From david.kessens at nokia.com Thu Apr 6 08:40:03 2006 From: david.kessens at nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 23:40:03 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Call for agenda topics & draft agenda (v1) for ipv6 wg RIPE52 Message-ID: <20060406064003.GA22906@nokia.com> During next RIPE meeting, our working group is scheduled to meet: Thu Apr 27, 17:00-18:00, room Dolmabahce I have prepared a draft agenda with all our standard items. However, the meeting will only be a success if we get a lot of active participation from all our participants. To achieve this goal, I would like to invite everybody to bring up their own topics on the list, or directly to me. Topics should be relevant to the operational issues regarding ipv6 deployment. Note that we don't require you to bring powerpoint slides or whatever, neither does a topic need to be of a particular predefined length. We are more interested in the content of the topic! Obviously, you are also very welcome to volunteer somebody else than yourself to give a presentation and to lead a discussion on a topic that is of interest for our working group. Thanks! David Kessens --- Draft Agenda (v1) for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE52 When: Thu Apr 27 2006, 17:00-18:00 Where: Room Dolmabahce, Ceylan Intercontinental Hotel, Istanbul Turkey A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing - approval of the minutes (David Kessens) B. Quick update from the RIPE NCC regarding ipv6 services (RIPE NCC) C. Global IPv6 routing table status (discussion) (Gert Doering) 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. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience) Y. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan (input from the audience) Z. AOB --- From andrei at ripe.net Thu Apr 13 17:49:24 2006 From: andrei at ripe.net (Andrei Robachevsky) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:49:24 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Problems with ipv6 router Message-ID: <443E7304.7000906@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, [We are sorry for any duplicate mails you might receive] This afternoon we experienced a problem with our IPv6 router. Problems started at 13:50, and we are still facing problem. None of our IPv4 services are affected, as these are dealt with by other routers. Affected services, which we offer on IPv6 are: - FTP: ftp.ripe.net - WWW: www.ripe.net - DNS: ns*.ripe.net - Whois: whois.ripe.net We suspect that an interfacecard of our dedicated IPv6 router is faulty, and at the moment an engineer is working on it. The long term solution is that we will replace this router. We apologise for any disruption or delay this may have caused. If you have any further questions about this matter, please send an e-mail to ops at ripe.net. Kind regards Andrei Robachevsky CTO, RIPE NCC From briddle at ripe.net Thu Apr 13 20:22:03 2006 From: briddle at ripe.net (briddle at ripe.net) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:22:03 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Problems with ipv6 router In-Reply-To: <443E7304.7000906@ripe.net> References: <443E7304.7000906@ripe.net> Message-ID: <443E96CB.1040101@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, With reference to the email from Andrei Robachevsky below the affected services are now up again. The uptime was 20:00. The outage was caused by a router hardware failure. We apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused. Regards, Brian Riddle. IT Manager, RIPE NCC Andrei Robachevsky wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > [We are sorry for any duplicate mails you might receive] > > This afternoon we experienced a problem with our IPv6 router. Problems > started at 13:50, and we are still facing problem. > > None of our IPv4 services are affected, as these are dealt with by other > routers. > > Affected services, which we offer on IPv6 are: > - FTP: ftp.ripe.net > - WWW: www.ripe.net > - DNS: ns*.ripe.net > - Whois: whois.ripe.net > > We suspect that an interfacecard of our dedicated IPv6 router is faulty, > and at the moment an engineer is working on it. > > The long term solution is that we will replace this router. > > We apologise for any disruption or delay this may have caused. If you > have any further questions about this matter, please send an e-mail to > ops at ripe.net. > > > Kind regards > > Andrei Robachevsky > CTO, RIPE NCC From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Fri Apr 14 14:08:05 2006 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:08:05 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [ppml] PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi all, My first idea was submitting a PI IPv6 policy proposal next Monday to RIPE and the rest of the regions, trying to get a consensus for a "global" policy on this, but as this thread is being followed up in several mail exploders, to avoid a long cross-posting, I think it will be better to start some discussion already in a mailing list which is global, and actually I think we have the right one ... global-v6 at lists.apnic.net So, if you aren't subscribed in the global-v6 at lists.apnic.net, and you're interested in this thread, please subscribe at http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 If you're late because the Eastern, the archives are also available at http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/global-v6/ Regards, Jordi > De: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > Responder a: > Fecha: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:39:07 +0200 > Para: "v6ops at ops.ietf.org" , "ppml at arin.net" > , "shim6 at psg.com" > Conversaci?n: [ppml] PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN > Asunto: Re: [ppml] PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN > > Hi Owen, > > You said it: If somebody find the good solution, it will be attractive to > the people to go for it. Otherwise, you always have the chance to become an > LIR. My proposal actually is already considering this point and a way to > avoid a need for renumbering if that happens. > > I just want to make sure that we have a way-out if it becomes necessary, but > avoid a showstopper now. I think is it possible. > > I don't have a technical solution yet (and agree with your views on this in > the email below in general), but I'm confident we will have. If it will take > 4 years from now, or just 2, who knows, so my proposal is ensuring that we > have those 4 years+3 for allowing the people either to return the block, or > become an LIR and avoid renumbering an any changes in their network. > > By the way, it may happen, and I'm hoping so, that the technical solution > don't make necessary to return the PI block anymore, and in that case, we > will be even able to remove at that time the "temporarily" point in the > policy (if it becomes accepted). > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > >> De: Owen DeLong >> Responder a: >> Fecha: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 03:48:34 -0700 >> Para: , "v6ops at ops.ietf.org" >> , >> "ppml at arin.net" , "shim6 at psg.com" >> Asunto: Re: [ppml] PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN >> >> >> >> --On April 14, 2006 12:20:06 PM +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ >> wrote: >> >> [snip] >>> However, I want to balance this with the medium-long term implications >>> created in the routing table and with the time needed to build and deploy >>> a better technical solution (or several) which is accepted by the >>> community. >>> >> I think we first need to define what we consider a solution... See below. >> >>> So my proposal basically is about having PI now everywhere (once ARIN >>> adopt it, is unfair not having it in other regions), but those PI >>> allocations for multihoming should be temporary and those address blocks >>> returned to the RIRs some time (lets say 3 years) after the new technical >>> solution is declared as a valid one. >>> >> I would not actually support this idea. The whole point of having PI >> space is to have the addresses for a long-term. Having a timeframe for >> return would simply restore the same barrier to entry that existed >> prior to passing the policy. >> >> Other RIRs are free to implement whatever v6 PI policy they feel is >> appropriate for their region. I would support a globally standardized >> v6 PI policy along the lines of ARIN 2005-1. >> >> However, I would like to argue that if the new technical solution will >> benefit from the return of this address space, it is most likely not >> truly a solution, but, instead, another clever hack piled on top of >> the existing set of hacks. >> >> I suppose if someone found the magic bullet to make geotopological >> addressing really work, that might qualify. However, I have very low >> expectations in that area. >> >> Absent that, any true solution will involve making the size of the routing >> table independent of the number of PI (or even PA) blocks issued by >> the RIRs or will make the size of the routing table practically >> irrelevant. >> >> I know this isn't the easy solution, but, we need to look long and >> hard at the way we do things. I think that solving these problems >> is going to require a significant paradigm shift. Assuming that we >> can use IP addresses for both end system identification and for >> routing topology indicators is how we created this problem. I don't >> see solving it without breaking that assumption, at least at the >> interdomain level. >> >> >>> At this way, on the long-run, we will not have routing table implications, >>> but we allow now the people that want to move ahead only if they have a >>> multihoming solution doing so. >>> >> If you think there is a possible solution (a real solution, not just >> a hack that postpones the inevitable at the expense of usability >> like CIDR did), then I'd like to hear what you are thinking. >> >>> This 3-years time for getting a multihoming network back to the new >>> technical solution (once adopted) is enough time, I think (it could be >>> changed to 5 years if needed, or whatever), so nobody today see the >>> temporarily of the proposal as a showstopper to go for it now. >>> >> I think you underestimate the momentum and requirements of the modern >> enterprise if you believe that to be true. Any capability available >> in v4 that is not available on at least equal or better terms in v6 >> is a deterrent to v6 deployment. >> >> The ability to get permanent addresses which do not have to be returned >> when you switch providers or renumbered on a schedule determined by >> some external organization is a major example of such a capability. >> >> Owen >> >> >> -- >> If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. > > > > > ********************************************** > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org > > Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit > Slides 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. > > > > > > > ********************************************** > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org > > Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit > Slides 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. > > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides 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 jordi.palet at consulintel.es Sat Apr 15 00:53:02 2006 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 00:53:02 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Call for agenda topics & draft agenda (v1) for ipv6 wg RIPE52 In-Reply-To: <20060406064003.GA22906@nokia.com> Message-ID: Hi David, I can make two short presentations. One related to a new project related to IPv6 and mobility (ENABLE), and another one related to activities and deployment of IPv6 in LACNIC and AfriNIC regions. Can make in 10 minutes each one. Regards, Jordi > De: David Kessens > Responder a: "ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net" > Fecha: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 23:40:03 -0700 > Para: > Asunto: [ipv6-wg] Call for agenda topics & draft agenda (v1) for ipv6 wg > RIPE52 > > > During next RIPE meeting, our working group is scheduled to meet: > > Thu Apr 27, 17:00-18:00, room Dolmabahce > > I have prepared a draft agenda with all our standard items. However, > the meeting will only be a success if we get a lot of active > participation from all our participants. To achieve this goal, I would > like to invite everybody to bring up their own topics on the list, or > directly to me. Topics should be relevant to the operational issues > regarding ipv6 deployment. Note that we don't require you to bring > powerpoint slides or whatever, neither does a topic need to be of a > particular predefined length. We are more interested in the content of > the topic! Obviously, you are also very welcome to volunteer somebody > else than yourself to give a presentation and to lead a discussion on a > topic that is of interest for our working group. > > Thanks! > > David Kessens > --- > > Draft Agenda (v1) for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE52 > > When: Thu Apr 27 2006, 17:00-18:00 > Where: Room Dolmabahce, Ceylan Intercontinental Hotel, Istanbul Turkey > > A. Administrative stuff > - appointment of scribe > - agenda bashing > - approval of the minutes > (David Kessens) > > B. Quick update from the RIPE NCC regarding ipv6 services > (RIPE NCC) > > C. Global IPv6 routing table status (discussion) > (Gert Doering) > > 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. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond > (input from the audience) > > Y. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan > (input from the audience) > > Z. AOB > --- > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides 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 parridox at msn.com Mon Apr 17 22:01:40 2006 From: parridox at msn.com (brian forgrave) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:01:40 -0300 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Thank you -->- Request information: black fiber ! Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hph at oslo.net Tue Apr 18 23:42:40 2006 From: hph at oslo.net (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:42:40 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [ppml] PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44455D50.5080703@oslo.net> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Hi all, > > My first idea was submitting a PI IPv6 policy proposal next Monday to RIPE > and the rest of the regions, trying to get a consensus for a "global" policy > on this, As as slight formality: I would strongly advice against using the term Global Policy in any other meaning than the definition set forth in the ASO MoU: http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/aso-mou2004.html Global policies are defined within the scope of this agreement as Internet number resource policies that have the agreement of all RIRs according to their policy development processes and ICANN, and require specific actions or outcomes on the part of IANA or any other external ICANN-related body in order to be implemented. Global policies will be developed in the context of this agreement, according to the processes defined by attachment A to this MoU. Under this agreement the ICANN Board will ratify proposed global policies in accordance with the Global Policy Development Process, using review procedures as determined by ICANN. ICANN will publish these procedures no later than ninety (90) days from the date of the signature of this agreement by all parties. Hans Petter Holen Address Policy WG chair / ICANN Address Council Member. > but as this thread is being followed up in several mail exploders, > to avoid a long cross-posting, I think it will be better to start some > discussion already in a mailing list which is global, and actually I think > we have the right one ... global-v6 at lists.apnic.net > > So, if you aren't subscribed in the global-v6 at lists.apnic.net, and you're > interested in this thread, please subscribe at > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6 > > If you're late because the Eastern, the archives are also available at > http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/global-v6/ > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > > >> De: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ >> Responder a: >> Fecha: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:39:07 +0200 >> Para: "v6ops at ops.ietf.org" , "ppml at