From peterdd@gto.net.om Mon Jun 1 15:05:09 1998 From: peterdd@gto.net.om (peter dawson) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 18:05:09 +0400 Subject: Requirement Spec for IPv6 Routers Message-ID: <3572B514.221DF852@gto.net.om> Hi 6bone folk : Is there any std or draft for 'Requirements for IPv6 Routers' - Similar to RFC1812 ? or is there a draft in the pipeline ?? some pointers appreciated. If not, can I assume that the following IETF drafts are best practice reference's avialable as on date ? Alain Durand draft Alain Durand / Bertrand Buclin Thks Pete From rlfink@lbl.gov Mon Jun 1 16:16:04 1998 From: rlfink@lbl.gov (Bob Fink) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 08:16:04 -0700 Subject: Requirments for IPv6 routers In-Reply-To: <3571AB5C.8656FF91@gto.net.om> Message-ID: <1315433531-318842456@cnrmail.lbl.gov> --=====================_896739364==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Peter, At 11:11 PM 5/31/98 +0400, peter dawson wrote: >Hi 6bone folk : > >Is there any std or draft for 'Requirements for IPv6 Routers' - >Similar to RFC1812 ? >or is there a draft in the pipeline ?? some pointers appreciated. None that I know of. >If not, can I assume that the following IETF drafts are best >reference's avialable as on date ? > > Alain Durand draft > > Alain Durand / Bertrand Buclin > The routing practice replaces routing issues. Thanks, Bob --=====================_896739364==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Show Desktop.scf" [Shell] Command=2 IconFile=explorer.exe,3 [Taskbar] Command=ToggleDesktop --=====================_896739364==_-- From crawdad@fnal.gov Mon Jun 1 16:33:17 1998 From: crawdad@fnal.gov (Matt Crawford) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 10:33:17 -0500 Subject: Requirments for IPv6 routers In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 31 May 1998 23:11:27 +0400. <3571AB5C.8656FF91@gto.net.om> Message-ID: <199806011533.KAA13574@gungnir.fnal.gov> > Is there any std or draft for 'Requirements for IPv6 Routers' - > Similar to RFC1812 ? or is there a draft in the pipeline ?? some > pointers appreciated. I often ponder the need for this (and the corresponding "hosts" document), but I think it's a bit early to create it. ______________________________________________________________________________ Matt Crawford crawdad@fnal.gov Fermilab "A5.1.5.2.7.1. Remove all classified and CCI boards from the COMSEC equipment, thoroughly smash them with a hammer or an ax, and scatter the pieces." From peterdd@gto.net.om Mon Jun 1 17:31:57 1998 From: peterdd@gto.net.om (peter dawson) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 20:31:57 +0400 Subject: Help me on IPv6 References: Message-ID: <3572D77A.B826A6E7@gto.net.om> --------------247616A61B06DCEAA3434DAE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Shailesh : shailesh shashidhar govekar wrote: > Hi 6bone folk > > Please send me some site URL's which will give > > me maximum information on IPv6. If possible let me > > know about sites which do a comparative study of IPv4 > > with IPv6. I suggest you visit the 6bone home pages at http://www.6bone.net for more info..just follow the links :)) and it would be appreciated if you could kindly address your inquiries directly to the 6bone list at 6bone@isi.edu thks :)) Pete --------------247616A61B06DCEAA3434DAE Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Shailesh :

shailesh shashidhar govekar wrote:

Hi 6bone folk

       Please send me some site URL's which will give

me maximum information on IPv6. If possible let me

know about sites which do a comparative study of IPv4

with IPv6.

