From rlfink@lbl.gov Mon Feb 2 21:18:10 1998 From: rlfink@lbl.gov (Bob Fink) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 13:18:10 -0800 Subject: New entry for 6bone 'stats' page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1325696979-150086298@cnrmail.lbl.gov> Peter, At 07:11 AM 1/30/98 -0800, Peter Curran wrote: >Could you add my site to your 'statistics' page on the 6bone web site, >please? > >The URL for the ping stats is >http://www.ipv6.ticl.co.uk/pingstat/6bone-stats.html. > >This is available via v4 and v6. The stats are a 6-hourly 5 ping sequence >to each 6bone node listed in the registry. Traceroute and registry reading >facilities are also provided. I have added this page to the 6bone stats page pointers. >PS. It is pretty incredible, looking around the various 'pingo-meters', >that around half of the 6bone is almost permamently down :-{ I agree about backbone connectivity, but never fear, we shall soon start the backbone hardening :-) I have been waiting for comments on Alain Durand's I-D on backbone routing rules to proceed. Thanks, Bob From labovit@merit.edu Tue Feb 3 18:10:56 1998 From: labovit@merit.edu (Craig Labovitz) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 13:10:56 -0500 Subject: New Release of IPv6 Routing Software Message-ID: <199802031810.NAA16296@merit.edu> A new release of MRT (1.4.3A) is now available. This release provides significant improvements in stability and features over earlier releases. We have also added Postscript and PDF user/programmer documentation. The highlights of this release includes: * MRTd -- a BGP4+, RIPng, and BGP4 routing daemon. The code is now stable and in "production" use as the 6Bone routing software at a number of sites. Supports Cisco Systems style configuration files with access-lists, route maps and a telnet command/configuration interface. * BGPSim -- a BGP4/BGP4+ traffic generation and simulation tool * SBGP -- a lightweight BGP4 tool for injecting packets and monitoring BGP4 traffic * Route_BtoA/Route_AtoB -- tools for building and decoding protocol (BGP4, BGP4+, RIPng, RIP2) packets * IRRd -- A stand-alone Internet Routing Registry daemon. More information/documentation is available at: http://www.merit.edu/~mrt/mrt_docs The software is available at: ftp://ftp.merit.edu/net-research/mrt/mrt.tar.gz And binaries for most major Unix platforms are available at ftp://ftp.merit.edu/net-research/mrt/mrt-1.4.3a-.tar.gz Send questions/comments/bugs to mrt-support@merit.edu. Feel free to redistribute this message. - Craig -- Craig Labovitz labovit@merit.edu Merit Network, Inc. http://www.merit.edu/~labovit 4251 Plymouth Road, Suite C. (313) 764-0252 (office) Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 (313) 647-3185 (fax) From dytong@ee.tamu.edu Tue Feb 3 23:38:20 1998 From: dytong@ee.tamu.edu (Deying Tong) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:38:20 -0600 (CST) Subject: No subject Message-ID: Hi, Folks, Anyone can tell me if the 6 bone support source routing? Thanks a lot, Deying Tong From s.ramesh-rit@ieee.org Wed Feb 4 05:22:34 1998 From: s.ramesh-rit@ieee.org (Ramesh Shanmuganathan) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 23:22:34 -0600 Subject: IP over ATM Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19980203232234.00797380@osfmail.isc.rit.edu> Hi! I doing some research on "IP over ATM". I would appreciate any pointers to sources or publications in this topic. How does IPv6 handle connection oriented services such as ATM? Regards, Ramesh Shanmuganathan Rochester Institute of Technology. From atarashi@ebina.hitachi.co.jp Wed Feb 4 04:40:33 1998 From: atarashi@ebina.hitachi.co.jp (Yoshifumi Atarashi) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 13:40:33 +0900 Subject: IP over ATM In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 03 Feb 1998 23:22:34 -0600" <3.0.5.32.19980203232234.00797380@osfmail.isc.rit.edu> References: <3.0.5.32.19980203232234.00797380@osfmail.isc.rit.edu> Message-ID: <19980204134033D.atarashi@ebina.hitachi.co.jp> From: Ramesh Shanmuganathan Subject: IP over ATM Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 23:22:34 -0600 > I doing some research on "IP over ATM". I would appreciate any pointers to > sources or publications in this topic. How does IPv6 handle connection > oriented services such as ATM? There is draft-yamamoto-ipv6-over-p2p-atm-00.txt. ---- Yoshifumi Atarashi Hitachi, Ltd. Office Systems Division From jork@kar.dec.com Wed Feb 4 09:53:25 1998 From: jork@kar.dec.com (Markus Jork) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 98 10:53:25 +0100 Subject: IP over ATM In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 03 Feb 98 23:22:34 CST." <3.0.5.32.19980203232234.00797380@osfmail.isc.rit.edu> Message-ID: <9802040953.AA25525@sand2.kar.dec.com> s.ramesh-rit@ieee.org said: > I doing some research on "IP over ATM". I would appreciate any > pointers to sources or publications in this topic. How does IPv6 > handle connection oriented services such as ATM? The ION working group covers this: draft-ietf-ion-ipv6-00.txt describes the general IPv6 over NBMA architecture, draft-ietf-ion-ipv6-atm-00.txt is the ATM-specific companion document. Markus From anieto@tid.es Thu Feb 5 15:44:50 1998 From: anieto@tid.es (Ana Maria Lopez Nieto) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 16:44:50 +0100 Subject: configured tunnel on Cisco Router Message-ID: <34D9DE72.A885E083@tid.es> We are trying to configure ipv6 on a Cisco4500 router which has 2 Ethernet and an Atm (155) interface. The software release that we have downloaded is c4500-tsipv6-mz.1024. The router is connected to two Sun worstations which support ipv6, one of them through the ethernet interface and the other one through an atm card. The problem that we have found is that we can not make a configured tunnel to the workstation through the atm interface because we cannot find the commands which appear in the commands.txt file that we got from ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/raj/release. My question is if I must get another software release and where I can find it. I would appreciate it very much if someone can give me this information. Thank you. Ana Maria Lopez Nieto ATM Networks Division Telefonica I+D C./ Emilio Vargas, 6 E-28043 Madrid, Spain mailto:anieto@tid.es Tlf +34-1-337 47 02 FAX +34-1-337 45 02 From raj@cisco.com Thu Feb 5 20:42:49 1998 From: raj@cisco.com (Richard Johnson) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 12:42:49 -0800 Subject: configured tunnel on Cisco Router In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 05 Feb 1998 16:44:50 +0100." <34D9DE72.A885E083@tid.es> Message-ID: <199802052042.MAA08058@rast.cisco.com> 6bone list: The "6bone" list is not the appropriate forum for discussing cisco ipv6 configuration and/or problems with cisco routers. I have responded to this person individually and clarified the appropriate address to use. /raj From rlfink@lbl.gov Fri Feb 6 16:35:48 