40A09B9C.687609E@telia.net> <20040511093033.GR13090@Space.Net> Message-ID: On 11-mei-04, at 11:30, Gert Doering wrote: > I appreciate that approach. It has the potential to keep down the > number of routes - but even if that doesn't work out, due to different > per-country routing policies, it definitely served to wake up those > people that still think "a /23 allocation per RIR is plenty". Still, a /20 allows for 268435456 /48s. Is Telia really going to give half of the inhabitants of Europe a /48? From gert at space.net Tue May 11 11:48:58 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 11:48:58 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [6bone] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters! In-Reply-To: References: <20040511074010.GK13090@Space.Net> <20040511085703.GD14704@x47.ripe.net> <40A09B9C.687609E@telia.net> <20040511093033.GR13090@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20040511094858.GU13090@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 11:37:34AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > >I appreciate that approach. It has the potential to keep down the > >number of routes - but even if that doesn't work out, due to different > >per-country routing policies, it definitely served to wake up those > >people that still think "a /23 allocation per RIR is plenty". > > Still, a /20 allows for 268435456 /48s. Is Telia really going to give > half of the inhabitants of Europe a /48? If you count in hierarchy loss - and there *will* have to be multiple layers of hierarchy and aggregation - the maximum subscribers you can reasonably connect are more likely to be in the "20-50 Millions" range. And this is a fairly realistic number for an ISP that's connecting millions of DSL and dial-up end-users in a large number of countries. What I really don't understand is why people are getting so negatively upset about /20s - what do you *want*? 1 billion /32s in the global routing table, making "efficient" and "conservative" use of FP 001 ? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From amar at telia.net Tue May 11 12:17:05 2004 From: amar at telia.net (amar) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 12:17:05 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [6bone] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters! References: <20040511074010.GK13090@Space.Net> <20040511085703.GD14704@x47.ripe.net> <40A09B9C.687609E@telia.net> <20040511093033.GR13090@Space.Net> Message-ID: <40A0A821.CDABBC6D@telia.net> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > Still, a /20 allows for 268435456 /48s. Is Telia really going to give > half of the inhabitants of Europe a /48? I fully understand Your point of view. Maybe You missed this in my earlier mail: "Do a single request for the whole global TeliaSonera.." Its not only for Europe. Secondly, look at the HD-ratio in RIPE-267: 8) Appendix A: HD-Ratio .... P 48-P Total/48s Threshold Util% ------------------------------------- .... 20 28 268435456 5534417 2.1% It is all based on RFC3194. Do You suggest that the HD-Ratio in RFC3194 should be changed? -- amar From iljitsch at muada.com Tue May 11 14:12:14 2004 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 14:12:14 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [6bone] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters! In-Reply-To: <40A0A821.CDABBC6D@telia.net> References: <20040511074010.GK13090@Space.Net> <20040511085703.GD14704@x47.ripe.net> <40A09B9C.687609E@telia.net> <20040511093033.GR13090@Space.Net> <40A0A821.CDABBC6D@telia.net> Message-ID: <709BB540-A344-11D8-B6DD-000A95CD987A@muada.com> On 11-mei-04, at 12:17, amar wrote: >> Still, a /20 allows for 268435456 /48s. Is Telia really going to give >> half of the inhabitants of Europe a /48? > I fully understand Your point of view. No point of view, just asking. > P 48-P Total/48s Threshold Util% > ------------------------------------- > 20 28 268435456 5534417 2.1% > It is all based on RFC3194. Do You suggest that the > HD-Ratio in RFC3194 should be changed? The HD ratio is based on assumptions. We should base our policies on fact. The trouble with the HD ratio is that it assumes that one out of every five digits is lost due to aggregation boundaries. That assumption may hold occasionally, but it certainly won't as a general rule. This is especially true in IPv6, where the address length is very long. With 45 bits between the 2000::/3 and the subnet edge that's 9 bits that are lost. I think that's excessive. See http://www.bgpexpert.com/archive2003q3.php#12 (at the bottom) for some additional text on this. Now I don't have a very good idea about realistic aggregation levels in very large IPv6 ISP networks. If you can shed some light on this, that would be very useful. From hpholen at tiscali.no Tue May 11 15:09:46 2004 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:09:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [6bone] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters! In-Reply-To: <1084266719.2409.2314.camel@segesta.zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: > This is for instance also used by many > services to 'localize' the data. Eg when you use www.google.com you will > be redirected to google.nl when in .nl or google.ch when in .ch. This is really bad - my knowledge of Dutch is not getting any better when my coputer has an IP address tagged to be in the NL - or even worse, my understanding of French is still nil - even with a "French" IP address. My browser however knows what languages I prefer - so it would be nice is theese providers could listen to my browser rather than second guessing my language preferences. Groet, Hans Petter From hpholen at tiscali.no Tue May 11 15:16:13 2004 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:16:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [6bone] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters! In-Reply-To: <709BB540-A344-11D8-B6DD-000A95CD987A@muada.com> Message-ID: > The HD ratio is based on assumptions. We should base our policies on > fact. Any address asignment or allocvation needs to be based on some assumptions. In the RIPE region we traditionaly have a 2 year horizon - and that forecast is in itself based on a lot of asumptions. HD ratio is currently part of the global v6 policy - and this is what has to be taken into accound until replaced by some thing better. -hph From amar at telia.net Tue May 11 15:50:20 2004 From: amar at telia.net (amar) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:50:20 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [6bone] /20 allocated - update your BGPfilters! References: Message-ID: <40A0DA1C.E7C14B69@telia.net> Hans Petter Holen wrote: > This is really bad - my knowledge of Dutch is not getting any better when > my coputer has an IP address tagged to be in the NL - or even worse, my > understanding of French is still nil - even with a "French" IP address. > > My browser however knows what languages I prefer - so it would be nice is > theese providers could listen to my browser rather than second guessing my > language preferences. I fully agree. I belived "ISO Country Code" was there to identify where the LIR provide services. Not where the users of the addresses are. I have seen cases where we have used address space from one LIR to a customer who is in another country where we dont have a LIR - and that customers have come back and complained that search engines by default sets up wrong language - even if they have choosen a URL with their own cc-TLD. -- amar From jeroen at unfix.org Tue May 11 16:13:58 2004 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 16:13:58 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [6bone] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1084284837.2409.2382.camel@segesta.zurich.ibm.com> On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 15:09, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > > This is for instance also used by many > > services to 'localize' the data. Eg when you use www.google.com you will > > be redirected to google.nl when in .nl or google.ch when in .ch. > > This is really bad - my knowledge of Dutch is not getting any better when > my coputer has an IP address tagged to be in the NL - or even worse, my > understanding of French is still nil - even with a "French" IP address. You should have been dutch then, as in that case you could at least partially have understood those languages, having had them in school ;) > My browser however knows what languages I prefer - so it would be nice is > theese providers could listen to my browser rather than second guessing my > language preferences. That is indeed the Accept-Languages: option I mentioned. But even though my browser passes it: "Accept-Language: en-us,en;q=0.5" (stolen from a nc on localhost) google.com redirects me to google.ch with: "Google.ch angeboten in: English Fran?ais Italiano" Pointing to http://www.google.ch/en, http://www.google.ch/fr + /it The PHP variant is a bit nicer in that respect, typing: http://www.php.net/date redirects one to http://ch.php.net/date which is a quite-close at least country-local version of the site but in english. Though doing a small telnet to nl.php.net 80 and a simple "GET /date HTTP/1.1\nHost: nl.php.net\n\n" returns the page partially in dutch. I guess they can't pick from the three languages here in .ch or they don't have a translation ready. But these are just one of the few reasons that the country attribute should not be removed, optional okey, but removed no. Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From david.kessens at nokia.com Wed May 12 00:59:08 2004 From: david.kessens at nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:59:08 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] [ginny@arin.net: [arin-announce] ARIN Offers Expanded IPv6 Network Services] Message-ID: <20040511225908.GC22637@nokia.com> ----- Forwarded message from Ginny Listman ----- Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:29:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Ginny Listman To: arin-announce at arin.net Subject: [arin-announce] ARIN Offers Expanded IPv6 Network Services ARIN announces further introduction of its IPv6 network services. These services include DNS, FTP, HTTP and WHOIS via port 80. Additional services, such as WHOIS via port 43 and HTTPS will be added in the future. Details of some of the v6 implementation issues ARIN encountered will be presented during a panel discussion at the upcoming NANOG 31 meeting. Please feel free to contact me at ginny at arin.net if you have any questions. Regards, Ginny Listman Director of Engineering American Registry for Internet Numbers ----- End forwarded message ----- From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Wed May 12 08:47:39 2004 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 08:47:39 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [6bone] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters! In-Reply-To: <20040511094858.GU13090@Space.Net> References: <20040511074010.GK13090@Space.Net> <20040511085703.GD14704@x47.ripe.net> <40A09B9C.687609E@telia.net> <20040511093033.GR13090@Space.Net> <20040511094858.GU13090@Space.Net> Message-ID: <42C0A2A6-A3E0-11D8-8A64-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-05-11, at 11.48, Gert Doering wrote: > What I really don't understand is why people are getting so negatively > upset about /20s - what do you *want*? 1 billion /32s in the global > routing table, making "efficient" and "conservative" use of FP 001 ? Agreed. "Call me when we hit 1000 routes". Noone will be happier than me.... - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQKHIj6arNKXTPFCVEQLh6QCgjf2THskiGTxsL5t4ewCdijU8IzAAninM +Bw9dcBeKyIapRv+QDvc4r4v =p6GG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jeroen at unfix.org Wed May 12 11:01:00 2004 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 11:01:00 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RE: [6bone] /20 allocated - update your BGP filters! In-Reply-To: <42C0A2A6-A3E0-11D8-8A64-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> References: <20040511074010.GK13090@Space.Net> <20040511085703.GD14704@x47.ripe.net> <40A09B9C.687609E@telia.net> <20040511093033.GR13090@Space.Net> <20040511094858.GU13090@Space.Net> <42C0A2A6-A3E0-11D8-8A64-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: <1084352460.2409.2461.camel@segesta.zurich.ibm.com> On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 08:47, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > On 2004-05-11, at 11.48, Gert Doering wrote: > > > What I really don't understand is why people are getting so negatively > > upset about /20s - what do you *want*? 1 billion /32s in the global > > routing table, making "efficient" and "conservative" use of FP 001 ? > > Agreed. "Call me when we hit 1000 routes". Noone will be happier than > me.... We are almost half way here, checking GRH which should give somewhat of a globally correct presentation, though there is not much input out of the APNIC corner, http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/status/ has: 458 good prefixes 17115 BGP AS-PATH entries 325 BGP community entries Minimum of 1 prefixes Average of 490 prefixes Maximum of 543 prefixes Good prefixes are the TLA's that actually get announced. There are thus also ~40 more specifics. And there are currently 739 allocations from RIR's to LIR's. If the people in the US would wake up they can add 50 visible routes. Having a 1000 IPv6 routes, educated guess, taking into account the number of new allocations made each year and that maybe 90% will also announce them with ~250 allocations in 2003 and 85 allocations already this first 5 months, which is on the low scale: estimation: 2,5+ years? But we do have to take in account that per 6/6/2006 6bone* is going away, which are currently 107 of the announced 'good prefixes', thus make it at least 3 years in total... Greets, Jeroen * According to the RFC, according to IANA it's 6/6/2004 ;) See http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-tla-assignments -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Wed May 12 12:10:27 2004 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 12:10:27 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] The Regional Internet Registries, IPv6 Task Forces and IPv6 Forum Pledge Co-operative Support of Global IPv6 Deployment and new big allocation to TeliaSonera Message-ID: <02b801c43809$5b318690$7000000a@consulintel.es> Not sure why this email doesn't go thru, just trying again ... Hi all, See below my previous email to other exploders. I believe is specially important for this WG to provide inputs regarding concrete actions, so please, repeating myself, let me know !. Also, the slides regarding the big allocations had been updated with the last week Telia inputs (published only since today with their consent). By the way, in case you aren't aware of, the site http://www.ist-ipv6.org publish news (as many as we can) about IPv6, you can register there to receive a weekly update also. Regards, Jordi *** Hi all, Please, see the very recent news below. Regarding the cooperation with the RIRs, it will be helpful to get ideas and inputs from all the involved communities in order to concrete actions, so let me know ! Regional Internet Registries, IPv6 Task Forces and IPv6 Forum Pledge Cooperative Support of Global IPv6 Deployment http://www.ist-ipv6.