  
I suggest you visit the 6bone home pages at http://www.6bone.net for more
info..just follow the links :)) and it would be appreciated if you could kindly
address your inquiries directly to the 6bone list at 6bone@isi.edu

thks :))

Pete --------------247616A61B06DCEAA3434DAE-- From pcurran@ticl.co.uk Mon Jun 1 17:36:50 1998 From: pcurran@ticl.co.uk (Peter Curran) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 17:36:50 +0100 Subject: Requirments for IPv6 routers In-Reply-To: <199806011533.KAA13574@gungnir.fnal.gov> References: Message-ID: <199806011626.RAA23921@gate.ticl.co.uk> Matt At 10:33 01/06/98 -0500, Matt Crawford wrote: >> Is there any std or draft for 'Requirements for IPv6 Routers' - >> Similar to RFC1812 ? or is there a draft in the pipeline ?? some >> pointers appreciated. > >I often ponder the need for this (and the corresponding "hosts" >document), but I think it's a bit early to create it. It's a shame that you think it is too early. I think that it might be a good idea to have a requirements doc for routers and hosts. Lets face it, history shows that such an approach is eventually necessary to pressure the vendors into producing compliant systems with minimal functionality. Why not start off IPv6 with such guidance in place from the beginning, rather than having to develop such documents in the face of problems in the future. If such documents where to be produced, I am sure that the vendors (who have spent a lot of money and R&D time in developing what is a pretty healthy crop of basically interoperable products) could contribute their considerable expertise developed during the UNH trials. It could be argued that it would benefit the early-bird vendors to have an agreement on what constituted essential functionality, when they have to inevitably compete with the hordes (I hope) of vendors who have yet to place their toes in the water. My 2p. Peter TICL ============================================================== Peter Curran pcurran@ticl.co.uk http://www.ticl.co.uk Consultant and Author PGP key available from http://wwwkeys.uk.pgp.net:11371 or ldap://certserver.pgp.com PubKey Fingerprint = 5F94 D9A9 45EC 40A7 FB24 18BE 9C2E 74D6 E051 7F1F =============================================================== From kcn@digex.net Mon Jun 1 17:37:57 1998 From: kcn@digex.net (Kevin Nicholson) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 16:37:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: IPv6 looking glass. Message-ID: In case anyone would find it useful, I threw together a looking glass page which should be reachable at http://sol.eng.digex.net. -Kevin From peterdd@gto.net.om Mon Jun 1 19:10:38 1998 From: peterdd@gto.net.om (peter dawson) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 22:10:38 +0400 Subject: Requirments for IPv6 routers References: <199806011626.RAA23921@gate.ticl.co.uk> Message-ID: <3572EE9D.23D45F95@gto.net.om> Peter , Peter Curran wrote: > It's a shame that you think it is too early. I think that it > might be a > good idea to have a requirements doc for routers and hosts. > Lets face it, > history shows that such an approach is eventually necessary to > pressure the > vendors into producing compliant systems with minimal > functionality. I agree on that at least a draft and work towards a final doc. But with QoS, Congestion Control and maximum bandwidth utilisation, being crucial aspects of IPng, has enough R&D /testing been done to specifically produce the heathly crop as you mentioned ? Take for example At the ATM layer, during a Crankback (after flowspec have been negoiated between 2 IPv6 nodes), what happens if the Crankback occurs to a IPv4 node ?? Well I'm trying to figure this out .. hence the basic question for Requirments for IPv6 routers !! However, I also understand that my line of thinking maybe off track :)) Pete From Bertrand.Buclin@ch.att.com Tue Jun 2 04:31:50 1998 From: Bertrand.Buclin@ch.att.com (Buclin, Bertrand) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 05:31:50 +0200 Subject: Requirments for IPv6 routers Message-ID: <71203AED30DAD111AFEF0000C09940BE077E8A@gvamsx1.ch.att.com> Peter, Although your argument is very much valid, I agree with Matt that we are too early in the IPv6 game to be in position to propose anything sensible as router requirements. We are still missing very large chunks of the IPv6 picture yet to make any valid recommendation: for example, there is no robust