1998 From: rlfink@lbl.gov (Bob Fink) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 08:35:48 -0800 Subject: is the list working? Message-ID: <1325368302-169859671@cnrmail.lbl.gov> I haven't seen anything come thru in days on the 6bone list. Bob From fandrade@campus.mty.itesm.mx Fri Feb 6 16:41:51 1998 From: fandrade@campus.mty.itesm.mx (Ing. Federico Andrade García) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 10:41:51 -0600 Subject: Request for connectivity Message-ID: <34DB3D4E.333C344@campus.mty.itesm.mx> Hello friends, I work for the Monterrey Tech in Mexico. We want to connect to the 6bone, we already have a Sun with IPv6 ready for tunnelling, and DNS 8.1 working. We just need someone to accept our connection (and give us some help in the next steps). We want to start as the first IPv6 node in Mexico. If someone could accept our connection we'd appreciate a lot. Regards, Federico -- ########################################################### ## Ing. Federico Andrade García ## ## Coordinador de Telecomunicaciones ## ## Departamento de Telecomunicaciones y Redes ## ## Dirección de Informática / ITESM Campus Monterrey ## ## T: 52(8)358-2000x4136 / F: 52(8)328-4208 ## ########################################################### From rlfink@lbl.gov Fri Feb 6 17:55:50 1998 From: rlfink@lbl.gov (Bob Fink) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 09:55:50 -0800 Subject: retransmit of: 6bone pTLA assignment rules Message-ID: <1325363498-170148633@cnrmail.lbl.gov> 6bone Folk, I am increasingly finding myself in the dilemma of being asked to assign a pTLA, and then having to decide what is/is not appropriate. This email is my attempt to get exposure of the issues and help in deciding an appropriate course of action in assigning pTLAs. Let me start by saying that the creation of pTLAs is getting morecontentious as some believe that we should not create them so easily. I'm also sure that all of us believe that we must start forging the 6bone backbone into a reliable transport for ipv6 use and testing. Having said that we (at least me) need to have some criteria for assigning pTLAs. I'll see if I can characterize the criteria I have been using lately. 1. Must have experience with IPv6 in the 6bone, at least as a leaf site and preferably as an NLA transit under a pTLA. 2. Must have the ability and intent to provide "production-like" 6bone backbone service to provide a robust and operationally reliable 6bone backbone. 3. Must have a potential "user community" that would be served by becoming a pTLA, e.g., the requester is a major player in a region, country or focus of interest. 4. Must commit to abide by whatever the 6bone backbone operational rules and policies are (currently there are no formal ones, but the Alain Durand draft is a start in trying to define some). To date, when I've explained the above (admittedly not so formally stated as above) there is typically one of two results. The first is that the requester goes away and studies more, becomes a leaf site, or forgets the 6bone, etc., that is basically doesn't persist in asking for a pTLA. The second is that the requester comes back with strong statements of why it is important to them, stating that they still want a pTLA assigned. In the latter cases I will assign a pTLA (after all, I'm no absolute authority on any of this). So, having said all this, I would like to propose a change to this process. In particular I would like to publish the request along with the requester's response to the above criteria, and get feedback from the 6bone mail list (not just the other pTLAs). Then I would make the final call based on what I think approximates "rough consensus". To this end I am enclosing a request for a pTLA from British Telecom Labs (BT-LABS) and their response to these questions. I would like responses to the list on both the process I propose and the BT-LABS request iteself. Thanks, Bob ====================== From: Stuart Prevost To: "'Bob Fink LBNL'" Subject: Request for pTLA for BT LABS/UK Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 15:53:45 -0000 Dear Bob, I am writing to request a pTLA on the 6bone, as you know we have been a leaf site for a year now. During this time we have gain valuable experience in IPv6, and have developed a large site here in the UK. We use Cisco routers which currently connect to NRL using BGP4+, in becoming a backbone site we feel that we can gain additional experience to the benefit of the IPv6 community. BT LABS has also formed links to Telenor R&D in Norway. As part of this work both companies have a research interest in IPv6. As part of this collaboration we plan to create a native IPv6 link to them using the JAMES ATM network. I also understand from Tony Dann who attends the IETF meetings this will help in the plans to build a Native IPv6 network this year. If you require any additional information before issuing a pTLA please let me know. Regards Stuart === From: Stuart Prevost To: "'Bob Fink'" Cc: Tony Dann Subject: RE: Request for pTLA for BT LABS/UK Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:23:12 -0000 Dear Bob, Thanks for your response, we don't mind being a test case in helping to resolve the issues of criteria for backbone sites. We agree that the 6bone backbone should evolve into an appropriate infrastructure for true IPv6 evaluation. Therefore the response to your criteria for pTLA assignment is as follows. >>1. Must have experience with IPv6 in the 6bone, at least as a leaf site and >preferably as an NLA transit under a pTLA. BT LABS has been a participating in the 6bone global experiment since January 1997. In that time we have acted as a leaf site from NRL and most recently as a NLA transit site providing connectivity to the 6bone for Telenor R&D. >>2. Must have the ability and intent to provide "production-like" 6bone >>backbone service to provide a robust and operationally reliable 6bone >>backbone. BT LABS is the research arm of BT plc, which already has an ISP business division. We therefore have the skills to provide a "production like" service. We understand the value of the 6bone experiment and intend to actively participate in all initiatives which act to increase understanding of future IPv6 service issues. >>3. Must have a potential "user community" that would be served by becoming >>a pTLA, e.g., the requestor is a major player in a region, country or focus >>of interest. BT is a major player in Europe and therefore has a large potential user community. >>4. Must commit to abide by whatever the 6bone backbone operational rules >>and policies are (currently there are no formal ones, but the Alain Duran >draft is a start in trying to define some). We fully commit to this and welcome progress with Alain Durand draft. Hope these answers are appropriate and we have no problem with you publishing this request to the list. We hope that by starting this off that your task will be made easier when assigning pTLA. Regards, Stuart =======from the 6bone registry ipv6-site: BT-LABS origin: AS1752 descr: Martlesham Heath descr: Suffolk location: 52 03 52 N 01 17 16 E 0m country: GB prefix: 3FFE:F01:2::/48 application: ping gate.ipv6.bt.net tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 gate.ipv6.bt.net -> guar.ipv6.nrl.navy.mil NRL BGP4+ tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 gate.ipv6.bt.net -> gate6.lancs.ac.uk ULANC STATIC tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 gate.ipv6.bt.net -> mbone-eir.nta.no TELENOR STATIC contact: SP1-6BONE remarks: Experimental IPv6 evaluation network remarks: DNS operational for forward and reverse zones remarks: Primary DNS dns.ipv6.bt.net remarks: Reverse (.2.0.0.0.0.1.0.F.E.F.F.3.IP6.INT) remarks: ipv6-site is operational since 30-Jan-97 changed: stuart.prevost@bt-sys.bt.co.uk 19971030 source: 6BONE -end From wizkid@ksu.edu Fri Feb 6 21:35:26 1998 From: wizkid@ksu.edu (Zach Metzinger) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 15:35:26 -0600 Subject: is the list working? In-Reply-To: <1325368302-169859671@cnrmail.lbl.gov>; from Bob Fink on Fri, Feb 06, 1998 at 08:35:48AM -0800 References: <1325368302-169859671@cnrmail.lbl.gov> Message-ID: <19980206153526.38318@bleck.ksu.ksu.edu> On Fri, Feb 06, 1998 at 08:35:48AM -0800, Bob Fink wrote: > I haven't seen anything come thru in days on the 6bone list. > > Bob Booga. :) Zach Metzinger Unix System Administration Computing and Network Services Kansas State University (3ffe:1cfe::/48) From yjchui@ms.chttl.com.tw Sat Feb 7 03:20:03 1998 From: yjchui@ms.chttl.com.tw (Yann-Ju Chu) Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 11:20:03 +0800 Subject: about IPv6 configuration on Solaris Message-ID: <34DBD2E2.20BB0C4@ms.chttl.com.tw> I have successfully set up a configured tunnel with a 6Bone site. However, at present, I have trouble in configuring another IPv6 host to communicate directly with my original host. Does anybody have any experience in configuring IPv6 release 5.3 of Solaris and can help me solve the problem? The following is the configuration information from my two IPv6 hosts: I have set up two IPv6 hosts, say Host A and B, with IPv6 Release5.3 on x86. I have successfully buit a configured tunnel of static route with DIGITAL-CA(204.123.18.254) on Host A (202.39.157.141, 3ffe:1200:3001:0:80:c8ff:fe33:fa93) and join 6Bone (netmask is 8 rather than default 128). Besides, there is also a automatic tunnel built on Host A. At present, I am trying to set up another IPv6 host (Host B, 202.39.157.142, 3ffe:1200:3001:0:80:c8ff:fe2f:c72d) on the same ethernet segment with Host A. I wish the two hosts (host A and B) can PING (v6) to each other directly without any tunnel or IPv6 router. However, I find that it does not work.(But it is OK with IPv4 protocol). I have tried all configurations I could but still can get it works, Can you please check it for me? The following is the informations from "ifconfig(v6) and netstat(v6)" For Host A (202.39.157.141) with configured tunnel: 1. The result of "ifconfig (v6)" ************************** lo0#v6: flags=849 mtu 8232 inet6 ::1 netmask 128 lo0: flags=849 mtu 8232 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask ff000000 nei1: flags=863 mtu 1500 inet 202.39.157.141 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 202.39.157.255 ether 0:80:c8:33:fa:93 ip0: flags=8d1 mtu 4196 inet6 ::202.39.157.141 ---> :: netmask 96 ip1: flags=8d1 mtu 4196 tunnel src 202.39.157.141 tunnel dst 204.123.18.254 inet6 3ffe:1200:3001:0:80:c8ff:fe33:fa93 ---> 3ffe:: netmask 8 ip1:1: flags=8d1 mtu 4196 tunnel src 202.39.157.141 tunnel dst 204.123.18.254 inet6 fe80::ca27:9d8d ---> fe80:: netmask 10 nei1#v6: flags=843 mtu 1500 inet6 fe80::2:280:c8ff:fe33:fa93 netmask 10 nei1#v6:1: flags=843 mtu 1500 inet6 3ffe:1200:3001:0:80:c8ff:fe33:fa93 netmask 80 *************************************** 2. The result of "netstat (v6)" ************************ Routing Table: IPV4 Destination Gateway Flags Ref Use Interface -------------------- -------------------- ----- ----- ------ --------- 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 0 0 lo0 202.39.157.0 202.39.157.141 U 3 2 nei1 224.0.0.0 202.39.157.141 U 3 0 nei1 default 202.39.157.254 UG 0 13 nei1 Routing Table: IPV6 Destination/Mask Gateway Flags Ref Use Interface -------------------- -------------------- ----- ----- ------ --------- ::1/128 ::1 U 0 0 lo0#v6 ff00::/8 fe80::2:280:c8ff:fe33:fa93 UG 0 0 ip1:1 3ffe::/128 3ffe:1200:3001:0:80:c8ff:fe33:fa93 U 3 0 ip1 ::/96 ::202.39.157.141 U 2 0 ip0 3ffe:1200:3001:0:80::/80 3ffe:1200:3001:0:80:c8ff:fe33:fa93 U 4 16 nei1#v6:1 fe00::/8 fe80::ca27:9d8d U 3 0 ip1:1 fe00::/8 fe80::2:280:c8ff:fe33:fa93 U 4 0 nei1#v6 default fe80::2:280:c8ff:fe33:fa93 U 4 5 nei1#v6 ************************************************************ For Host B (202.39.157.142) with configured tunnel: 1. The result of "ifconfig (v6)" ************************** lo0#v6: flags=849 mtu 8232 inet6 ::1 netmask 128 lo0: flags=849 mtu 8232 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask ff000000 d22e0: flags=863 mtu 1500 inet 202.39.157.142 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 202.39.157.255 ether 0:80:c8:2f:c7:2d ip0: flags=8d1 mtu 4196 inet6 ::202.39.157.142 ---> :: netmask 96 d22e0#v6: flags=843 mtu 1500 inet6 fe80::1:280:c8ff:fe2f:c72d netmask 10 d22e0#v6:1: flags=843 mtu 1500 inet6 3ffe:1200:3001:0:80:c8ff:fe2f:c72d netmask 80 ************************** 2. The result of "netstat (v6)" ************************ Routing Table: IPV6 Destination/Mask Gateway Flags Ref Use Interface -------------------- -------------------- ----- ----- ------ --------- ::1/128 ::1 U 0 0 lo0#v6 ::/96 ::202.39.157.142 U 2 0 ip0 3ffe:1200:3001:0:80::/80 3ffe:1200:3001:0:80:c8ff:fe2f:c72d U 5 0 d22e0#v6:1 fe00::/8 fe80::1:280:c8ff:fe2f:c72d U 5 0 d22e0#v6 ff00::/8 fe80::1:280:c8ff:fe2f:c72d U 5 0 d22e0#v6 default fe80::1:280:c8ff:fe2f:c72d U 5 0 d22e0#v6 *************************************** If I give the command "/usr/ipv6/sbin/ping 3ffe:1200:3001:0:80:c8ff:fe2f:c72d" on Host A,, I never get any response. Yann-Ju Chu From peterdd@gto.net.om Sat Feb 7 03:34:24 1998 From: peterdd@gto.net.om (peter dawson) Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 07:34:24 +0400 Subject: IPng & ATM Message-ID: <34DBD63E.A1FE409E@gto.net.om> 6bone list : Doing some study on IPng and ATM , need some pointers,sources,publications or comment on; 1) CPU overheads during implementation of SIIT (translator box), i.e IPv6 over IPv4 on single host and dual clouds: IPv6 ===> ===> [IPv4] ==> [IPv4] {Single Host Host network host scenerio }; IPv6 ===>[Dual Cloud]==>[SIIT]==>[IPv4]== > [IPv4] { Dual Cloud }; host [IPv6 & IPv4] network host I don't know if this the correct forum for this question, however pls bear with me :)) (if not advise where I can address this question ?) 