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=547 TeliaSonera receives /20, the bigger IPv6 block up to now http://www.ist-ipv6.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=546 Regards, Jordi ********************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit Presentations and videos on line at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From ncc at ripe.net Wed May 12 14:35:26 2004 From: ncc at ripe.net (Paul Rendek) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:35:26 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RIRs and IPv6 Groups Pledge Support of Global IPv6 Deployment Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20040512124047.04b974c0@mailhost.ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, The RIRs, the IPv6 Task Forces, and the IPv6 Forum have issued a joint press release detailing co-operative efforts in support of global IPv6 deployment. The press release is available on the RIPE NCC website at: http://www.ripe.net/ipv6/ipv6-support-20040512.html Regards, Paul Rendek Head of Member Services and Communications RIPE NCC From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Fri May 28 09:03:51 2004 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 09:03:51 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] ICANN Board to implement IPv6 in root servers Message-ID: <60eb01c44481$ef5c9ab0$8700000a@consulintel.es> http://www.ist-ipv6.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=567 ********************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit Presentations and videos on line at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From iljitsch at muada.com Fri May 28 09:55:30 2004 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 09:55:30 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] ICANN Board to implement IPv6 in root servers In-Reply-To: <60eb01c44481$ef5c9ab0$8700000a@consulintel.es> References: <60eb01c44481$ef5c9ab0$8700000a@consulintel.es> Message-ID: <64086222-B07C-11D8-B41C-000A95CD987A@muada.com> On 28-mei-04, at 9:03, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > http://www.ist-ipv6.org/modules.php? > op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=567 ?proceed with adding AAAA glue [name server] records to the delegations of those TLDs that request it,? And what about the root servers themselves? From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Fri May 28 10:30:14 2004 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 10:30:14 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] ICANN Board to implement IPv6 in root servers References: <60eb01c44481$ef5c9ab0$8700000a@consulintel.es> <64086222-B07C-11D8-B41C-000A95CD987A@muada.com> Message-ID: <623c01c4448d$ffc45170$8700000a@consulintel.es> Hi Iljitsch, Is comming ... wait a little bit more, only a little bit ;-) Regards, Jordi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" To: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" Cc: Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 9:55 AM Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] ICANN Board to implement IPv6 in root servers On 28-mei-04, at 9:03, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > http://www.ist-ipv6.org/modules.php? > op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=567 ?proceed with adding AAAA glue [name server] records to the delegations of those TLDs that request it,? And what about the root servers themselves? ********************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit Presentations and videos on line at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From johani at autonomica.se Sun May 30 14:30:54 2004 From: johani at autonomica.se (Johan Ihren) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 14:30:54 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] ICANN Board to implement IPv6 in root servers In-Reply-To: <64086222-B07C-11D8-B41C-000A95CD987A@muada.com> (Iljitsch van Beijnum's message of "Fri, 28 May 2004 09:55:30 +0200") References: <60eb01c44481$ef5c9ab0$8700000a@consulintel.es> <64086222-B07C-11D8-B41C-000A95CD987A@muada.com> Message-ID: <2cvfieqept.fsf@oban.autonomica.net> Iljitsch van Beijnum writes: > proceed with adding AAAA glue [name server] records to the > delegations of those TLDs that request it, > > And