arin.net" >> , "shim6 at psg.com" >> Conversaci?n: [ppml] PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN >> Asunto: Re: [ppml] PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN >> >> Hi Owen, >> >> You said it: If somebody find the good solution, it will be attractive to >> the people to go for it. Otherwise, you always have the chance to become an >> LIR. My proposal actually is already considering this point and a way to >> avoid a need for renumbering if that happens. >> >> I just want to make sure that we have a way-out if it becomes necessary, but >> avoid a showstopper now. I think is it possible. >> >> I don't have a technical solution yet (and agree with your views on this in >> the email below in general), but I'm confident we will have. If it will take >> 4 years from now, or just 2, who knows, so my proposal is ensuring that we >> have those 4 years+3 for allowing the people either to return the block, or >> become an LIR and avoid renumbering an any changes in their network. >> >> By the way, it may happen, and I'm hoping so, that the technical solution >> don't make necessary to return the PI block anymore, and in that case, we >> will be even able to remove at that time the "temporarily" point in the >> policy (if it becomes accepted). >> >> Regards, >> Jordi >> >> >> >> >> >>> De: Owen DeLong >>> Responder a: >>> Fecha: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 03:48:34 -0700 >>> Para: , "v6ops at ops.ietf.org" >>> , >>> "ppml at arin.net" , "shim6 at psg.com" >>> Asunto: Re: [ppml] PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN >>> >>> >>> >>> --On April 14, 2006 12:20:06 PM +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ >>> wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> However, I want to balance this with the medium-long term implications >>>> created in the routing table and with the time needed to build and deploy >>>> a better technical solution (or several) which is accepted by the >>>> community. >>>> >>>> >>> I think we first need to define what we consider a solution... See below. >>> >>> >>>> So my proposal basically is about having PI now everywhere (once ARIN >>>> adopt it, is unfair not having it in other regions), but those PI >>>> allocations for multihoming should be temporary and those address blocks >>>> returned to the RIRs some time (lets say 3 years) after the new technical >>>> solution is declared as a valid one. >>>> >>>> >>> I would not actually support this idea. The whole point of having PI >>> space is to have the addresses for a long-term. Having a timeframe for >>> return would simply restore the same barrier to entry that existed >>> prior to passing the policy. >>> >>> Other RIRs are free to implement whatever v6 PI policy they feel is >>> appropriate for their region. I would support a globally standardized >>> v6 PI policy along the lines of ARIN 2005-1. >>> >>> However, I would like to argue that if the new technical solution will >>> benefit from the return of this address space, it is most likely not >>> truly a solution, but, instead, another clever hack piled on top of >>> the existing set of hacks. >>> >>> I suppose if someone found the magic bullet to make geotopological >>> addressing really work, that might qualify. However, I have very low >>> expectations in that area. >>> >>> Absent that, any true solution will involve making the size of the routing >>> table independent of the number of PI (or even PA) blocks issued by >>> the RIRs or will make the size of the routing table practically >>> irrelevant. >>> >>> I know this isn't the easy solution, but, we need to look long and >>> hard at the way we do things. I think that solving these problems >>> is going to require a significant paradigm shift. Assuming that we >>> can use IP addresses for both end system identification and for >>> routing topology indicators is how we created this problem. I don't >>> see solving it without breaking that assumption, at least at the >>> interdomain level. >>> >>> >>> >>>> At this way, on the long-run, we will not have routing table implications, >>>> but we allow now the people that want to move ahead only if they have a >>>> multihoming solution doing so. >>>> >>>> >>> If you think there is a possible solution (a real solution, not just >>> a hack that postpones the inevitable at the expense of usability >>> like CIDR did), then I'd like to hear what you are thinking. >>> >>> >>>> This 3-years time for getting a multihoming network back to the new >>>> technical solution (once adopted) is enough time, I think (it could be >>>> changed to 5 years if needed, or whatever), so nobody today see the >>>> temporarily of the proposal as a showstopper to go for it now. >>>> >>>> >>> I think you underestimate the momentum and requirements of the modern >>> enterprise if you believe that to be true. Any capability available >>> in v4 that is not available on at least equal or better terms in v6 >>> is a deterrent to v6 deployment. >>> >>> The ability to get permanent addresses which do not have to be returned >>> when you switch providers or renumbered on a schedule determined by >>> some external organization is a major example of such a capability. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> -- >>> If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. >>> >> >> >> ********************************************** >> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org >> >> Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit >> Slides 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ********************************************** >> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org >> >> Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit >> Slides 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. >> >> >> > > > > > ********************************************** > The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org > > Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit > Slides 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 jeroen at unfix.org Wed Apr 19 09:28:30 2006 From: jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:28:30 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] The Pope gets IPv6 PA space (not PI :) Message-ID: <1145431710.17463.2.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> inet6num: 2a01:b8::/32 netname: VA-VATICAN-20060418 descr: Holy See - Vatican City State country: VA So now that IPv6 is officially blessed go deploy it :) Greets, Jeroen Reply-To explicitly set to myself so that people don't reply to this silly post to all the lists... override to the one you like if you want -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 313 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From david.kessens at nokia.com Thu Apr 20 05:47:09 2006 From: david.kessens at nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 20:47:09 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Call for agenda topics & draft agenda (v1) for ipv6 wg RIPE52 In-Reply-To: References: <20060406064003.GA22906@nokia.com> Message-ID: <20060420034709.GA14472@nokia.com> Jordi, On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 12:53:02AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > > I can make two short presentations. One related to a new project related to > IPv6 and mobility (ENABLE), and another one related to activities and > deployment of IPv6 in LACNIC and AfriNIC regions. Can make in 10 minutes > each one. Do you believe that there is actual operational content in your presentations, or is it more marketing for various project? We already have an agenda item for brief announcements of various european ipv6 activities where you can do a 30 second announcement with an url for people who are interested in more details. David Kessens --- From webmaster at ripe.net Thu Apr 20 13:40:54 2006 From: webmaster at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:40:54 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] New Document available: RIPE-376 Message-ID: <20060420114054.710CB2F5BD@herring.ripe.net> <<< our apologies for duplicate e-mails >>> New RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A new document is available from the RIPE document store. Ref: ripe-376 Title: Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries Author: AfriNIC APNIC ARIN LACNIC RIPE NCC Date: 19 April 2006 Format: PDF=10551 TXT=4280 Obsoletes: Obsoleted by: Updates: Updated by: Short content description ------------------------- This document describes the policy governing the allocation of IPv6 address space from the IANA to the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). This document does not stipulate performance requirements in the provision of services by IANA to an RIR in accordance with this policy. Such requirements will be specified by appropriate agreements between ICANN and the NRO. 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/ripe/docs/ripe-376.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-376.pdf PDF version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-376.txt plain text version Kind Regards, Jeroen Bet RIPE NCC Content Webmaster From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Sun Apr 23 09:13:51 2006 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 10:13:51 +0300 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Call for agenda topics & draft agenda (v1) for ipv6 wg RIPE52 In-Reply-To: <20060420034709.GA14472@nokia.com> Message-ID: Hi David, I will not call it marketing, but definitively there is no operational content, so I can live with a short message and the URL. Regards, Jordi > De: David Kessens > Responder a: "ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net" > Fecha: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 20:47:09 -0700 > Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > CC: > Asunto: Re: [ipv6-wg] Call for agenda topics & draft agenda (v1) for ipv6 wg > RIPE52 > > > Jordi, > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 12:53:02AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >> >> I can make two short presentations. One related to a new project related to >> IPv6 and mobility (ENABLE), and another one related to activities and >> deployment of IPv6 in LACNIC and AfriNIC regions. Can make in 10 minutes >> each one. > > Do you believe that there is actual operational content in your > presentations, or is it more marketing for various project? > > We already have an agenda item for brief announcements of various > european ipv6 activities where you can do a 30 second announcement with > an url for people who are interested in more details. > > David Kessens > --- > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Slides 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 david.kessens at nokia.com Thu Apr 27 14:19:08 2006 From: david.kessens at nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 05:19:08 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE52 Message-ID: <20060427121908.GA446@nokia.com> Please see below for the final version of the agenda for the ipv6 working