2) Behavior of AAL5, (CL & SAR layers) during congestion at the network edge and within the ATM network, after RSVP signaled call admission and per flow specs have initiated a VC, with the QoS service class being VBRrt. rgds pete From Alain.Durand@imag.fr Mon Feb 9 13:54:13 1998 From: Alain.Durand@imag.fr (Alain.Durand@imag.fr) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 14:54:13 +0100 (MET) Subject: 6bone looking glass Message-ID: <980209145413.ZM23293@brahma.imag.fr> Hi all I've set up a BGP looking glass on my router. If you want to access it, try: http://lookingglass.imag.fr - Alain. ps: there might still be some bugs... please signal them to me. From crawdad@fnal.gov Mon Feb 9 17:56:19 1998 From: crawdad@fnal.gov (Matt Crawford) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:56:19 -0600 Subject: about IPv6 configuration on Solaris In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 07 Feb 1998 11:20:03 +0800. <34DBD2E2.20BB0C4@ms.chttl.com.tw> Message-ID: <199802091756.LAA19625@gungnir.fnal.gov> This should go to the Sun-specific list, sun-ipv6-users@sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM, not the 6bone list. The solution: make host A a v6 router on the ethernet interface. Let host B auto-configure from the router advertisements host A will then be sending. ___________________________________________________________________ Matt Crawford crawdad@fnal.gov Fermilab From bound@zk3.dec.com Mon Feb 9 19:37:11 1998 From: bound@zk3.dec.com (bound@zk3.dec.com) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 14:37:11 -0500 Subject: AATN (alternatives to NAT) Mail List Set up........................ Message-ID: <199802091937.AA27020@wasted.zk3.dec.com> DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MAIL IT IS INFORMATION per a new Mail List. If you have comment please send to me privately or get on the aatn list and send it to aatn... I have submitted a request and description for a BOF to the IETF Internet ADs to discuss alternatives to NAT. But I set up a mail list as interim place to discuss this technology. My mail is attached to the ADs....Comments on description and agenda welcome the more we do before L.A. the better we can determine if this work should move forward. send mail to - majordomo@alpha.zk3.dec.com subscribe aatn your-email-addr THose of you who sent me mail to be on this are already subscribed if you sent me mail before Noon today everyone else please subscribe directly yourself. Apology for this interruption but folks on these mail lists have expresssed an interest in alternatives to NAT and I wanted to let them know, we have a place to discuss it. /jim -------------- Return-Path: bound Received: from bywasted.zk3.dec.com by mailhub2.zk3.dec.com (5.65v3.2/1.1.10.5/24Sep96-0323PM) id AA12327; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 13:14:29 -0500 Received: from localhost by wasted.zk3.dec.com (5.65v4.0/1.1.8.2/18Feb95-1123AM) id AA16538; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 13:14:12 -0500 Message-Id: <199802091814.AA16538@wasted.zk3.dec.com> To: narten@vnet.ibm.com, burgan@home.net Cc: agenda@ietf.org, bound@zk3.dec.com, Erik.Nordmark@eng.sun.com, gabriel.montenergo@eng.sun.com, vipul.gupta@eng.sun.com, george@gideon.bt.co.uk, alan.oneill@bt-sys.bt.co.uk Subject: Request for AATN BOF at L.A. IETF Meeting Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 13:14:12 -0500 From: bound X-Mts: smtp Thomas and Jeff, I would like to request a 2 hour BOF for the subject "Avoidance of Address Translation in Networks" (AATN), for the L.A. Meeting. I have to request this BOF not happen during the following events so I may lead it. IPng, NGTRANS, DHCPv6, or NAT BOF meetings. Evening is fine too, but day is better. I feel this BOF should be sponsored by the Internet Area as it affects the Internet Layer of the IP model. If it should become a WG then that is up to the IESG to decide clearly where that should be located. I enlist your leadership and support to get this discussed. I am already setting up an initial mail list now. It could take two BOFs to determine what this work would entail and if it should be a working group, I just don't know right now. Description of BOF: To address the limitations of the IPv4 address space the Internet community needs to adopt variant technologies until IPv6 can be deployed giving the Internet a new address space. Three such technologies are Network Address Translation (NAT), Link Tunnel Protocols like L2TP, and the use of address translation in Firwall products. This BOF would like to investigate and discover if there is valid work to do, which can be used to assist this IPv4 problem thru the Avoidance of Network Address Translation on Networks (AATN). This work would address todays need for IPv4 and some of the needs for IPv6 which are not addressed by the existing NGTRANS WG. Because this work includes work specific just to IPv4 it should not be part of NGTRANS, but there will be some overlap clearly. Engineers in our community have begun to work on AATN in various manners and from several IETF WG mail lists this work appears to have a growing interest. This is also not part of the NAT work on going as that function is to define and specifiy parts to do NAT. One objective of this work is to provide and insure that end-to-end host connectivity is supported for mobility and IPSEC, without network address translation. Examples of work in our community to support AATN exist today: draft-tsirtisi-nat-bypass-00.txt George Tsirtisi and ALan O'Neill (British Telecom Labs) draft-montenegro-firewall-sup-03.txt G. Montenegro and V. Gupta (Sun Microsystems) draft-ngtrans-header-trans-01.txt Erik Nordmark (Sun Microsystems) draft-ngtrans-nnat-00.txt Jim Bound (Digital Equipment Corporation) A tentative agenda would look as follows: - What is the taxonomy AATN and what are some examples. - Specific Overviews of AATN (the above draft examples possibly) - What would be the objectives and charter of such a WG - What would be the deliverables of such a WG - Do we want to start a working group for AATN Sincerely, /jim Jim Bound IPv6 Technical Director Consulting Engineer UNIX Internet Group Digital Equipment Corporation 1+(603) 884-0400 bound@zk3.dec.com From bound@zk3.dec.com Tue Feb 10 04:46:10 1998 From: bound@zk3.dec.com (bound@zk3.dec.com) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 23:46:10 -0500 Subject: retransmit of: 6bone pTLA assignment rules In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 06 Feb 1998 09:55:50 PST." <1325363498-170148633@cnrmail.lbl.gov> Message-ID: <199802100446.AA28894@wasted.zk3.dec.com> Bob, My input is BT Labs clearly fits the bill here give them at pTLA. One fear I have is will folks be afraid to get the pTLA this way in a public forum. Suppose its a large company like XYZ and they want one? It seems to me you and the pTLAs now have been doing a good job. How about you ask for some volunteers from the list to be part of the existing pTLAs? Also I think folks who want to are out of IPv4 addresses but want to use IPv6 addresses instead of IPv4 private addresses could come to