what about the root servers themselves? Well, what about them? Not that I'm particularly against v6 transport to the roots, but I'd be curious to know exactly what problem you believe that you would solve that way. Johan Ihr?n Autonomica From iljitsch at muada.com Sun May 30 14:50:25 2004 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 14:50:25 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] ICANN Board to implement IPv6 in root servers In-Reply-To: <2cvfieqept.fsf@oban.autonomica.net> References: <60eb01c44481$ef5c9ab0$8700000a@consulintel.es> <64086222-B07C-11D8-B41C-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <2cvfieqept.fsf@oban.autonomica.net> Message-ID: On 30-mei-04, at 14:30, Johan Ihren wrote: >> proceed with adding AAAA glue [name server] records to the >> delegations of those TLDs that request it, >> And what about the root servers themselves? > Well, what about them? > Not that I'm particularly against v6 transport to the roots, but I'd > be curious to know exactly what problem you believe that you would > solve that way. Well, what problem does having v6 glue records for tld delegations solve? If the whole chain is IPv6-capable that means you no longer have to depend on v4 connectivity to reach v6 sites. Eventually we'll want to switch off v4 because of the support costs, of course. But in the mean time this means better protection against connectivity problems. From tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk Sun May 30 15:09:26 2004 From: tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 14:09:26 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] ICANN Board to implement IPv6 in root servers In-Reply-To: References: <60eb01c44481$ef5c9ab0$8700000a@consulintel.es> <64086222-B07C-11D8-B41C-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <2cvfieqept.fsf@oban.autonomica.net> Message-ID: <20040530130926.GR32679@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 02:50:25PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > If the whole chain is IPv6-capable that means you no longer have to > depend on v4 connectivity to reach v6 sites. Eventually we'll want to > switch off v4 because of the support costs, of course. But in the mean > time this means better protection against connectivity problems. At the moment the first link in the chain is not solved (local resolver...), as the only options today are manual configuration or DHCPv6, for which there are very few implementations. Tim From iljitsch at muada.com Sun May 30 15:27:20 2004 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 15:27:20 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] ICANN Board to implement IPv6 in root servers In-Reply-To: <20040530130926.GR32679@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> References: <60eb01c44481$ef5c9ab0$8700000a@consulintel.es> <64086222-B07C-11D8-B41C-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <2cvfieqept.fsf@oban.autonomica.net> <20040530130926.GR32679@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Message-ID: <13B65001-B23D-11D8-8F98-000A95CD987A@muada.com> On 30-mei-04, at 15:09, Tim Chown wrote: >> If the whole chain is IPv6-capable that means you no longer have to >> depend on v4 connectivity to reach v6 sites. Eventually we'll want to >> switch off v4 because of the support costs, of course. But in the mean >> time this means better protection against connectivity problems. > At the moment the first link in the chain is not solved (local > resolver...), > as the only options today are manual configuration or DHCPv6, for which > there are very few implementations. Don't remind me. :-( Unfortunately there is a group within the IETF that wants to force us all to use DHCPv6 for this, and they're blocking everything else. I've recently asked for two 6bone pTLAs to do some expermimenting with well known anycast DNS resolvers but unfortunately the 6bone people don't want to give out any new 6bone prefixes since january first. I don't want to use RIR space for an experiment because it's likely the associated address space won't be usable for something else for a long time after that, so if anyone has a 6bone pTLA lying around that they don't use anymore, I'd be much obliged... Iljitsch From johani at autonomica.se Sun May 30 15:32:40 2004 From: johani at autonomica.se (Johan Ihren) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 15:32:40 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] ICANN Board to implement IPv6 in root servers In-Reply-To: (Iljitsch van Beijnum's message of "Sun, 30 May 2004 14:50:25 +0200") References: <60eb01c44481$ef5c9ab0$8700000a@consulintel.es> <64086222-B07C-11D8-B41C-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <2cvfieqept.fsf@oban.autonomica.net> Message-ID: <2cpt8mqbuv.fsf@oban.autonomica.net> Iljitsch van Beijnum writes: Hi Iljitsch, >>> proceed with adding AAAA glue [name server] records to the >>> delegations of those TLDs that request