IGP protocol yet (I don't consider RIP as robust...); we have'nt yet experimented with major IPv6 features such as IPSEC; router renumbering is not yet finalized; the scoped address debate is still going on; eventually, we want to promote SNMPv3 which just got out; etc... etc... Let's first have these 'basic' feature specified, implemented and experimented with before we go and produce a router requirement document. Cheers, Bertrand From Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no Tue Jun 2 09:59:56 1998 From: Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 10:59:56 +0200 Subject: Requirments for IPv6 routers In-Reply-To: <71203AED30DAD111AFEF0000C09940BE077E8A@gvamsx1.ch.att.com> Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19980602105956.00a2ba10@dokka.maxware.no> My somewhat biased opinion: The "requirements" documents (on routers and hosts) were done mainly because there were errors or omissions in the base documents that experience showed were important to correct, but the decision at the time was that opening up the base documents for modification would be a Bad Thing. I would hope that the IPv6 docs, which are still at Proposed Standard, can be clarified in the progression to Full Standard so much that most of the "fixes" in the "requirements" documents are not needed. The current crop of "ngtrans" requirements are documenting what we think *at this point in time*, in *this* situation, which I think is a Good Thing, but not a permanent feature of the IPv6 scene. Harald A Harald Tveit Alvestrand IETF Area Director, Operations and Management NOTE: No longer Area Director for Applications. From crawdad@fnal.gov Tue Jun 2 15:16:02 1998 From: crawdad@fnal.gov (Matt Crawford) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 09:16:02 -0500 Subject: Requirments for IPv6 routers In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 02 Jun 1998 05:31:50 +0200. <71203AED30DAD111AFEF0000C09940BE077E8A@gvamsx1.ch.att.com> Message-ID: <199806021416.JAA17675@gungnir.fnal.gov> > We are still missing very large chunks of the IPv6 > picture yet to make any valid recommendation: for example, there is no > robust IGP protocol yet (I don't consider RIP as robust...) Not to argue against myself, but there's OSPFv6 (draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv6-05.txt). But I haven't seen an implementation. From dhaskin@nexabit.com Tue Jun 2 21:10:28 1998 From: dhaskin@nexabit.com (Dimitry Haskin) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 16:10:28 -0400 Subject: Requirments for IPv6 routers Message-ID: <1180113EC576D011AADE0060975B88B31A6965@neonet_server1.nexabit.com> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [SMTP:Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no] My somewhat biased opinion: The "requirements" documents (on routers and hosts) were done mainly because there were errors or omissions in the base documents that experience showed were important to correct, but the decision at the time was that opening up the base documents for modification would be a Bad Thing. I would hope that the IPv6 docs, which are still at Proposed Standard, can be clarified in the progression to Full Standard so much that most of the "fixes" in the "requirements" documents are not needed. Yes, this has been a premise as far as I remember. The current crop of "ngtrans" requirements are documenting what we think *at this point in time*, in *this* situation, which I think is a Good Thing, but not a permanent feature of the IPv6 scene. True too. Dimitry ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------- Dimitry Haskin Nexabit Networks, Inc. http://www.nexabit.com From peterdd@gto.net.om Mon Jun 8 16:05:42 1998 From: peterdd@gto.net.om (peter dawson) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 19:05:42 +0400 Subject: Flow label/QoS Message-ID: <357BFDC6.1C50678C@gto.net.om> Hi 6bone : Need some feed back on this... It is assumed that the QoS Architecture implements Reserved Bandwidth services, supported with a network resource allocation on a per flow basis. Applications requesting for Reserved Bandwidths per-flow setup is initiated with RSVP as the signaling protocol, or as a hop-by-hop option in the IPv6 Header. The Flow Label field indicates requests for special handling by routers. Hence once the policy function and Qos Thresholds have been established, this would result in preferential scheduling treatment on the router because it would recognize the packet as a preferred class , based on on the Flow label option/ per flow specs. Now..my doubt ; 1) Even though the threshold has been setup on the IPv6 router to the aggregate flow of the outgoing interface, the IP layer still does not know exactly where the VC is going at the physcial layer(e.g ATM layer). Hence, how does IPv6 structure bandwidth allocations and control call admissions ? 