us too? They can be renumbered automatically via our addrconf and dhcp and router renumbering once they get official IPv6 addresses. So that I think is another request you will be seeing soon. Some thought on this seems worthwhile.. /jim From pcurran@ticl.co.uk Tue Feb 10 11:25:10 1998 From: pcurran@ticl.co.uk (Peter Curran) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:25:10 +0000 Subject: retransmit of: 6bone pTLA assignment rules In-Reply-To: <1325363498-170148633@cnrmail.lbl.gov> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bob I support the criteria that you have established for the creation of new pTLAs. I think that the application by BT-Labs should go ahead - they clearly meet the criteria that you have established. I think the drawback to approaching the list every time a new pTLA is proposed or requested is that 'concensus' is likely to be based on only a couple of guys putting an opinion forward. Would it not be more sensible to approve pTLA assignment for organisations such as BT-Labs who clearly meet the criteria without reference to the list. I think that you should request judgement from the 6bone community only if there is some doubt about the qualifications of the applicant or where some of the criteria are not wholly met. Whilst on the subject, is it not time to start bearing down on those backbone sites that have a pTLA assigned, but do not appear to be following the 'rules'? For example, I still find the odd RFC1897 address popping up when I do a traceroute across the backbone. Likewise, some sites would appear to be semi-permamently disconnected - from a couple of discussions with other sites this would appear to be caused by inappropriate routing policies. My 2p-worth Peter TICL/UK -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.2 iQA/AwUBNOA5FpwudNbgUX8fEQLkJgCffv91sm4Vb976koSzkYHwg9Y/z6EAoJ66 IkpInzIWCkj4ucexp8vKR5Cm =6hUO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From pcurran@ticl.co.uk Tue Feb 10 11:35:54 1998 From: pcurran@ticl.co.uk (Peter Curran) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:35:54 +0000 Subject: Support for dynamic sites in the registry Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I have an interesting question concerning the use of the registry. I am not sure if what I want to do is valid, or if it maps onto a 'real-world' problem, but would much appreciate some input. We (TICL/UK) are a transit site connected via UUNET-UK. For this purpose UUNET-UK have assigned us an NLA2 (/40). At the moment we provide transit to a number of Learning Tree education centres around the world to support their IPv6 training course. In the worse case scenario, the course may run simultaneously at multiple Ed Centres. We have therefore assigned a /44 to them (giving the ability to support up to 16 Ed Centres simultaneously - more than adequate provision currently). The tunnels created are not permament - they are created for one week only at a time. The assignment of a global prefix is likewise not permament - each centre is assigned a tunnel and corresponding prefix on a first-come first-served basis for the duration of the course. The reason for this is to simplify (automate) the course setup procedures and to allow the available /44 service >16 potential venues. I would like to create the necessary entries in the registry to reflect this situation, but the registry is essentially static. Now comes my question. Should the registry be able to cope with this sort of situation, or is this just an example of a one-off problem that will not map onto the real world? Should I create and delete the registry entries on demand, as the tunnels and prefixes are created? Should this sort of information even go into the registry? Opinion/guidance would be appreciated. Regards Peter Curran TICL/UK -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.2 iQA/AwUBNOA7mpwudNbgUX8fEQIHMQCg5P4BwBMq6dADi8S2th72AfRFqCkAoIrA 38zqmK8XF9WtL994FSHhn1fX =hoan -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rlfink@lbl.gov Tue Feb 10 18:00:13 1998 From: rlfink@lbl.gov (Bob Fink) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:00:13 -0800 Subject: retransmit of: 6bone pTLA assignment rules In-Reply-To: <199802100446.AA28894@wasted.zk3.dec.com> References: Message-ID: <1325017621-190956857@cnrmail.lbl.gov> Jim, At 11:46 PM 2/9/98 -0500, bound@zk3.dec.com wrote: >Bob, > >My input is BT Labs clearly fits the bill here give them at pTLA. Seems to be strong consensus on this. >One fear I have is will folks be afraid to get the pTLA this way in a >public forum. Suppose its a large company like XYZ and they want one? Well, I think they need to do like everyone else,be a leaf, be an NLA transit, justify why they should be a pTLA, etc....and remember, we are trying to mimic the real world AND build a reliable high quality backbone. >It seems to me you and the pTLAs now have been doing a good job. I think there are many folks that have been doing a great job for the 6bone...it's nice when people appreciate it. >How about you ask for some volunteers from the list to be part of the existing pTLAs? Don't quite follow your intent here...do you mean to setup a small advisory panel of folks to review these pTLA requests? >Also I think folks who want to are out of IPv4 addresses but want to use >IPv6 addresses instead of IPv4 private addresses could come to us too? >They can be renumbered automatically via our addrconf and dhcp and >router renumbering once they get official IPv6 addresses. So that I >think is another request you will be seeing soon. Some thought on this >seems worthwhile.. Remember that we can't support non-testing type traffic on the 6bone as many of the 6bone participants are R&D places whose AUPs would instantly be violated if they carried non testing traffic and would have to withdraw their support of the 6bone. I've been thinking that we should consider a second network, not for test, that is similar to the 6bone (at least at the start), that provides a pTLA space for early real users prior to a real active TLA registry activity getting started up by IANA Inc., or whatver is agreed upon by the larger court of world-wide opinion and policy (please don't start that debate on this list). I say it in this way as the delays whilke the IANA Inc./IAHC/CORE/POC wars/debates/decisions take place may be long. In the interim we do need a way for people to get a routing prefix and be able to communicate with others that have IPv6 needs. Opinions anyone? Thanks, Bob From rlfink@lbl.gov Tue Feb 10 18:10:13 1998 From: rlfink@lbl.gov (Bob Fink) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:10:13 -0800 Subject: retransmit of: 6bone pTLA assignment rules In-Reply-To: References: <1325363498-170148633@cnrmail.lbl.gov> Message-ID: <1325017021-190992992@cnrmail.lbl.gov> Peter, At 11:25 AM 2/10/98 +0000, Peter Curran wrote: ... >I support the criteria that you have established for the creation of new >pTLAs. > >I think that the