From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Mon Feb 7 20:13:46 2005 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:13:46 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Call for Papers - Next Global IPv6 Summit in Spain Message-ID: Hi all, As indicated in the email below, the next Global IPv6 Summit in Spain, the bigger IPv6 European event, in its 4th edition (after a very successful organization and broad international attendance in 2001, 2002 and 2003), will be organized this time in Barcelona, next June 2005, with a expected audience over 2.600 key decisions makers from ICT sectors. The main target of the event is business oriented talks, as well as talks oriented to policy makers, information/knowledge society, education and public sectors. This Call for Papers doesn't require that you submit a complete paper (which is welcome also), but instead, a short plain text abstract of your presentation topic, by email. Talks regarding deployment experiences, new services and applications will be of key interest for the expected attendance, and hence highly encouraged. We believe that key topics will be also those regarding: 1) IPv6 and business 2) IPv6 and Broadband 3) New IPv6-based services and applications 4) IPv6 and the Digital Home 5) IPv6 and Multimedia, Voice/Video applications 6) IPv6, Mobility, Wireless and 3G 7) IPv6 and Ambient Intelligence/Ubiquitous Computing/Distributed Systems 8) IPv6 and GRIDs 9) IPv6 and logistics, transport and eSafety 10) IPv6 for eHealth, eGoverment, eLearning and other "e-whatever" 11) IPv6 and gamming 12) IPv6 and peer-to-peer 13) IPv6 and security 14) IPv6 and Open Source 15) IPv6 and marketing/branding Also topics regarding Standards, Research, Development and Innovation experiences are welcome, including R&D projects results. The Agenda will be drafted early in March, so the dead-line for submitting your topic is only until 25th February, but as said only a short abstract is required. If you're interested in participating, or you have any special idea, even if your topic is not in the list above, please don't hesitate to contact me (jordi.palet at consulintel.es) ASAP, so we can work out any options. Regards, Jordi PS: Please, feel free to circulate this email among your contacts. ------ Mensaje reenviado De: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Responder a: Fecha: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:25:42 +0100 Para: "members at ipv6forum.com" , Asunto: Next Global IPv6 Summit in Spain Hi all, As I already informed a few weeks ago, the next Global IPv6 Summit in Spain will be held this time in Barcelona next June (instead of Madrid in March as previously forecasted). This will happen starting on June 6th, with a tutorial in the morning, the opening ceremony in the afternoon, with some keynotes and then 2-3 days of IPv6 conference, depending on the success of the call for papers. If required we can extend our event up to Friday 10th (total 4 days, plus opening ceremony, plus half day tutorial). In this occasion, we will try a completely new model, integrating the IPv6 conference in a bigger event, more business oriented, even when technical sessions will be still present. The "umbrella" event is Internet Global Congress (IGC), with has been organized in Barcelona already during the 6 previous years. The Internet Global Congress, the leading Internet and New Technologies congress in Spain, is organized by the Fundaci? Barcelona Digital, a non-profit organization, which also provides space for exhibition and delivers the IGC awards for Digital Innovation (aimed to students and professionals with embryonic Internet projects, aims to be a launch platform for all those people involved in research and innovation in the field of Internet and the New Technologies). IGC provides us all the infrastructure for organizing the Global IPv6 Summit track, and we only need to manage our own agenda, and consequently our own call for papers (see next email). They also they care about all the issues related to registration, proceedings and publicity, at no cost for us. We expect that this will be the bigger IPv6 event in Europe during 2005, with an expected attendance over 2.600 people, which of course, will be able to attend not just to the IPv6 track but also to other IT tracks (already depicted at http://www.igcweb.net, then click at Program). The attendance is mainly CTOs, CEOs and other key decision makers related to ICT, so its a very nice opportunity for IPv6 in Europe to meet a large audience which probably has not been in touch with IPv6 until now. I count with the support from all of you, and please do not hesitate to let me know any ideas that you may have to make an even more successful event that what for sure we will have in a so nice city as Barcelona. More information will be soon available at http://www.ipv6-es.com and http://www.igcweb.net. 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 webmaster at ripe.net Tue Feb 22 13:06:09 2005 From: webmaster at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:06:09 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] New Document available: RIPE-343 Message-ID: <200502221206.j1MC69et008690@birch.ripe.net> [apologies for duplicate e-mails] New RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A revised document is available from the RIPE document store. Ref: ripe-343 Title: IPv6 Address Space Management Author: Paul Wilson, Raymond Plzak, Axel Pawlik Date: 22 February 2005 Format: PS=53986 TXT=13567 Obsoletes: ripe-261 Short content description ------------------------- This document provides the management process for IPv6 global unicast address space whereby address allocations are made from a single global pool according to a "sparse allocation" algorithm. In this version, previously published as ripe-261, we fixed an error in the 6-bit address space table. Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- You can access the RIPE documents in HTML format via our website at the following URL:. http://www.ripe.net/docs/ipv6-sparse.html The RIPE Document Store is also available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-343.pdf PDF version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-343.txt plain text version Kind Regards, RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service From randy at psg.com Wed Feb 23 08:44:08 2005 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:44:08 +0900 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Re: [address-policy-wg] New Document available: RIPE-343 References: <200502221206.j1MC69et008690@birch.ripe.net> Message-ID: <16924.13384.108052.348961@roam.psg.com> > [apologies for duplicate e-mails] > > New RIPE Document Announcement > -------------------------------------- > A revised document is available from the RIPE document store. > > Ref: ripe-343 > Title: IPv6 Address Space Management > Author: Paul Wilson, Raymond