2) On reading RFC1883, it states that the Flow label field is still experimental and subject to changes...as flow support becomes clearer. Is there any drafts / further reading which can be refered to get get a better understanding on this aspect ? Peter From marcus@utelfla.com Tue Jun 9 19:53:42 1998 From: marcus@utelfla.com (Marcus Williford) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 14:53:42 -0400 Subject: I need some help getting started Message-ID: <357D84B6.F8B7E109@utelfla.com> Help, I would like to participate in the 6BONE ipv6 network. Our organization has the available Cisco routers, but I am having trouble locating the IOS with ipv6 support. Who is the correct point of contact for IPv6 IOS code. Does anyone have a TLA node near Sprintlink in Atlanta? Thanks, Marcus marcus@utelfla.com From Jan.Novak@dante.org.uk Wed Jun 10 09:22:27 1998 From: Jan.Novak@dante.org.uk (Jan Novak) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 09:22:27 +0100 Subject: I need some help getting started In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 09 Jun 1998 14:53:42 EDT." <357D84B6.F8B7E109@utelfla.com> Message-ID: <"alpha.dante.:264440:980610082207"@dante.org.uk> You have to contact the distributor of your gear, he has to contact cisco and then go back to you with a non-disclosure agreement ... From mike.crawfurd@cmg.nl Wed Jun 10 13:16:08 1998 From: mike.crawfurd@cmg.nl (Mike Crawfurd) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 14:16:08 +0200 Subject: NAT Message-ID: <357E7908.D16DA8F8@cmg.nl> Dear ppl, I'm still researching all the possibilities of IPv6 (for now just theoretical), and I've stumbled onto a question. Everywhere can be read how to encapulate IPv6 over IP and how to access IP machines by IPv6 machines, but can an IPv4 host reach a IPv6 direct ? I think it's probebly possible using a NAT, my question is can a host (running for example freebsd with the ipv6 stack) act like a NAT for translating the IPv6 addresses to something the IPv4 can connect to ? I want to try in practice the following: IPv6 only host <-> IPv4/IPv6 dual stack <-> IPv4 only host Can these nodes communicate with each other ? I know the following communication can be establised: IPv6 only host <-> IPv4/IPv6 dual stack and IPv4/IPv6 dual stack <-> IPv4 only host so my logical conclusion is: IPv6 only host <-> IPv4 only host But offcourse there needs to be a NAT or gateway of somesort. Can a FreeBSD node translate the addresses for communication between the two IP-only hosts ? Can someone give me some more info about this ? -- TIA & TTUL, Mike Crawfurd. Mike Crawfurd Telephone. (+31) 10 253 7000 CMG Advanced Technologies Industries Telefax. (+31) 10 253 7033 Kralingseweg 241, 3062 CE Rotterdam Mobile. (+31) 65 534 7574 The Netherlands Email. mike.crawfurd@cmg.nl From jane@ifi.uio.no Wed Jun 10 21:53:10 1998 From: jane@ifi.uio.no (Jan Marius Evang) Date: 10 Jun 1998 22:53:10 +0200 Subject: BGP4+configuration on Cisco routers Message-ID: WE are trying to set up BGP4+ routing to 6bone through SICS, and there seems to be something wrong in the way we do it... There is not much help from the Cisco web-page, or from the router command-line. Has anybody got any hints? Yours Jan Marius Evang from show running-config: ipv6 bgp neighbor 3FFE:200:1:B::1 remote-as 2839 ipv6 bgp neighbor 3FFE:200:1:B::1 ebgp-multihop 3 ipv6 bgp network 3FFE:2A00::0/24 summary interface Tunnel0 no ip address ip route-cache policy ipv6 enable ipv6 address 3FFE:200:1:B::2/64 tunnel source 128.39.11.253 tunnel destination 193.10.66.219 tunnel mode ipv6ip autonomous-system 224 ipv6 route 3FFE::0/16 3FFE:200:1:B::1 #sh ipv6 bgp BGP IPv6 table version is 0, local router id is 0.0.0.0 Status codes: * - valid, > - best, i - internal Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete #sh ipv6 bgp ne BGP neighbor 3FFE:200:1:B::1, remote as 2839, internal link local address 0::0, version 0 #sh ipv6 bgp su BGP table version 0, IPv6 routing table version 0 Neighbor TblVer