it, > >>> And what about the root servers themselves? > >> Well, what about them? > >> Not that I'm particularly against v6 transport to the roots, but I'd >> be curious to know exactly what problem you believe that you would >> solve that way. > > Well, what problem does having v6 glue records for tld delegations > solve? The TLD has an "owner" that presumably has a wish for what transport it sees use for. If v6 is in that set I believe it would be wrong not to give out v6 glue from the parent (given some thought has been given to packet size issues and similar things, all covered in the RSSAC advisory). Wrt to the root zone, though, in reality no one in a sane mind would want to run DNS without the ability to look up data regardless of whether a particular zone is served over v4, v6 or both. And that goes for the root zone just as any other zone. In reality the major point in v6 transport for the root zone would be as a "show of faith" in IPv6 being "ready" (which is good), rather than any sort of short term technical necessity. > If the whole chain is IPv6-capable that means you no longer have to > depend on v4 connectivity to reach v6 sites. Eventually we'll want to > switch off v4 because of the support costs, of course. But in the mean > time this means better protection against connectivity problems. I agree that once it's time to turn off v4 (which will probably not happen during either your nor my active career) v6 roots are needed. Until then they are mostly a convenience that will possibly help a little now and then. As to connectivity problems, I believe that to be mostly a red herring. If you lose your v4 lookup capability then you just lost 99.9% of the DNS hierarchy. That will cause you all sorts of problems. The very least of those problems will be the lack of access to the roots, since they serve a very small data set, all the relevant parts of which you have already cached. The only folks that will have problems with a root access during a hypothetical v4 connectivity outage are the folks that either just flushed their cache (small percentage) or are broken somehow so they beat on the roots all the time (large percentage). But, not to give a wrong impression, I want to point out that I'm *for* v6 transport to the roots, just as I'm for v6 glue for the TLDs. And I'm happy that the latter issue after an unbelievably long wait is finally over. Johan From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Sun May 30 15:48:10 2004 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 15:48:10 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] ICANN Board to implement IPv6 in root servers References: <60eb01c44481$ef5c9ab0$8700000a@consulintel.es><64086222-B07C-11D8-B41C-000A95CD987A@muada.com><2cvfieqept.fsf@oban.autonomica.net> <2cpt8mqbuv.fsf@oban.autonomica.net> Message-ID: <031a01c4464c$c4b854d0$640a0a0a@consulintel.es> Hi Johan, I agree in general with all your points, but I've seen already a couple of situations where someone was asking me for a IPv6-only network, and the lack of IPv6 in the root server created a problem, that of course has been solved hosting the DNS somewhere else (even if IPv4 was not used !). I can't provide more details, but there are real cases. Regards, Jordi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johan Ihren" To: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" Cc: Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 3:32 PM Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] ICANN Board to implement IPv6 in root servers > Iljitsch van Beijnum writes: > > Hi Iljitsch, > > >>> proceed with adding AAAA glue [name server] records to the > >>> delegations of those TLDs that request it, > > > >>> And what about the root servers themselves? > > > >> Well, what about them? > > > >> Not that I'm particularly against v6 transport to the roots, but I'd > >> be curious to know exactly what problem you believe that you would > >> solve that way. > > > > Well, what problem does having v6 glue records for tld delegations > > solve? > > The TLD has an "owner" that presumably has a wish for what transport > it sees use for. If v6 is in that set I believe it would be wrong not > to give out v6 glue from the parent (given some thought has been given > to packet size issues and similar things, all covered in the RSSAC > advisory). > > Wrt to the root zone, though, in reality no one in a sane mind would > want to run DNS without the ability to look up data regardless of > whether a particular zone is served over v4, v6 or both. And that goes > for the root zone just as any other zone. > > In reality the major point in v6 transport for the root zone would be > as a "show of faith" in IPv6 being "ready" (which is good), rather > than any sort of short term technical necessity. > > > If the whole chain is IPv6-capable that means you no longer have to > > depend on v4 connectivity to reach v6 sites. Eventually we'll want to > > switch off v4 because