Plzak, Axel Pawlik > Date: 22 February 2005 > Format: PS=53986 TXT=13567 > Obsoletes: ripe-261 as this document is far from new, and did not fly well the last time it tried to take off, is there something i am missing about why it is being republished now? randy From lists at dcorking.com Wed Feb 23 13:35:52 2005 From: lists at dcorking.com (David Corking) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:35:52 +0000 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] New Document available: RIPE-343 In-Reply-To: <16924.13384.108052.348961@roam.psg.com> References: <200502221206.j1MC69et008690@birch.ripe.net> <16924.13384.108052.348961@roam.psg.com> Message-ID: <20050223123552.GC3098@swanage.no-ip.com> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Randy Bush wrote: > > New RIPE Document Announcement > > Ref: ripe-343 > > Title: IPv6 Address Space Management > > Author: Paul Wilson, Raymond Plzak, Axel Pawlik > > Date: 22 February 2005 > as this document is far from new, and did not fly well the last > time it tried to take off, At first reaction, this seems like an improvement over the idea of IANA hoarding the enormous space while an RIR has to achieve 80% use of its allocation. (Improvement in that it favours the primary goal of promoting aggregation - while not, in a way that is obvious to me, harming the other goals of the allocation policy.) A couple of questions : 1) Which parts of the community rejected the doc in its previous incarnation and why? 2) Why is IANA not a co-author - only the RIRs? Best regards. -- David Corking Principal, Corking Project http://www.ecademy.com/account.php?id=42611 From lists at dcorking.com Wed Feb 23 13:55:52 2005 From: lists at dcorking.com (David Corking) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:55:52 +0000 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <16924.13384.108052.348961@roam.psg.com> References: <200502221206.j1MC69et008690@birch.ripe.net> <16924.13384.108052.348961@roam.psg.com> Message-ID: <20050223125551.GD3098@swanage.no-ip.com> Hi Randy! You asked: > is there something i am missing about > why it is being republished now? The following diff may shed some light. You will see that only one character has changed! --- ripe-261.txt 2005-02-23 12:49:18.000000000 +0000 +++ ripe-343.txt 2005-02-23 12:48:11.000000000 +0000 @@ -4,8 +4,9 @@ Raymond Plzak Axel Pawlik -Document ID: ripe-261 -Date: 31 October 2002 +Document ID: ripe-343 +Date: 22 February 2005 +Obsoletes: ripe-261 Abstract @@ -116,7 +117,7 @@ 1 000000 00 2 100000 32 3 010000 16 - 4 110000 38 + 4 110000 48 5 001000 08 6 101000 40 7 011000 24 -- David Corking Principal, Corking Project "Total Project Management for your supply chain technology" http://www.ecademy.com/account.php?id=42611 From gert at space.net Wed Feb 23 14:14:40 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:14:40 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] New Document available: RIPE-343 In-Reply-To: <20050223123552.GC3098@swanage.no-ip.com> References: <200502221206.j1MC69et008690@birch.ripe.net> <16924.13384.108052.348961@roam.psg.com> <20050223123552.GC3098@swanage.no-ip.com> Message-ID: <20050223131440.GV84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:35:52PM +0000, David Corking wrote: > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Randy Bush wrote: > > > > New RIPE Document Announcement > > > Ref: ripe-343 > > > Title: IPv6 Address Space Management > > > Author: Paul Wilson, Raymond Plzak, Axel Pawlik > > > Date: 22 February 2005 > > > as this document is far from new, and did not fly well the last > > time it tried to take off, > > At first reaction, this seems like an improvement over the idea of > IANA hoarding the enormous space while an RIR has to achieve 80% use > of its allocation. (Improvement in that it favours the primary goal > of promoting aggregation - while not, in a way that is obvious to me, > harming the other goals of the allocation policy.) > > A couple of questions : > > 1) Which parts of the community rejected the doc in its previous > incarnation and why? It was mostly disliked because of the use of a global common address pool, which means that you give up any chance to be able to filter/aggregate on region boundaries ("why do I need to know any details about ASes located outside my region?") - whether or not someone is doing this today doesn't matter, but it was felt that it shouldn't be made impossible right from the start. The consensus was to that we want ICANN to hand over reasonable chunks of address space (/12, /8, ...) to the individual RIRs, but that we don't want a "common pool". There is a new proposal out there since last summer, which tries to get consensus in all regions about the specifics, and then change the policy. The whole discussion can be found in the mailing list archives of the address policy mailing list, on www.ripe.net. > 2) Why is IANA not a co-author - only the RIRs? ICANN/IANA has been very passive and very resistive regarding any attempts to make the IANA->RIR allocations more reasonable. For many years now. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From gert at space.net Wed Feb 23 14:19:02 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:19:02 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] New Document available: RIPE-343 In-Reply-To: <200502221206.j1MC69et008690@birch.ripe.net> References: <200502221206.j1MC69et008690@birch.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20050223131902.GW84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 01:06:09PM +0100, RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service wrote: > New RIPE Document Announcement > -------------------------------------- > A revised document is available from the RIPE document store. > > Ref: ripe-343 > Title: IPv6 Address Space Management > Author: Paul Wilson, Raymond Plzak, Axel Pawlik > Date: 22 February 2005 > Format: PS=53986 TXT=13567 > Obsoletes: ripe-261 I am with Randy in this - why on earth is the NCC bothering in re-releasing this document, if only a single line has changed, and people do not *want* this document anyway? It will create quite some confusion, and create the illusion that this is something "new", something people will need to read, think about, comment about, and so on - which just wastes precious brain cycles. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From iljitsch at muada.com Wed Feb 23 14:41:19 2005 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:41:19 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] New Document available: RIPE-343 In-Reply-To: <20050223131440.GV84850@Space.Net> References: <200502221206.j1MC69et008690@birch.ripe.net> <16924.13384.108052.348961@roam.psg.com> <20050223123552.GC3098@swanage.no-ip.com> <20050223131440.GV84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <44ebf986f595cb83d6a77689d09c0ce2@muada.com> On 23-feb-05, at 14:14, Gert Doering wrote: >> 1) Which parts of the community rejected the doc in its previous >> incarnation and why? > It was mostly disliked because of the use of a global common address > pool, which means that you give up any chance to be able to > filter/aggregate > on region boundaries ("why do I need to know any details about ASes > located outside my region?") - whether or not someone is doing this > today > doesn't matter, but it was felt that it shouldn't be made impossible > right from the start. I'm sorry, but I have to object here. The notion that divvying up the globe into four or five parts in order to save on routing table expenditures in nonsense. Either filtering out "far away" information is a good idea, and then we should do it right, or it isn't, and then we don't need to do it at all. By doing it right I mean putting several layers of geographical hierarchy into addresses. In Europe, this would mean at least the country level, in large countries like the US, China and India the state/province level. >> 2) Why is IANA not a co-author - only the RIRs? > ICANN/IANA has been very passive and very resistive regarding any > attempts > to make the IANA->RIR allocations more reasonable. For many years now. They've been hesitant to change things in the absence of a new policy. Now that the IANA is more closely related to the ICANN they're probably getting an overdose of lawyer exposure... About the new document: this is unnecessarily complex, and it suffers from terrible end-game properties: when the space starts to run out (which isn't as unthinkable as it seems with the H/R thing, especially if we end up with several new RIRs and/or a middle layer of NIRs) the space will be fragmented very badly. Just give RIRs tightly stacked /12 allocations, or at most /10s. That's 2048 - 8192 times more than they were getting until recently. If this turns out unworkably small at less than 1000 IPv6 ASes then there is a bug in the system somewhere that we'd better fix before the other 17000 ASes start doing v6 too. From gert at space.net Wed Feb 23 15:19:27 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:19:27 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] New Document available: RIPE-343 In-Reply-To: <44ebf986f595cb83d6a77689d09c0ce2@muada.com> References: <200502221206.j1MC69et008690@birch.ripe.net> <16924.13384.108052.348961@roam.psg.com> <20050223123552.GC3098@swanage.no-ip.com> <20050223131440.GV84850@Space.Net> <44ebf986f595cb83d6a77689d09c0ce2@muada.com> Message-ID: <20050223141927.GY84850@Space.Net> hi, On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 02:41:19PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: [..] > The notion that divvying up the globe into four or five parts in order > to save on routing table expenditures in nonsense. Thanks for your kind words. > Either filtering out > "far away" information is a good idea, and then we should do it right, > or it isn't, and then we don't need to do it at all. > > By doing it right I mean putting several layers of geographical > hierarchy into addresses. In Europe, this would mean at least the > country level, in large countries like the US, China and India the > state/province level. That's not contradicting what I said: "People did not like RIPE-261 because of the common address pool". whether you dislike the CAP because you want continental, country level, or whatever other distribution system, doesn't really change the statement "people didn't like the CAP, and so there was consensus against 261". Which is all this thread is about. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From rogerj at jorgensen.no Wed Feb 23 15:15:56 2005 From: rogerj at jorgensen.no (Roger Jorgensen) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:15:56 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] New Document available: RIPE-343 In-Reply-To: <44ebf986f595cb83d6a77689d09c0ce2@muada.com> References: <200502221206.j1MC69et008690@birch.ripe.net> <16924.13384.108052.348961@roam.psg.com> <20050223123552.GC3098@swanage.no-ip.com> <20050223131440.GV84850@Space.Net> <44ebf986f595cb83d6a77689d09c0ce2@muada.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 23-feb-05, at 14:14, Gert Doering wrote: > >> 1) Which parts of the community rejected the doc in its previous > >> incarnation and why? > > > It was mostly disliked because of the use of a global common address > > pool, which means that you give up any chance to be able to > > filter/aggregate > > on region boundaries ("why do I need to know any details about ASes > > located outside my region?") - whether or not someone is doing this > > today > > doesn't matter, but it was felt that it shouldn't be made impossible > > right from the start. > > I'm sorry, but I have to object here. > > The notion that divvying up the globe into four or five parts in order > to save on routing table expenditures in nonsense. Either filtering out > "far away" information is a good idea, and then we should do it right, > or it isn't, and then we don't need to do it at all. > > By doing it right I mean putting several layers of geographical > hierarchy into addresses. In Europe, this would mean at least the > country level, in large countries like the US, China and India the > state/province level. Geo-addressing, I think it would be a great idea! next step would be geographical based routing... even better. -- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | rogerj at stud.cs.uit.no | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no ------------------------------------------------------- From iljitsch at muada.com Thu Feb 24 19:28:43 2005 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:28:43 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root In-Reply-To: <410E7D22.70904@ripe.net> References: <410E7D22.70904@ripe.net> Message-ID: <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> On 2-aug-04, at 19:42, Andrei Robachevsky wrote: > K-root server has now IPv6 transport enabled. > k.root-servers.net. AAAA 2001:7fd::1 > A 193.0.14.129 > This information is also available from www.root-servers.org webiste. Since the ARIN micro allocation policy creates some problems, I was curious what kind of address space RIPE uses for k-root. A /32 "macro allocation", it turns out: inet6num: 2001:07FD::/32 netname: K-rootserver-net-20030829 descr: This assignment given to k-root.server.net I believe this ASSIGNment is in violation of existing IPv6 ALLOCATION policies. I would be very interested in learning any information to the contrary. Iljitsch van Beijnum From dr at cluenet.de Thu Feb 24 20:04:20 2005 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:04:20 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root In-Reply-To: <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> References: <410E7D22.70904@ripe.net> <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> Message-ID: <20050224190420.GA30975@srv01.cluenet.de> On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 07:28:43PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > Since the ARIN micro allocation policy creates some problems, I was > curious what kind of address space RIPE uses for k-root. A /32 "macro > allocation", it turns out: > > inet6num: 2001:07FD::/32 > netname: K-rootserver-net-20030829 > descr: This assignment given to k-root.server.net > > I believe this ASSIGNment is in violation of existing IPv6 ALLOCATION > policies. I would be very interested in learning any information to the > contrary. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-rootservers.html "Under this policy, each (current or future) Internet DNS root server (as listed in the root-servers.net zone) in the RIPE region will be assigned a block of IPv6 address space for purposes of root server operations. The size of the block shall be the same as the size of the minimum allocation to Local Internet Registries (LIRs) valid at the time of the root server assignment." An ALLOCATION makes no sense as no assignments would be done. The root server operator IS the end user of the address space. Regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From iljitsch at muada.com Thu Feb 24 20:55:10 2005 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:55:10 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root In-Reply-To: <20050224190420.GA30975@srv01.cluenet.de> References: <410E7D22.70904@ripe.net> <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> <20050224190420.GA30975@srv01.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <07654d4cae5d49d87b554658b46696a1@muada.com> On 24-feb-05, at 20:04, Daniel Roesen wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-rootservers.html > "Under this policy, each (current or future) Internet DNS root server > (as listed in the root-servers.net zone) in the RIPE region will be > assigned a block of IPv6 address space for purposes of root server > operations. The size of the block shall be the same as the size of the > minimum allocation to Local Internet Registries (LIRs) valid at the > time > of the root server assignment." So who authorized this? It looks a lot like the RIPE NCC doesn't have to stick to its own rules when it doesn't feel like it. And it's extremely wasteful to use 2^96 addresses when only 1 is needed. From dr at cluenet.de Thu Feb 24 21:23:23 2005 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:23:23 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root In-Reply-To: <07654d4cae5d49d87b554658b46696a1@muada.com> References: <410E7D22.70904@ripe.net> <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> <20050224190420.GA30975@srv01.cluenet.de> <07654d4cae5d49d87b554658b46696a1@muada.com> Message-ID: <20050224202323.GA31925@srv01.cluenet.de> On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 08:55:10PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > And it's extremely wasteful to use 2^96 addresses when only 1 is needed. That's because of people's lazy and stupid habit of derriving policy from prefix length (exceeding the valid conclusions from the IPv6 architecture documents). I would have preferred the ARIN way of using /48s (end site size). Unfortunately still many people think (or just copied some random filter recommendation) that filtering ANY /48 is a good thing, and don't update filters. Regards, Dan'overly aggressive filtering considered harmful'iel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From iljitsch at muada.com Thu Feb 24 22:09:08 2005 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:09:08 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root In-Reply-To: <20050224202323.GA31925@srv01.cluenet.de> References: <410E7D22.70904@ripe.net> <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> <20050224190420.GA30975@srv01.cluenet.de> <07654d4cae5d49d87b554658b46696a1@muada.com> <20050224202323.GA31925@srv01.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <6b4b4a538e32df2d072537e30c8b090c@muada.com> On 24-feb-05, at 21:23, Daniel Roesen wrote: >> And it's extremely wasteful to use 2^96 addresses when only 1 is >> needed. > That's because of people's lazy and stupid habit of derriving policy > from prefix length In IPv4 it's a reasonable thing to do because enumerating all valid prefixes just isn't feasible. > Unfortunately still many people think (or just > copied some random filter recommendation) that filtering ANY /48 is a > good thing, and don't update filters. Hm, maybe the read http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policies.html and saw: 4.3. Minimum allocation RIRs will apply a minimum size for IPv6 allocations to facilitate prefix-based filtering. The minimum allocation size for IPv6 address space is /32. From gert at space.net Thu Feb 24 22:20:11 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:20:11 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root In-Reply-To: <07654d4cae5d49d87b554658b46696a1@muada.com> References: <410E7D22.70904@ripe.net> <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> <20050224190420.GA30975@srv01.cluenet.de> <07654d4cae5d49d87b554658b46696a1@muada.com> Message-ID: <20050224212011.GX84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 08:55:10PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > So who authorized this? The normal RIPE policy process. People discussed it, and decided it's a useful idea to have a way to get well-known IPv6 addresses to root servers. The resulting document is ripe-233: --------------------- snip --------------------- IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers in the RIPE Region Joao Luis Silva Damas Document ID: ripe-233 Date: 24 May 2002 Abstract This document describes the special case assignment policy for Internet DNS root servers in the RIPE region. --------------------- snip --------------------- The progress that led to this policy is documented in the archives. > It looks a lot like the RIPE NCC doesn't have to stick to its own rules > when it doesn't feel like it. Please try to get your facts straigth *before* making such statements. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From gert at space.net Thu Feb 24 22:26:05 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:26:05 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root In-Reply-To: <20050224190254.GY14099@new.detebe.org> References: <410E7D22.70904@ripe.net> <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> <20050224190254.GY14099@new.detebe.org> Message-ID: <20050224212605.GY84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 08:02:55PM +0100, Elmar K. Bins wrote: > So do I, since I have a ccTLD service to provision with IPv6. As you know, everybody is special, but the *only* thing that cannot be resolved by DNS is the IPv4/IPv6 address of root name servers. There is no special case policy for (unicast) ccTLD name servers, for major search engines, big software vendor download sites, etc. -> find an upstream provider, get an IPv6 address block, and enter that in the relevant DNS zones. Of course the underlying question returns to "how to do IPv6 multihoming for A Special End Site". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From jon at lawrence.org.uk Thu Feb 24 22:27:01 2005 From: jon at lawrence.org.uk (Jon Lawrence) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:27:01 +0000 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root In-Reply-To: <20050224190420.GA30975@srv01.cluenet.de> References: <410E7D22.70904@ripe.net> <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> <20050224190420.GA30975@srv01.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <200502242127.01825.jon@lawrence.org.uk> On Thursday 24 February 2005 19:04, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 07:28:43PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > Since the ARIN micro allocation policy creates some problems, I was > > curious what kind of address space RIPE uses for k-root. A /32 "macro > > allocation", it turns out: > > > > inet6num: 2001:07FD::/32 > > netname: K-rootserver-net-20030829 > > descr: This assignment given to k-root.server.net > > > > I believe this ASSIGNment is in violation of existing IPv6 ALLOCATION > > policies. I would be very interested in learning any information to the > > contrary. > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-rootservers.html > > "Under this policy, each (current or future) Internet DNS root server > (as listed in the root-servers.net zone) in the RIPE region will be > assigned a block of IPv6 address space for purposes of root server > operations. The size of the block shall be the same as the size of the > minimum allocation to Local Internet Registries (LIRs) valid at the time > of the root server assignment." > > An ALLOCATION makes no sense as no assignments would be done. The root > server operator IS the end user of the address space. > Yep, that makes sense. A root server operator would be an end user - can't imagine why they'd need more than a /48 though. It would make sense to me if root servers were assigned directly from RIPE (possibly from a special allocation set as side for the root servers' use). It seems completely pointless to allocate/assign a /32 to a root server. If the root server operator gets an assignment (directly from RIPE) why does it need to be the same size as a normal minimum allocation. Regardless of min allocation size - which ISP isn't going to allow an known root server IP through. If people want to filter then let them, if they don't know what they're doing then that's their look out. Root servers should be allocated/assigned (whatever) from a known block - that way everyone knows not to filter that block. Jon From gert at space.net Thu Feb 24 22:41:07 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:41:07 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root In-Reply-To: <200502242127.01825.jon@lawrence.org.uk> References: <410E7D22.70904@ripe.net> <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> <20050224190420.GA30975@srv01.cluenet.de> <200502242127.01825.jon@lawrence.org.uk> Message-ID: <20050224214107.GC84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 09:27:01PM +0000, Jon Lawrence wrote: > > An ALLOCATION makes no sense as no assignments would be done. The root > > server operator IS the end user of the address space. > > > Yep, that makes sense. A root server operator would be an end user - can't > imagine why they'd need more than a /48 though. They need a /128. But experience has shown that BGP participants *do* filter, and as such, it was decided to go for a /32 in RIPE land. ARIN does /48s. > It would make sense to me if root servers were assigned directly from RIPE > (possibly from a special allocation set as side for the root servers' use). This is the way it is done. > It seems completely pointless to allocate/assign a /32 to a root server. > If the root server operator gets an assignment (directly from RIPE) why does > it need to be the same size as a normal minimum allocation. BGP filters. But hey, so what. There are roughly 4 billion /32s - what do you gain by saving 10 /32s? The number of routing table entries (which are a larger problem than "exhaustion of the available /32s") doesn't change. > Regardless of min allocation size - which ISP isn't going to allow an known > root server IP through. If people want to filter then let them, if they don't > know what they're doing then that's their look out. > > Root servers should be allocated/assigned (whatever) from a known block - that > way everyone knows not to filter that block. At the time the policy was written, people thought that this way would be better. On the subject of root servers, people tend to be conservative. OTOH, no policy that can't be changed if people think otherwise today. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From jon at lawrence.org.uk Thu Feb 24 23:16:36 2005 From: jon at lawrence.org.uk (Jon Lawrence) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:16:36 +0000 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root In-Reply-To: <20050224214107.GC84850@Space.Net> References: <410E7D22.70904@ripe.net> <200502242127.01825.jon@lawrence.org.uk> <20050224214107.GC84850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <200502242216.37107.jon@lawrence.org.uk> On Thursday 24 February 2005 21:41, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > They need a /128. But experience has shown that BGP participants *do* > filter, and as such, it was decided to go for a /32 in RIPE land. ARIN > does /48s. > > > It would make sense to me if root servers were assigned directly from > > RIPE (possibly from a special allocation set as side for the root > > servers' use). > But hey, so what. There are roughly 4 billion /32s - what do you gain > by saving 10 /32s? The number of routing table entries (which are a > larger problem than "exhaustion of the available /32s") doesn't change. Hmm, I can't remember these days :) - but I bet many people said similar things about v4 addresses. OK, not 4 billion but you know what I mean. > > > Regardless of min allocation size - which ISP isn't going to allow an > > known root server IP through. If people want to filter then let them, if > > they don't know what they're doing then that's their look out. > > > > Root servers should be allocated/assigned (whatever) from a known block - > > that way everyone knows not to filter that block. > > At the time the policy was written, people thought that this way would > be better. On the subject of root servers, people tend to be conservative. > > OTOH, no policy that can't be changed if people think otherwise today. Yep, and that's the way it should be. Perhaps it's time to revist this policy. At the end of the day, who should be hitting the roots ? - those people should have more than enough clue to filter correctly. Perhaps it's