Peer Connection 3FFE:200:1:B::1 0 ibgp multihop -- -O /\/\ | Jan Marius Evang | Røyskatt 0 0 \| Greve av Ling | "En krakk er en Røyskatt" \ /\ | /In Aurum Veritas/ | [Bare Egil Band, "Alle dyr"] From rlfink@lbl.gov Wed Jun 10 22:39:37 1998 From: rlfink@lbl.gov (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 14:39:37 -0700 Subject: I need some help getting started In-Reply-To: <357D84B6.F8B7E109@utelfla.com> Message-ID: <1314632917-367004952@cnrmail.lbl.gov> Marcus, At 02:53 PM 6/9/98 -0400, Marcus Williford wrote: >Help, > >I would like to participate in the 6BONE ipv6 network. > >Our organization has the available Cisco routers, but I am having >trouble locating the IOS with ipv6 support. >Who is the correct point of contact for IPv6 IOS code. I've enclosed the Cisco IPv6 product manager's comments on this to me below. I would send your request to Martin McNealis, the Cisco product manager for IPv6, as I've not heard from him since he sent me this note in mid-May. >... we plan on just putting links to the IOS >Beta version up on our IPv6 pages so that anybody who's interested in >running IPv6 on Cisco gear and connecting to the 6-Bone can pull down >the appropriate image. That way we make it more available than with the >current mechanism where Cisco customers have to officially apply via >EFT/Beta paperwork ... >Does anyone have a TLA node near Sprintlink in Atlanta? I'll let the mailer respond to this part. Bob From shilpa@cse.iitb.ernet.in Fri Jun 12 10:27:08 1998 From: shilpa@cse.iitb.ernet.in (shilpa@cse.iitb.ernet.in) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 14:57:08 +0530 (IST) Subject: Tunnel endpoint Message-ID: <199806120927.OAA07509@kailash.cse.iitb.ernet.in> I have Ipv6 running on my m/c (as a host) I want to have the tunnel endpoint. My IP address is 144.16.111.233 my inet6 address is fe80::280:48ff:fe85:d426/10 Site Local inet6 address sffe::400:100:f101::1/64 Global shilpa From mike.crawfurd@cmg.nl Fri Jun 12 10:36:55 1998 From: mike.crawfurd@cmg.nl (Mike Crawfurd) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 11:36:55 +0200 Subject: NAT References: <357E7908.D16DA8F8@cmg.nl> <199806120512.WAA12324@pedrom-ultra.cisco.com> Message-ID: <3580F6B7.1B07199C@cmg.nl> I am aware of the various product that support these methods, but my thesis scope is limited to an enviroment without any contact of router (since it's not a very technical school and they are very easily confused). So my intensions are to use just a LAN implementation with just a few hosts, and my hopes are that soon I can implement it within my company with the use of e.g. cisco routers. Thanks anyway Mike Pedro Marques wrote: > > >>>>> "Mike" == Mike Crawfurd writes: > > Mike> I want to try in practice the following: > > Mike> IPv6 only host <-> IPv4/IPv6 dual stack <-> IPv4 only host > > Mike> But offcourse there needs to be a NAT or gateway of > Mike> somesort. > cisco's IPv6 implementation contains such functionality. > > regards, > Pedro. -- TIA & TTUL, Mike Crawfurd. Mike Crawfurd Telephone. (+31) 10 253 7000 CMG Advanced Technologies Industries Telefax. (+31) 10 253 7033 Kralingseweg 241, 3062 CE Rotterdam Mobile. (+31) 65 534 7574 The Netherlands Email. mike.crawfurd@cmg.nl From MOSTHAVM@plcman.siemens.co.uk Sat Jun 13 18:17:00 1998 From: MOSTHAVM@plcman.siemens.co.uk (MOSTHAVM@plcman.siemens.co.uk) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 18:17:00 +0100 Subject: whois Message-ID: Is there a whois server out there, that can be contacted overn the 6bone? I've tried whois.6bone.net, but it only returns IPv4 addresses. I've just patched ripe-whois-tools+6bone-extensions, but before I release it I would like to test it. running it loacally with tht ripe whoisd over IPv6 works fine. Marc From pwag@email.msn.com Sun Jun 14 18:37:53 1998 From: pwag@email.msn.com (Paul Wagner) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 10:37:53 -0700 Subject: Take me off newsletter Message-ID: <005001bd97bc$63197320$64312599@default> Take me off subscription! From pwag@email.msn.com Sun Jun 14 18:33:49 1998 From: pwag@email.msn.com (Paul Wagner) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 10:33:49 -0700 Subject: Take me off this newsletter! Message-ID: <004f01bd97bc$5e7ae4c0$64312599@default> Hi --- I am tired of recieving all of this dumb email conversations. Please take me off whatever newsletter this is. I want nothing to do with this newsletter. Be