application by BT-Labs should go ahead - they clearly meet >the criteria that you have established. > >I think the drawback to approaching the list every time a new pTLA is >proposed or requested is that 'concensus' is likely to be based on only a >couple of guys putting an opinion forward. Would it not be more sensible >to approve pTLA assignment for organisations such as BT-Labs who clearly >meet the criteria without reference to the list. I think that you should >request judgement from the 6bone community only if there is some doubt >about the qualifications of the applicant or where some of the criteria are >not wholly met. I'll think on this one. Jim Bound has a similar point of view. >Whilst on the subject, is it not time to start bearing down on those >backbone sites that have a pTLA assigned, but do not appear to be following >the 'rules'? For example, I still find the odd RFC1897 address popping up >when I do a traceroute across the backbone. Likewise, some sites would >appear to be semi-permamently disconnected - from a couple of discussions >with other sites this would appear to be caused by inappropriate routing >policies. Yep. It's almost time to start (to confess, I've been busy on other things and not had the time yet...but will soon). Thanks for your comments, Bob From bound@zk3.dec.com Tue Feb 10 19:22:18 1998 From: bound@zk3.dec.com (bound@zk3.dec.com) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:22:18 -0500 Subject: retransmit of: 6bone pTLA assignment rules In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:00:13 PST." <1325017621-190956852@cnrmail.lbl.gov> Message-ID: <199802101922.AA20873@wasted.zk3.dec.com> Bob, >>How about you ask for some volunteers from the list to be part of the >existing pTLAs? >Don't quite follow your intent here...do you mean to setup a small advisory >panel of folks to review these pTLA requests? Exactly. All pTLAs should be on it too. >>Also I think folks who want to are out of IPv4 addresses but want to use >>IPv6 addresses instead of IPv4 private addresses could come to us too? >>They can be renumbered automatically via our addrconf and dhcp and >>router renumbering once they get official IPv6 addresses. So that I >>think is another request you will be seeing soon. Some thought on this >>seems worthwhile.. >Remember that we can't support non-testing type traffic on the 6bone as >many of the 6bone participants are R&D places whose AUPs would instantly be >violated if they carried non testing traffic and would have to withdraw >their support of the 6bone. Good point. >I've been thinking that we should consider a second network, not for test, >that is similar to the 6bone (at least at the start), that provides a pTLA >space for early real users prior to a real active TLA registry activity >getting started up by IANA Inc., or whatver is agreed upon by the larger >court of world-wide opinion and policy (please don't start that debate on >this list). This is a good idea. >I say it in this way as the delays whilke the IANA Inc./IAHC/CORE/POC >wars/debates/decisions take place may be long. In the interim we do need a >way for people to get a routing prefix and be able to communicate with >others that have IPv6 needs. > >Opinions anyone? We need this for sure. I need to think more and what we may want to do is find out via you privately what pTLAs could participate in such an effort and possibly this may be a way to draw new ISPs and Telcos to the 6bone in general? /jim From davidk@ISI.EDU Tue Feb 10 19:52:50 1998 From: davidk@ISI.EDU (davidk@ISI.EDU) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:52:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Support for dynamic sites in the registry In-Reply-To: from "Peter Curran" at Feb 10, 98 11:35:54 am Message-ID: <199802101952.LAA22668@ra0.isi.edu> Peter, Peter Curran writes: > > I would like to create the necessary entries in the registry to reflect > this situation, but the registry is essentially static. Now comes my > question. Should the registry be able to cope with this sort of situation, > or is this just an example of a one-off problem that will not map onto the > real world? > > Should I create and delete the registry entries on demand, as the tunnels > and prefixes are created? Should this sort of information even go into the > registry? What do you mean by static ?!? You can send as many updates/deletes as you want and changes are visible within seconds. I think it is up to you to decide if you want to spend the time registering information that will be worthwhile for only a week. The advantages of registering such temporary data are probably not very important from an operational perspective. However, I would advise to register the /44 inet6num object with appropriate remarks: line so that people at least can find out where the IPs come from when they show up on the 6bone, David K. --- From fosters@interglobe.com Tue Feb 10 22:23:50 1998 From: fosters@interglobe.com (shane foster) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:23:50 -0800 Subject: ipv6 on cisco? Message-ID: <34E0D376.9A0DE980@interglobe.com> I saw some questions about ipv6 support in cisco's IOS months ago. I thought the response was that it would be in IOS 11.3. I can't find it. Is support coming? Can someone please tell me the process? TIA Shane -- Shane Foster fosters@interglobe.com Network Engineer (206) 623-2222 interGlobe Networks, Inc. From dg@root.com Tue Feb 10 23:44:41 1998 From: dg@root.com (David Greenman) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:44:41 -0800 Subject: retransmit of: 6bone pTLA assignment rules In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:00:13 PST." <1325017621-190956857@cnrmail.lbl.gov> Message-ID: <199802102344.PAA10496@implode.root.com> >I've been thinking that we should consider a second network, not for test, >that is similar to the 6bone (at least at the start), that provides a pTLA >space for early real users prior to a real active TLA registry activity >getting started up by IANA Inc., or whatver is agreed upon by the larger >court of world-wide opinion and policy (please don't start that debate on >this list). > >I say it in this way as the delays whilke the IANA Inc./IAHC/CORE/POC >wars/debates/decisions take place may be long. In the interim we do need a >way for people to get a routing prefix and be able to communicate with >others that have IPv6 needs. > >Opinions anyone? I think it sounds like an excellent idea. I have to admit that I, like many people, have been wondering where the 6bone was headed and how the real IPv6 Internet would come to life. It has to start somewhere... Speaking of which, I've been looking for a good excuse to get ftp.cdrom.com running an IPv6 stack, not to mention pushing CRL in the IPv6 direction, and I think what you're proposing is just the excuse I've been looking for. -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project From pcurran@ticl.co.uk Wed Feb 11 00:50:56 1998 From: pcurran@ticl.co.uk (Peter Curran) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:50:56 +0000 Subject: Support for dynamic sites in the registry In-Reply-To: <199802101952.LAA22668@ra0.isi.edu> References: Message-ID: <199802110034.AAA28025@gate.ticl.co.uk> David >> Should I create and delete the registry entries on demand, as the tunnels >> and prefixes are created? Should this sort of information even go into the >> registry? > >What do you mean by static ?!? > Sorry - didn't mean to insult your baby! By static I mean that it is a record of what was, not what is! >You can send as many updates/deletes as you want and changes are visible >within seconds. > >I think it is up to you to decide if you want to spend the time >registering information that will be worthwhile for only a week. The >advantages of registering such temporary data are probably not very >important from an operational perspective. However, I would advise to >register the /44 inet6num object with appropriate remarks: line so that >people at least can find out where the IPs come from when they show up on >the 6bone, > That is a good point - I will register an inet6num object straight away. I think I will have a go at including the insertion of the site info into the database within the current automated setup procedures. I think it will be useful to show students of the training course that the site they are operating from does have an entry in the registry - it helps to sponsor the importance of the registry. Thanks for your input Peter TICL/UK From ddalton@netscape.com Wed Feb 11 00:47:51 1998 From: ddalton@netscape.com (Doug Dalton) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:47:51 -0800 Subject: ipv6 on cisco? References: <34E0D376.9A0DE980@interglobe.com> Message-ID: <34E0F537.DCF1663E@netscape.com> Shane, You need to contact : ipv6-support@cisco.com for information regarding cisco ipv6 ios. -- R/Doug ____________________________________________________________ Doug Dalton - Network Manager - Netscape Communications ddalton@netscape.com - http://home.netscape.com/people/dougs From cnebody@mindspring.com Wed Feb 11 06:14:24 1998 From: cnebody@mindspring.com (Joel W. Barrett) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:14:24 -0500 Subject: retransmit of: 6bone pTLA assignment rules In-Reply-To: <199802102344.PAA10496@implode.root.com> Message-ID: <199802110634.BAA02322@brickbat8.mindspring.com> Hi all, I've been trying to get involved in the IPv6 initiative for several months but keep hitting brick walls. I'm in Atlanta, GA, USA and have spoken with several individuals at local universities (Univ of Georgia, Georgia Tech, Georgia State Univ., OIIT, PeachNet) but received nothing positive. I have Cisco experience and am willing to work either inexpensively or for free (depending on the opportunities) and have several other members of my staff who are also willing to participate. How does one go about volunteering for work such as this when no one will accept assistance? My resume is online at my webpage (http://cnebody.home.mindspring.com) if anyone is interested in checking out my background. I AM NOT LOOKING FOR A JOB, I just want to enhance my knowledge of the 6Bone network and its devices while assisting others in implementing it. I've never been turned down so many times while offering cheap or free help. Any assistance you can provide is greatly appreciated. Joel Barrett IT Engineering Manager Whittman-Hart, Inc. -- Joel W. Barrett Disclaimers and contact information available at http://cnebody.home.mindspring.com/sigs.htm. Do somethInG dIgiTal! From mmcnealis@cisco.com Wed Feb 11 19:08:00 1998 From: mmcnealis@cisco.com (Martin McNealis) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:08:00 -0800 Subject: IPv6 on Cisco IOS? Message-ID: <2.2.32.19980211190800.00961394@puli.cisco.com> Hi Shane, No, IOS 11.3 shipped at the end of last year and we're targetting our IPv6 support for general release later in 1998. Cheers, -Martin- At 02:23 PM 2/10/98 -0800, shane foster wrote: >I saw some questions about ipv6 support in >cisco's IOS months ago. I thought the >response was that it would be in >IOS 11.3. > I can't find it. Is support coming? >Can someone please tell me the process? > >TIA > Shane >-- >Shane Foster fosters@interglobe.com >Network Engineer (206) 623-2222 >interGlobe Networks, Inc. > > From yjchui@ms.chttl.com.tw Wed Feb 18 02:56:44 1998 From: yjchui@ms.chttl.com.tw (Yann-Ju Chu) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 10:56:44 +0800 Subject: about BGP4+ Message-ID: <34EA4DE9.E09B91D7@ms.chttl.com.tw> I am trying to find the BGP4+ specification, but can not find the one match. Is BGP4+ a formal name for "BGP4 for IPv6"? Is the following document the spec. for BGP4+? BGP4 Multiprotocol Extendison for IPv6 Inter-domain Routing If any body can answer for me, I will be very thankful. Chu yjchui@ms.chttl.com.tw From roque@cisco.com Wed Feb 18 04:50:41 1998 From: roque@cisco.com (Pedro Marques) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 20:50:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: about BGP4+ In-Reply-To: <34EA4DE9.E09B91D7@ms.chttl.com.tw> References: <34EA4DE9.E09B91D7@ms.chttl.com.tw> Message-ID: <199802180450.UAA20957@pedrom-ultra.cisco.com> >>>>> "Yann-Ju" == Yann-Ju Chu writes: Yann-Ju> I am trying to find the BGP4+ specification, but can not Yann-Ju> find the one match. Is BGP4+ a formal name for "BGP4 for Yann-Ju> IPv6"? BGP4+ is the informal name for BGP 4 with Multiprotocol extensions. Yann-Ju> Is the following document the spec. for BGP4+? That is the document that specifies how to use BGP Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6. BGP4+ is used at the moment both for IPv6 and to carry multicast RP information. The IPv6 specific details are documented in the draft you mention. Yann-Ju> BGP4 Multiprotocol Yann-Ju> Extendison for IPv6 Inter-domain Routing If any body can Yann-Ju> answer for me, I will be very thankful. Pedro. From rlfink@lbl.gov Wed Feb 18 15:21:30 1998 From: rlfink@lbl.gov (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 07:21:30 -0800 Subject: about BGP4+ In-Reply-To: <34EA4DE9.E09B91D7@ms.chttl.com.tw> Message-ID: <1324335929-231968122@cnrmail.lbl.gov> Yann-Ju, At 10:56 AM 2/18/98 +0800, Yann-Ju Chu wrote: > I am trying to find the BGP4+ specification, but can not find the one >match. Is BGP4+ a formal name for "BGP4 for IPv6"? >Is the following document the spec. for BGP4+? > BGP4 Multiprotocol Extendison >for IPv6 Inter-domain Routing >If any body can answer for me, I will be very thankful. The following was just issued by the IESG. Bob ========================================== To: IETF-Announce:;IETF-Announce.;@ns.ietf.org@lbl.gov Cc: RFC Editor Cc: Internet Architecture Board Cc: idr@merit.edu From: The IESG Subject: Protocol Action: Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing to Proposed Standard Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 08:12:47 -0500 