group session at RIPE 52. Thanks! David Kessens --- Agenda for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE52 When: Thu Apr 27 2006, 17:00-18:00 Where: Room Dolmabahce, Ceylan Intercontinental Hotel, Istanbul Turkey A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing - Action items: 51.1 - Ask the RIPE NCC to revise the acronym list in the registration package to remove obsolete terms as TLA & NLA. (David Kessens) Status: Completed 51.2 - Create a link from the IPv6 WG page to the APNIC events page: http://apnic.net/info/calendar/index.html (RIPE NCC) Status: To be done 51.3 - Provide traffic reports on ipv6 usage during the RIPE meetings. If available, data from earlier meetings will be made available as well. (RIPE NCC) Status: Completed (David Kessens) B. Quick update from the RIPE NCC regarding ipv6 services (James Aldridge) C. Report(s) about *actual* v6 traffic volume as compared to v4? *what's real* out there, not what's on powerpoint? - ipv6 traffic during the RIPE meetings (James Aldridge) - ... D. Global IPv6 routing table status (discussion) (Gert Doering) E. ip6.int deprecation (Andrei Robachevsky) F. 6bone adresses about to expire (discussion) G. IPv6 allocation policies, anything we need to do ? (Input from the audience) H. Future of the working group (David Kessens) I. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience, Jordi Palet Martinez) Y. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan (input from the audience) Z. AOB --- From fw at deneb.enyo.de Sun Apr 30 15:20:24 2006 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 15:20:24 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] The Pope gets IPv6 PA space (not PI :) In-Reply-To: <1145431710.17463.2.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> (Jeroen Massar's message of "Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:28:30 +0200") References: <1145431710.17463.2.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: <87zmi3kxnr.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> * Jeroen Massar: > inet6num: 2a01:b8::/32 > netname: VA-VATICAN-20060418 > descr: Holy See - Vatican City State > country: VA > > So now that IPv6 is officially blessed go deploy it :) How are they going to fullfil the requirements of the "200 /48 assignments to other organisations" rule? By the way, what happened to 2003::/19? A /19 for just a few dozen /48s? From gert at space.net Sun Apr 30 19:31:53 2006 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 19:31:53 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] The Pope gets IPv6 PA space (not PI :) In-Reply-To: <87zmi3kxnr.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> References: <1145431710.17463.2.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> <87zmi3kxnr.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Message-ID: <20060430173153.GK60910@Space.Net> Hi, On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 03:20:24PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > inet6num: 2a01:b8::/32 > > netname: VA-VATICAN-20060418 > > descr: Holy See - Vatican City State > > country: VA > > > > So now that IPv6 is officially blessed go deploy it :) > > How are they going to fullfil the requirements of the "200 /48 > assignments to other organisations" rule? I'm sure there are 200 different organizations inside the Vatican. > By the way, what happened to 2003::/19? A /19 for just a few dozen > /48s? I'm not sure what you smoked today, but it must have been something funny. Who claims that the /19 is "for a few dozen /48s"? In the short run maybe, but that's not the goal anyway. The address allocation policy takes into account the current number of IPv4 subscribers, and assumes "eventually, all of them will convert to IPv6". The intention behind that is "*one* routing table slot, not a large number of allocated-as-time-goes-by /32s". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 92315 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 fw at deneb.enyo.de Sun Apr 30 23:14:47 2006 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:14:47 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] The Pope gets IPv6 PA space (not PI :) In-Reply-To: <20060430173153.GK60910@Space.Net> (Gert Doering's message of "Sun, 30 Apr 2006 19:31:53 +0200") References: <1145431710.17463.2.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com> <87zmi3kxnr.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20060430173153.GK60910@Space.Net> Message-ID: <87slnu4vg8.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> * Gert Doering: >> How are they going to fullfil the requirements of the "200 /48 >> assignments to other organisations" rule? > > I'm sure there are 200 different organizations inside the Vatican. Sure, they can assign an /48 to every inhabitant. 8-> >> By the way, what happened to 2003::/19? A /19 for just a few dozen >> /48s? > > I'm not sure what you smoked today, but it must have been something > funny. Who claims that the /19 is "for a few dozen /48s"? The RIPE WHOIS server does. Well, they still have got a year to carry out their promised business plan involving 200 assignments. > In the short run maybe, but that's not the goal anyway. Huh? The goal is 200 assignments within two years. If it were strictly enforced, LIRs would simply assign prefixes to their employees (and if there aren't enough, to their pets), but this is probably not in the spirit of that rule. To me, this just illustrates that LIRs are as good as end users when it comes to responsibility for global resource consumption.