more constructive. Paul From Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca Sun Jun 14 20:01:01 1998 From: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca (Marc Blanchet) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 15:01:01 -0400 Subject: ipv6 native in the registry In-Reply-To: <199804292131.OAA13619@brind.isi.edu> References: <1318288652-147084926@cnrmail.lbl.gov> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19980614150101.00b5c2d0@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> David, I'm in the process of registering native ipv6 links, since we are making a national ipv6 native network. Since the registry has been upgraded to RPSL, any progress on this or do we still stick with the IPv6 in IPv6 hack? Regards, Marc. At 14:31 98-04-29 -0700, davidk@ISI.EDU wrote: > >Bob, Marius, > >Bob Fink writes: >> >> At 02:54 PM 4/29/98 +0200, Jan Marius Evang wrote: >> >How Should I indicate that two sites are connected, not by a tunnel, >> >but by an ATM link? >> >> Goos question. The ipv6-site description: >> >> http://www.ISI.EDU/~davidk/6bone/draft-ietf-ngtrans-6bone-registry-02.txt >> >> >> doesn't seem to have anything specified but tunnels for links. >> >> I've cc'd David Kessens on this, maybe he has a a good idea how to do this >> (time for an addition to the ipv6-site object?). > >So far, we have gotten around this by doing something that is strictly not >correct, but works for now ... : > >use 'IPv6 in IPv6' as the encapsulation in a tunnel attribute > >I do think that this should be fixed. However, fixing this probaly >opens up a can of worms since we will find all kind of other problems >that needs fixing too. In the end we will find that we most likely >need to move to RPSL. RPSL has much more power to specify what you >want. > >Although I would like it to be different, I am not entirely ready to >introduce the full power of RPSL right now (we are currently busy with >the transition to RPSL for the IPv4 world) and therefore it might be >best to use the 'IPv6 in IPv6' trick for the coming months. > >I am willing to do a quick fix if people indicate that that is >preferred, but I would rather go for a more consistent solution that >will take a bit more waiting time from you, > >David K. >--- > > ----------------------------------------------------------- Marc Blanchet | Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca Viagénie inc. | http://www.viagenie.qc.ca 3107 des hôtels | tél.: 418-656-9254 Ste-Foy, Québec | fax.: 418-656-0183 Canada, G1W 4W5 | radio: VA2-JAZ ------------------------------------------------------------ pgp :57 86 A6 83 D3 A8 58 32 F7 0A BB BD 5F B2 4B A7 ------------------------------------------------------------ Auteur du livre TCP/IP Simplifié, Éditions Logiques, 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------ From qin@csd.uwo.ca Sun Jun 14 22:48:44 1998 From: qin@csd.uwo.ca (Lijia Qin) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 17:48:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: A 6bone provider needed! Message-ID: Hi, I am a graduate student in University of Western Ontario, Canada and I want to connect to the 6bone with the Microsoft Research IPv6 release, I was wondering if anybody already on 6bone could support our connection? Thank you. Lijia --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lijia QIN Department of Computer Science University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, N6A 5B7 Canada E-mail:qin@csd.uwo.ca From Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca Mon Jun 15 01:16:19 1998 From: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca (Marc Blanchet) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 20:16:19 -0400 Subject: A 6bone provider needed! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19980614201619.02d552f0@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> Hi Lijia, Viagénie and Dalhousie Univ. have a common project for connecting canadian sites. We will talk to you off the list. Regards, Marc. At 17:48 98-06-14 -0400, Lijia Qin wrote: >Hi, > I am a graduate student in University of Western Ontario, Canada and >I want to connect to the 6bone with the Microsoft Research IPv6 >release, I was wondering if anybody already on 6bone could support our >connection? Thank you. Lijia > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Lijia QIN >Department of Computer Science >University of Western