The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft 'Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing' as a Proposed Standard. This document is the product of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group. The IESG contact person is Joel Halpern. Technical Summary This protocol specification defines the extensions to multi-protocol BGP-4 required to support IPv6. It thereby provides the mechanisms need to have an inter-domain routing protocol for IPv6, with all of the proerties of BGP-4. Working Group Summary There was strong consensus in the working group in support of this document. Alternatives werediscussed, and this was agreed as the way forward. Protocol Quality The document has been reviewed for the IESG by Joel M. Halpern, the Routing Area Director. Use of this protocol has begun in multiple implementations. -end From rlfink@lbl.gov Wed Feb 18 17:43:12 1998 From: rlfink@lbl.gov (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 09:43:12 -0800 Subject: soliciting agenda items for LA IETF Message-ID: <1324327431-232479220@cnrmail.lbl.gov> ngtrans and 6bone folk, There will be an ngtrans meeting at the LA IETF meeting on: TUESDAY, March 31, 1998 1300-1400 Afternoon Sessions I INT ip1394 IP Over IEEE 1394 WG OPS ngtrans Next Generation Transition WG <<<<<<<<<<<< TSV tcpsat TCP Over Satellite WG USV run Responsible Use of the Network WG 1415-1515 Afternoon Sessions II INT ip1394 IP Over IEEE 1394 WG OPS ngtrans Next Generation Transition WG <<<<<<<<<<<< SEC spki Simple Public Key Infrastructure WG TSV tcpsat TCP Over Satellite WG so Bob, Tony and I are soliciting agenda items. I'm presuming for now that Jim Bound's new aatn activity will have a BOF of its own. If not we can add in it's topics at the last moment. My known 6bone items are: Durand's 6bone backbone rules draft Dupont's multihoming draft steps to clean up the backbone Suggestions to the list please. I've posted the cutoff dates list below as well as when the IPng WG meetings will occur. If you know of other IPv6 activities than this that will take place, please let me know so I can advertize the times. Thanks, Bob =========================== 41st IETF Meeting - Los Angeles, CA Cutoff Dates March 9 - Working Group scheduling closes at 1700 ET March 13 - Internet Draft submission cutoff date at 1700 ET March 20 - Pre-Registration Payment cutoff date at 1200 ET March 25 - Pre-Registration cutoff date at 1200 ET March 25 - Working Group agendas due date by 1200 ET March 25 - Registration Cancellations cutoff date by 1800 ET All times are in US Eastern Time ==================== Other IPv6 activities MONDAY, March 30, 1998 1930-2200 Evening Sessions INT ipngwg IP Next Generation WG <<<<<<<<<<<< RTG mpls Multiprotocol Label Switching WG THURSDAY, April 2, 1998 0900-1130 Morning Sessions INT ipngwg IP Next Generation WG <<<<<<<<<<<< OPS entmib Entity MIB WG SEC pkix Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509) WG TSV rtfm Realtime Traffic Flow Measurement WG -end From bound@zk3.dec.com Thu Feb 19 14:09:53 1998 From: bound@zk3.dec.com (bound@zk3.dec.com) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 09:09:53 -0500 Subject: (ngtrans) soliciting agenda items for LA IETF In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 18 Feb 1998 09:43:12 PST." <1324327431-232479225@cnrmail.lbl.gov> Message-ID: <199802191409.AA30071@wasted.zk3.dec.com> Bob, I am not clear that my work will have a bof of its own. I need to keep separate that which is needed for NG transition and that which is neeeed for avoidance of NAT. I will need 15 minutes to update all on the fixes to NNAT to get IPv6 deployed. ALso the name will change and not be called NNAT and also nodes will be able to request IPv4 addresses from DHCPv6 as an extension. Other stuff too. I will have an updated draft out within the next two weeks. /jim From lee_y@cs.unr.edu Wed Feb 25 00:40:18 1998 From: lee_y@cs.unr.edu (Yajie Lee) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 16:40:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Request connection to 6 bone Message-ID: I'm a graduate student in the Department of computer sciences at the University of Nevada, Reno. I'd like to experience with the ipv6 and do some experiment on our local network for our department. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to decide which place I should contact to get the ipv6 address and connect to the 6 bone. Would you please help me out? Best Regards! Yajie Lee Department of Computer Sciences University of Nevada, Reno Reno, NV 89557 lee_y@cs.unr.edu From yjchui@ms.chttl.com.tw Wed Feb 25 07:49:26 1998 From: yjchui@ms.chttl.com.tw (Yann-Ju Chu) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 15:49:26 +0800 Subject: about ASN Message-ID: <34F3CD06.24C582B@ms.chttl.com.tw> We have joined 6Bone as leaf site and we have only one ISP in the original IPv6 network connected to Internet. Thus, we have no our own ASN in the past. Now, we wish to become a transit site and one of the requirement is to have BGP4+ routing protocol, which must have an ASN included. My question is that since a transit site usually have only one backbone site(as ISP) connected to 6Bone, should I apply for an ASN just for becoming an transit site? I have checked the 6Bone mail archive about the topic, but the old discussing seems to be about the ASN in provider-based address, not the ASN in BGP4+. Can anyone answer my question? Thanks a lot. Yann-Ju Chu yjchui@ms.chttl.com.tw From stuart@pa.dec.com Wed Feb 25 08:31:14 1998 From: stuart@pa.dec.com (Stephen Stuart) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 98 00:31:14 -0800 Subject: about ASN In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 25 Feb 98 15:49:26 +0800. <34F3CD06.24C582B@ms.chttl.com.tw> Message-ID: <9802250831.AA23152@nsl-too.pa.dec.com> > My question is that since a transit site usually have only one backbone > site(as ISP) connected to 6Bone, should I apply for an ASN just for > becoming an transit site? I have checked the 6Bone mail archive about > the topic, but the old discussing seems to be about the ASN in > provider-based address, not the ASN in BGP4+. > Can anyone answer my question? Thanks a lot. You should be able to use private AS numbers to peer with your upstream (me) and any downstreams with whom you might also peer. Stephen - ----- Stephen Stuart stuart@pa.dec.com Network Systems Laboratory Digital Equipment Corporation From tofunk@hotmail.com Fri Feb 27 16:22:09 1998 From: tofunk@hotmail.com (Anthony Funkhouse) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 08:22:09 PST Subject: IPv6 Integration Message-ID: <19980227162210.21369.qmail@hotmail.com> Good Afternoon, I just recently started researching IPv6 and I am having difficulties finding any halfway descent information on this topic. If anyone can help me in locating any whitepapers or information I would appreciate it. Thank you and have a great weekend. Tony ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com