time we stopped trying to make up for operators' shortcomings and let them be responsible for their own decisions. Jon From elmi at 4ever.de Thu Feb 24 20:02:55 2005 From: elmi at 4ever.de (Elmar K. Bins) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:02:55 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root In-Reply-To: <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> References: <410E7D22.70904@ripe.net> <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> Message-ID: <20050224190254.GY14099@new.detebe.org> iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) wrote: > >This information is also available from www.root-servers.org webiste. > > Since the ARIN micro allocation policy creates some problems, I was > curious what kind of address space RIPE uses for k-root. A /32 "macro > allocation", it turns out: > > inet6num: 2001:07FD::/32 > netname: K-rootserver-net-20030829 > descr: This assignment given to k-root.server.net > > I believe this ASSIGNment is in violation of existing IPv6 ALLOCATION > policies. I would be very interested in learning any information to the > contrary. So do I, since I have a ccTLD service to provision with IPv6. Elmar. (And yes, ARIN sent me to RIPE, and they sent me home...) -- "Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren." (PLemken, ) --------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]--- From dr at cluenet.de Thu Feb 24 20:04:20 2005 From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:04:20 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root In-Reply-To: <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> References: <410E7D22.70904@ripe.net> <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> Message-ID: <20050224190420.GA30975@srv01.cluenet.de> On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 07:28:43PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > Since the ARIN micro allocation policy creates some problems, I was > curious what kind of address space RIPE uses for k-root. A /32 "macro > allocation", it turns out: > > inet6num: 2001:07FD::/32 > netname: K-rootserver-net-20030829 > descr: This assignment given to k-root.server.net > > I believe this ASSIGNment is in violation of existing IPv6 ALLOCATION > policies. I would be very interested in learning any information to the > contrary. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-rootservers.html "Under this policy, each (current or future) Internet DNS root server (as listed in the root-servers.net zone) in the RIPE region will be assigned a block of IPv6 address space for purposes of root server operations. The size of the block shall be the same as the size of the minimum allocation to Local Internet Registries (LIRs) valid at the time of the root server assignment." An ALLOCATION makes no sense as no assignments would be done. The root server operator IS the end user of the address space. Regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 From iljitsch at muada.com Thu Feb 24 20:55:10 2005 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:55:10 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root In-Reply-To: <20050224190420.GA30975@srv01.cluenet.de> References: <410E7D22.70904@ripe.net> <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> <20050224190420.GA30975@srv01.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <07654d4cae5d49d87b554658b46696a1@muada.com> On 24-feb-05, at 20:04, Daniel Roesen wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-rootservers.html > "Under this policy, each (current or future) Internet DNS root server > (as listed in the root-servers.net zone) in the RIPE region will be > assigned a block of IPv6 address space for purposes of root server > operations. The size of the block shall be the same as the size of the > minimum allocation to Local Internet Registries (LIRs) valid at the > time > of the root server assignment." So who authorized this? It looks a lot like the RIPE NCC doesn't have to stick to its own rules when it doesn't feel like it. And it's extremely wasteful to use 2^96 addresses when only 1 is needed. From iljitsch at muada.com Thu Feb 24 22:09:08 2005 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:09:08 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root In-Reply-To: <20050224202323.GA31925@srv01.cluenet.de> References: <410E7D22.70904@ripe.net> <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> <20050224190420.GA30975@srv01.cluenet.de> <07654d4cae5d49d87b554658b46696a1@muada.com> <20050224202323.GA31925@srv01.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <6b4b4a538e32df2d072537e30c8b090c@muada.com> On 24-feb-05, at 21:23, Daniel Roesen wrote: >> And it's extremely wasteful to use 2^96 addresses when only 1 is >> needed. > That's because of people's lazy and stupid habit of derriving policy > from prefix length In IPv4 it's a reasonable thing to do because enumerating all valid prefixes just isn't feasible. > Unfortunately still many people think (or just > copied some random filter recommendation) that filtering ANY /48 is a > good thing, and don't update filters. Hm, maybe the read http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policies.html and saw: 4.3. Minimum allocation RIRs will apply a minimum size for IPv6 allocations to facilitate prefix-based filtering. The minimum allocation size for IPv6 address space is /32. From gert at space.net Thu Feb 24 22:20:11 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:20:11 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root In-Reply-To: <07654d4cae5d49d87b554658b46696a1@muada.com> References: <410E7D22.70904@ripe.net> <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> <20050224190420.GA30975@srv01.cluenet.de> <07654d4cae5d49d87b554658b46696a1@muada.com> Message-ID: <20050224212011.GX84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 08:55:10PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > So who authorized this? The normal RIPE policy process. People discussed it, and decided it's a useful idea to have a way to get well-known IPv6 addresses to root servers. The resulting document is ripe-233: --------------------- snip --------------------- IPv6 Addresses for Internet Root Servers in the RIPE Region Joao Luis Silva Damas Document ID: ripe-233 Date: 24 May 2002 Abstract This document describes the special case assignment policy for Internet DNS root servers in the RIPE region. --------------------- snip --------------------- The progress that led to this policy is documented in the archives. > It looks a lot like the RIPE NCC doesn't have to stick to its own rules > when it doesn't feel like it. Please try to get your facts straigth *before* making such statements. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From gert at space.net Thu Feb 24 22:26:05 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:26:05 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root In-Reply-To: <20050224190254.GY14099@new.detebe.org> References: <410E7D22.70904@ripe.net> <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> <20050224190254.GY14099@new.detebe.org> Message-ID: <20050224212605.GY84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 08:02:55PM +0100, Elmar K. Bins wrote: > So do I, since I have a ccTLD service to provision with IPv6. As you know, everybody is special, but the *only* thing that cannot be resolved by DNS is the IPv4/IPv6 address of root name servers. There is no special case policy for (unicast) ccTLD name servers, for major search engines, big software vendor download sites, etc. -> find an upstream provider, get an IPv6 address block, and enter that in the relevant DNS zones. Of course the underlying question returns to "how to do IPv6 multihoming for A Special End Site". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From jon at lawrence.org.uk Thu Feb 24 22:27:01 2005 From: jon at lawrence.org.uk (Jon Lawrence) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:27:01 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root In-Reply-To: <20050224190420.GA30975@srv01.cluenet.de> References: <410E7D22.70904@ripe.net> <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> <20050224190420.GA30975@srv01.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <200502242127.01825.jon@lawrence.org.uk> On Thursday 24 February 2005 19:04, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 07:28:43PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > Since the ARIN micro allocation policy creates some problems, I was > > curious what kind of address space RIPE uses for k-root. A /32 "macro > > allocation", it turns out: > > > > inet6num: 2001:07FD::/32 > > netname: K-rootserver-net-20030829 > > descr: This assignment given to k-root.server.net > > > > I believe this ASSIGNment is in violation of existing IPv6 ALLOCATION > > policies. I would be very interested in learning any information to the > > contrary. > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-rootservers.html > > "Under this policy, each (current or future) Internet DNS root server > (as listed in the root-servers.net zone) in the RIPE region will be > assigned a block of IPv6 address space for purposes of root server > operations. The size of the block shall be the same as the size of the > minimum allocation to Local Internet Registries (LIRs) valid at the time > of the root server assignment." > > An ALLOCATION makes no sense as no assignments would be done. The root > server operator IS the end user of the address space. > Yep, that makes sense. A root server operator would be an end user - can't imagine why they'd need more than a /48 though. It would make sense to me if root servers were assigned directly from RIPE (possibly from a special allocation set as side for the root servers' use). It seems completely pointless to allocate/assign a /32 to a root server. If the root server operator gets an assignment (directly from RIPE) why does it need to be the same size as a normal minimum allocation. Regardless of min allocation size - which ISP isn't going to allow an known root server IP through. If people want to filter then let them, if they don't know what they're doing then that's their look out. Root servers should be allocated/assigned (whatever) from a known block - that way everyone knows not to filter that block. Jon From gert at space.net Thu Feb 24 22:41:07 2005 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:41:07 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root In-Reply-To: <200502242127.01825.jon@lawrence.org.uk> References: <410E7D22.70904@ripe.net> <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> <20050224190420.GA30975@srv01.cluenet.de> <200502242127.01825.jon@lawrence.org.uk> Message-ID: <20050224214107.GC84850@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 09:27:01PM +0000, Jon Lawrence wrote: > > An ALLOCATION makes no sense as no assignments would be done. The root > > server operator IS the end user of the address space. > > > Yep, that makes sense. A root server operator would be an end user - can't > imagine why they'd need more than a /48 though. They need a /128. But experience has shown that BGP participants *do* filter, and as such, it was decided to go for a /32 in RIPE land. ARIN does /48s. > It would make sense to me if root servers were assigned directly from RIPE > (possibly from a special allocation set as side for the root servers' use). This is the way it is done. > It seems completely pointless to allocate/assign a /32 to a root server. > If the root server operator gets an assignment (directly from RIPE) why does > it need to be the same size as a normal minimum allocation. BGP filters. But hey, so what. There are roughly 4 billion /32s - what do you gain by saving 10 /32s? The number of routing table entries (which are a larger problem than "exhaustion of the available /32s") doesn't change. > Regardless of min allocation size - which ISP isn't going to allow an known > root server IP through. If people want to filter then let them, if they don't > know what they're doing then that's their look out. > > Root servers should be allocated/assigned (whatever) from a known block - that > way everyone knows not to filter that block. At the time the policy was written, people thought that this way would be better. On the subject of root servers, people tend to be conservative. OTOH, no policy that can't be changed if people think otherwise today. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234 From rogerj at jorgensen.no Thu Feb 24 22:42:44 2005 From: rogerj at jorgensen.no (Roger Jorgensen) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:42:44 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root In-Reply-To: <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> References: <410E7D22.70904@ripe.net> <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> Message-ID: sorry for replying to this to all of the mailinglist. On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > inet6num: 2001:07FD::/32 > netname: K-rootserver-net-20030829 > descr: This assignment given to k-root.server.net > > I believe this ASSIGNment is in violation of existing IPv6 ALLOCATION > policies. I would be very interested in learning any information to the > contrary. This is pointless discussion, only point of it would maybe be to making it clear that the VERY few DNS _root-servers_ there are out there, are the ONLY thing important enough to get it's own /32. -- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | rogerj at stud.cs.uit.no | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no ------------------------------------------------------- From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Sat Feb 26 20:19:48 2005 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:19:48 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] New Document available: RIPE-343 In-Reply-To: <20050223123552.GC3098@swanage.no-ip.com> References: <200502221206.j1MC69et008690@birch.ripe.net> <16924.13384.108052.348961@roam.psg.com> <20050223123552.GC3098@swanage.no-ip.com> Message-ID: <61521CD6-882B-11D9-AC0B-000A95928574@kurtis.pp.se> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 23, 2005, at 13:35, David Corking wrote: > 2) Why is IANA not a co-author - only the RIRs? Why would they be? The IANA does not decide on policy AFAIK. Actually they implement the policy that is defined for them in RFC an alike. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQiDL1qarNKXTPFCVEQL5PACg3UrktYrSokbOykp1A02VVdX2tI4AoKti Ir/u/hceAPWsdHxFLNcpLWxY =Aqz8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Sun Feb 27 20:27:41 2005 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:27:41 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] RV:Call for Papers - Next Global IPv6 Summit in Spain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi all, Several people requested an extension of the deadline for the submission of the short abstracts for their presentations. So we decided to extend the deadline until midnight of March 4th. Please make sure to not miss it this time. We only require a title for your presentation and 3-4 lines short abstract. The final agenda will be announced at the end of the following week. Regards, Jordi Hi all, As indicated in the email below, the next Global IPv6 Summit in Spain, the bigger IPv6 European event, in its 4th edition (after a very successful organization and broad international attendance in 2001, 2002 and 2003), will be organized this time in Barcelona, next June 2005, with a expected audience over 2.600 key decisions makers from ICT sectors. The main target of the event is business oriented talks, as well as talks oriented to policy makers, information/knowledge society, education and public sectors. This Call for Papers doesn't require that you submit a complete paper (which is welcome also), but instead, a short plain text abstract of your presentation topic, by email. Talks regarding deployment experiences, new services and applications will be of key interest for the expected attendance, and hence highly encouraged. We believe that key topics will be also those regarding: 1) IPv6 and business 2) IPv6 and Broadband 3) New IPv6-based services and applications 4) IPv6 and the Digital Home 5) IPv6 and Multimedia, Voice/Video applications 6) IPv6, Mobility, Wireless and 3G 7) IPv6 and Ambient Intelligence/Ubiquitous Computing/Distributed Systems 8) IPv6 and GRIDs 9) IPv6 and logistics, transport and eSafety 10) IPv6 for eHealth, eGoverment, eLearning and other "e-whatever" 11) IPv6 and gamming 12) IPv6 and peer-to-peer 13) IPv6 and security 14) IPv6 and Open Source 15) IPv6 and marketing/branding Also topics regarding Standards, Research, Development and Innovation experiences are welcome, including R&D projects results. The Agenda will be drafted early in March, so the dead-line for submitting your topic is only until 25th February, but as said only a short abstract is required. If you're interested in participating, or you have any special idea, even if your topic is not in the list above, please don't hesitate to contact me (jordi.palet at consulintel.es) ASAP, so we can work out any options. Regards, Jordi PS: Please, feel free to circulate this email among your contacts. ------ Mensaje reenviado De: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Responder a: Fecha: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:25:42 +0100 Para: "members at ipv6forum.com" , Asunto: Next Global IPv6 Summit in Spain Hi all, As I already informed a few weeks ago, the next Global IPv6 Summit in Spain will be held this time in Barcelona next June (instead of Madrid in March as previously forecasted). This will happen starting on June 6th, with a tutorial in the morning, the opening ceremony in the afternoon, with some keynotes and then 2-3 days of IPv6 conference, depending on the success of the call for papers. If required we can extend our event up to Friday 10th (total 4 days, plus opening ceremony, plus half day tutorial). In this occasion, we will try a completely new model, integrating the IPv6 conference in a bigger event, more business oriented, even when technical sessions will be still present. The "umbrella" event is Internet Global Congress (IGC), with has been organized in Barcelona already during the 6 previous years. The Internet Global Congress, the leading Internet and New Technologies congress in Spain, is organized by the Fundaci? Barcelona Digital, a non-profit organization, which also provides space for exhibition and delivers the IGC awards for Digital Innovation (aimed to students and professionals with embryonic Internet projects, aims to be a launch platform for all those people involved in research and innovation in the field of Internet and the New Technologies). IGC provides us all the infrastructure for organizing the Global IPv6 Summit track, and we only need to manage our own agenda, and consequently our own call for papers (see next email). They also they care about all the issues related to registration, proceedings and publicity, at no cost for us. We expect that this will be the bigger IPv6 event in Europe during 2005, with an expected attendance over 2.600 people, which of course, will be able to attend not just to the IPv6 track but also to other IT tracks (already depicted at http://www.igcweb.net, then click at Program). The attendance is mainly CTOs, CEOs and other key decision makers related to ICT, so its a very nice opportunity for IPv6 in Europe to meet a large audience which probably has not been in touch with IPv6 until now. I count with the support from all of you, and please do not hesitate to let me know any ideas that you may have to make an even more successful event that what for sure we will have in a so nice city as Barcelona. More information will be soon available at http://www.ipv6-es.com and http://www.igcweb.net. Regards, Jordi ------ Fin del mensaje reenviado ************************************ Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Call for Papers and information available 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 randy at psg.com Mon Feb 28 02:39:25 2005 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:39:25 +0900 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 access to K-root References: <410E7D22.70904@ripe.net> <9bba11348129f99d6a700921cc6e89c1@muada.com> Message-ID: <16930.30285.167273.801898@roam.psg.com> > This is pointless discussion, only point of it would maybe be to making it > clear that the VERY few DNS _root-servers_ there are out there, are the > ONLY thing important enough to get it's own /32. it's not their importance which is important :-) it is that you can't use the dns to get their ip addresses from their names. for ALL other services, you can use the dns. randy