of the support costs, of course. But in the mean > > time this means better protection against connectivity problems. > > I agree that once it's time to turn off v4 (which will probably not > happen during either your nor my active career) v6 roots are > needed. Until then they are mostly a convenience that will possibly > help a little now and then. > > As to connectivity problems, I believe that to be mostly a red > herring. If you lose your v4 lookup capability then you just lost > 99.9% of the DNS hierarchy. That will cause you all sorts of > problems. The very least of those problems will be the lack of access > to the roots, since they serve a very small data set, all the relevant > parts of which you have already cached. > > The only folks that will have problems with a root access during a > hypothetical v4 connectivity outage are the folks that either just > flushed their cache (small percentage) or are broken somehow so they > beat on the roots all the time (large percentage). > > But, not to give a wrong impression, I want to point out that I'm > *for* v6 transport to the roots, just as I'm for v6 glue for the > TLDs. And I'm happy that the latter issue after an unbelievably long > wait is finally over. > > Johan > > ********************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit Presentations and videos on line at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From johani at autonomica.se Sun May 30 16:14:27 2004 From: johani at autonomica.se (Johan Ihren) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 16:14:27 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] ICANN Board to implement IPv6 in root servers In-Reply-To: <031a01c4464c$c4b854d0$640a0a0a@consulintel.es> (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ's message of "Sun, 30 May 2004 15:48:10 +0200") References: <60eb01c44481$ef5c9ab0$8700000a@consulintel.es> <64086222-B07C-11D8-B41C-000A95CD987A@muada.com> <2cvfieqept.fsf@oban.autonomica.net> <2cpt8mqbuv.fsf@oban.autonomica.net> <031a01c4464c$c4b854d0$640a0a0a@consulintel.es> Message-ID: <2chdtyq9x8.fsf@oban.autonomica.net> "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" writes: Jordi, > I agree in general with all your points, but I've seen already a > couple of situations where someone was asking me for a IPv6-only > network, and the lack of IPv6 in the root server created a problem, > that of course has been solved hosting the DNS somewhere else (even > if IPv4 was not used !). Yes, I hear from those folks too. And my guess is that if they *did* (or rather when they do) get v6 transport to the roots they would in some cases shut off v4 and thereby shoot themselves in the foot. This has been used as an argument *against* v6 transport to the roots since as long as they need v4 lookup capability to reach the roots they will get the other 40M+ zones that are only availably over v4 transport too. I.e. since they are forced to do v4 to reach the roots they do see the entire tree rather than just the lame stump with five broken twigs on it. However, my personal view (since about the Atlanta IETF I think) is that it is probably better with a spectacular failure in the face of people who turn off v4 lookup capability entirely when the roots get v6 transport than to wait a long time (until larger parts of the tree are dual stack). The reason is that the failure modes will then be much more subtle. And therefore I believe that v6 glue for the roots would be a good thing. > I can't provide more details, but there are real cases. I know they are. Johan Ihr?n Autonomica From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Sun May 30 16:23:22 2004 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 16:23:22 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] ICANN Board to implement IPv6 in root servers References: <60eb01c44481$ef5c9ab0$8700000a@consulintel.es><64086222-B07C-11D8-B41C-000A95CD987A@muada.com><2cvfieqept.fsf@oban.autonomica.net><2cpt8mqbuv.fsf@oban.autonomica.net><031a01c4464c$c4b854d0$640a0a0a@consulintel.es> <2chdtyq9x8.fsf@oban.autonomica.net> Message-ID: <03b601c44651$aa56d850$640a0a0a@consulintel.es> Hi Johan, The examples I've in mind didn't required connectivity to the rest of the IPv4 world at all ..., so actually not having IPv6 connectivity in the root servers creates a "two (or even many) Internets" problem, because some of this people opted also for using their own "root" DNS servers. I know, in the future may be they may need to connect to the rest of the world, but IPv6 is a stand-alone solution for them right now ... So, I will really strongly encourage the root servers, the ccTLDs, etc., to have IPv6 connectivity ASAP, to avoid this situation being replicated. Regards, Jordi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johan Ihren" To: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" Cc: Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 4:14 PM Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] ICANN