Fw: minutes RIPE31

Bob,

Your IFWP group may want to review these meeting notes.
David Kessens is from USC/ISI which is in the U.S. despite
the fact that RIPE is mostly in Europe. You might note that
the "assumption" is made that RIPE, ARIN and APNIC will
be the monopoly distributors with no pricing changes. The
IANA is assumed to be at the top of the MLM structure.

While people are focused on domain name debates, the
"land" in cyberspace is being divided up for sale or lease.
IANA supporters never seem to be concerned about these
monopoly arrangements. Why is that ?


Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com
End-2-End: VPC(Java)--<IPv4>--C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at --<IPv4>--(Java)VPC
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm



-----Original Message-----
From: David Kessens <davidk at ISI.EDU>
To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net <ipv6-wg at ripe.net>
Date: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 1:36 PM
Subject: minutes RIPE31


>
>Hi,
>
>Below follow the preliminary minutes of the IPv6 wg.
>
>I would like to thank Sabrina Waschke of the RIPE NCC for taking the
>minutes.
>
>The minutes will be regarded final and I will forward them to the RIPE
>NCC if I don't receive comments within one week from now.
>
>Thank you all for attending the meeting,
>
>David K.
>---
>
>Minutes of IPv6 Working Group, 24th of Sept. 1998
>
>1. Administrative stuff:
>
>Chair: David Kessens (Thomas Trede apologised)
>Minutes: Sabrina Waschke
># Attendees: 81
>
>2. Reports
>
>Report - 6Bone by David Kessens
>- Status report
>  there are now about 300 IPv6 connected sites on the 6bone
>  the trend is to connect natively instead of using tunnels
>  (slides will be available at
http://www.ripe.net/meeting/ripe/ripe31/pres/)
>- Information on the 6bone can be found at:
>  see <http://www.6bone.net>
>
>3. Current status of RIPE regarding address assignments in IPv6 by
>Paula Caslav
>
>- RIPE NCC is in process of discussing the documentation, finding
>  guidelines and procedures, by taking the IETF draft, looking at the
>  criteria, what documentation will we need, working on details with
>  other regional registries and will have a meeting with them, send than
>  a draft to the relevant working groups and the RIPE community, final
>  version will be published - Hopefully ready in January 1999
>
>Question by: David Kessens:
>Could you give more detail in the time scale ?
>
>Paula Caslav:
>November 1998: first draft of procedures document ready to be discussed
>among the regional registries and RIPE
>January 1999: start allocating IPv6 addresses
>(depends on IANA to be ready to allocate to the regional registries
>and on the registries to get their databases and procedures compliant)
>All regional registries will start allocating at the same time.
>
>There will be no change in the fee structure for the next year.
>
>Question by David Kessens:
>Do you have any comments what will be different in the assignment
>guidelines for the TLA's in the IETF draft and yours ?
>
>Paula Caslav:
>We might do a slow start mechanism in meaning of allocating a sub TLA
>first.
>
>Mirjam Kuehne:
>We also need to define still how to determine if an organisation is a
>transit provider. Many details are still under discussion.
>
>Comment by the audience:
>It might be useful to have a document in this Working Group as soon as
>possible.
>
>Mirjam Kuehne:
>We are in the process of collecting input and will discuss it with the
>other Working Groups.
>We receive requests for IPv6 addresses, some are detailed, some are
>just general.
>We will see how we can implement this in the operations and
>procedures.
>
>Paula Caslav:
>If you have any ideas send them to us or the mailing list of this
>Working Group.
>
>
>2.3. News about manufacturers implementation
>- input from the audience
>
>Bernhard Tuy showed an overview of all vendors and what they
>currently support. For details see:
>http://www.phoebe.urec.fr/G6
>http://www.ipv6.urec.fr/G6
>
>
>4. General Input from other Working Groups
>
>Routing WG presented by Joachim Schmitz
>(slides will be available at http://www.ripe.net/meeting/ripe/ripe31/pres/)
>
>Do we need an IRR for IPv6 ?
>
>Need for an IPv6 IRR:
>- due to the benefits: YES
>- plus: manage interface ipv4 _> ipv6
>- time to early: NO
>
>We need an IPv6 routing registry !
>
><general acceptence without taking over any concrete initiative by
>the audience>
>
>Joachim Schmitz:
>Call for participation.
>He expects a gradual move over, requirements in the beginning are not
>very high, so one registry might be enough to start with.
>
>David Kessens:
>The regional registries also need to think about assignment policies
>for AS numbers, they might be different.
>
>David K:
>There are several ways to go to a IPv6 routing registry:
>1. just replace IPv4 with IPv6 addresses in RPSL,
>   and add IPv6 specific support later on
>2. a special RPSLv6 draft with all bells and whistles that are
>   required to do IPv6 routing registries
>
>What is better ?
>
>Joachim Schmitz:
>Both are needed, because RPSL took some time to be developed and we
>need something running soon.
>That's not sufficient but better than nothing.
>
>
>David Kessens:
>Coming out with an RPSL IPv6 version would make sense.
>
>
>5. AOB:
>
>David Kessens: Keep this Working Group and move on because of the
>large interest (81 attendees). Discuss the allocation and assignment
>process in more detail.
>
>Action points:
>
>31.1 RIPE NCC will start allocating IPv6 addresses by the next RIPE
>     meeting in January.
>





-------- Logged at  Wed Sep 30 16:53:10 MET DST 1998  ---------