Board to implement IPv6 in root servers > "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" writes: > > Jordi, > > > I agree in general with all your points, but I've seen already a > > couple of situations where someone was asking me for a IPv6-only > > network, and the lack of IPv6 in the root server created a problem, > > that of course has been solved hosting the DNS somewhere else (even > > if IPv4 was not used !). > > Yes, I hear from those folks too. And my guess is that if they *did* > (or rather when they do) get v6 transport to the roots they would in > some cases shut off v4 and thereby shoot themselves in the foot. > > This has been used as an argument *against* v6 transport to the roots > since as long as they need v4 lookup capability to reach the roots > they will get the other 40M+ zones that are only availably over v4 > transport too. I.e. since they are forced to do v4 to reach the roots > they do see the entire tree rather than just the lame stump with five > broken twigs on it. > > However, my personal view (since about the Atlanta IETF I think) is > that it is probably better with a spectacular failure in the face of > people who turn off v4 lookup capability entirely when the roots get > v6 transport than to wait a long time (until larger parts of the tree > are dual stack). The reason is that the failure modes will then be > much more subtle. > > And therefore I believe that v6 glue for the roots would be a good thing. > > > I can't provide more details, but there are real cases. > > I know they are. > > Johan Ihr?n > Autonomica > > ********************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit Presentations and videos on line at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. From gert at space.net Sun May 30 23:31:44 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 23:31:44 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] ICANN Board to implement IPv6 in root servers In-Reply-To: <031a01c4464c$c4b854d0$640a0a0a@consulintel.es> References: <2cpt8mqbuv.fsf@oban.autonomica.net> <031a01c4464c$c4b854d0$640a0a0a@consulintel.es> Message-ID: <20040530213144.GU13090@Space.Net> Hi, On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 03:48:10PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > I agree in general with all your points, but I've seen already a couple of situations where someone was asking me for a IPv6-only network, and the lack of IPv6 in the root server created a problem, that of course has been solved hosting the DNS somewhere Offering your client a v4+v6 dual-stacked recursive resolver should solve most of their DNS needs for now. As Johan pointed out: what good is v6 transport to the root *today*, while 99.9% of all name servers that actually server SLD zones don't have v6 transport? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From pim at ipng.nl Sun May 30 23:48:39 2004 From: pim at ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 23:48:39 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] ICANN Board to implement IPv6 in root servers In-Reply-To: <20040530213144.GU13090@Space.Net> References: <2cpt8mqbuv.fsf@oban.autonomica.net> <031a01c4464c$c4b854d0$640a0a0a@consulintel.es> <20040530213144.GU13090@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20040530214839.GA16039@bfib.colo.bit.nl> Hi, | As Johan pointed out: what good is v6 transport to the root *today*, while | 99.9% of all name servers that actually server SLD zones don't have | v6 transport? Gaining administrative and operational expertise on IPv6 in the DNS foodchain, and enabling explicit support for those TLDs which chose to serve using that type of transport too. groet, Pim -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim at ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From gert at space.net Mon May 31 00:05:38 2004 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 00:05:38 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] ICANN Board to implement IPv6 in root servers In-Reply-To: <20040530214839.GA16039@bfib.colo.bit.nl> References: <2cpt8mqbuv.fsf@oban.autonomica.net> <031a01c4464c$c4b854d0$640a0a0a@consulintel.es> <20040530213144.GU13090@Space.Net> <20040530214839.GA16039@bfib.colo.bit.nl> Message-ID: <20040530220537.GW13090@Space.Net> Hi, On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 11:48:39PM +0200, Pim van Pelt wrote: > | As Johan pointed out: what good is v6 transport to the root *today*, while > | 99.9% of all name servers that actually server SLD zones don't have > | v6 transport? > Gaining administrative and operational expertise on IPv6 in the DNS > foodchain, and enabling explicit support for those TLDs which chose to > serve using that type of transport too. Of course. I was referring to Jordi's "v6 only" scenario, of course, not to a more general scenario. I'm for "v6 everywhere" myself, btw :-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299