Ontario >London, Ontario, N6A 5B7 >Canada >E-mail:qin@csd.uwo.ca > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- Marc Blanchet | Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca Viagénie inc. | http://www.viagenie.qc.ca 3107 des hôtels | tél.: 418-656-9254 Ste-Foy, Québec | fax.: 418-656-0183 Canada, G1W 4W5 | radio: VA2-JAZ ------------------------------------------------------------ pgp :57 86 A6 83 D3 A8 58 32 F7 0A BB BD 5F B2 4B A7 ------------------------------------------------------------ Auteur du livre TCP/IP Simplifié, Éditions Logiques, 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------ From davidk@ISI.EDU Tue Jun 16 23:48:47 1998 From: davidk@ISI.EDU (David Kessens) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 22:48:47 +0000 Subject: ipv6 native in the registry In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980614150101.00b5c2d0@mail.viagenie.qc.ca>; from Marc Blanchet on Sun, Jun 14, 1998 at 03:01:01PM -0400 References: <1318288652-147084926@cnrmail.lbl.gov> <199804292131.OAA13619@brind.isi.edu> <3.0.5.32.19980614150101.00b5c2d0@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> Message-ID: <19980616224847.C15385@ISI.EDU> Marc, On Sun, Jun 14, 1998 at 03:01:01PM -0400, Marc Blanchet wrote: > > I'm in the process of registering native ipv6 links, > since we are making a national ipv6 native network. > Since the registry has been upgraded to RPSL, any progress on this or > do we still stick with the IPv6 in IPv6 hack? Yes. We are still extremely busy here with the IPv4 RIPE181 -> RPSL conversion and we first want to have that up and running before moving on IPv6. In principle all prefixes that are registered in the 'ipv6-site:' objects are supposed to be in use and reachable through the 6bone (as opposed to the allocations/assignements which are registered in the 'inet6num:' objects). The 'ipv6-site:' describes how a certain set of prefixes is connected to the 6bone. You can use the 'IPv6 in IPv6' hack for describing native links between different sites, but this is not necessary inside the 'ipv6-site:' itself since it is assumed that the prefixes are natively connected, or otherwise another 'ipv6-site:' would have been present. Actually you could even decide to omit the tunnel information for natively connected 'ipv6-site:'s since this would again imply that they are somehow connected natively to the 6bone, since I would assume that this is (should be) the default operation of an IPv6 Internetwork just as we are currently doing in the IPv4 world. And finally, RPSL will add 'inet-rtr:' (router) objects which will give much more flexibility to describe the nature of the links between the 'ipv6-site:'s. David K. --- From davidk@ISI.EDU Tue Jun 16 23:54:18 1998 From: davidk@ISI.EDU (David Kessens) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 22:54:18 +0000 Subject: whois In-Reply-To: ; from MOSTHAVM@plcman.siemens.co.uk on Sat, Jun 13, 1998 at 06:17:00PM +0100 References: Message-ID: <19980616225418.A15460@ISI.EDU> Marc, On Sat, Jun 13, 1998 at 06:17:00PM +0100, MOSTHAVM@plcman.siemens.co.uk wrote: > Is there a whois server out there, that can be contacted overn the 6bone? > I've tried whois.6bone.net, but it only returns IPv4 addresses. I've just > patched ripe-whois-tools+6bone-extensions, but before I release it I would > like to test it. running it loacally with tht ripe whoisd over IPv6 works > fine. This is good news. I am looking forward to work with you to make the 6bone registry reachable though the 6bone. I will follow up on this with you privately. I will let the list know when ready. David K. --- From rlfink@lbl.gov Wed Jun 17 20:38:08 1998 From: rlfink@lbl.gov (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:38:08 -0700 Subject: scheduling for August IETF Message-ID: 6bone/ngtrans folk, I will need to schedule the ngtrans meeting soon for the August IETF, so am soliciting input. I'm inclined to ask for the usual two one-hour slots on Tuesday afternoon. Currently we have the following on the table: "IPv6 Transitions Mechanisms" draft for advancement to replace RFC 1933 "6bone Routing Practices" draft for advancement to Info RFC 6bone operational issues BGP4+ routing reports other stuff?? When/if do we change from a 'test' AUP to a production 'AUP' Status of IPv6 address registry issues with RIPE/ARIN/APNIC Please let me know what else may be appropriate. Thanks, Bob From rlfink@lbl.gov Thu Jun 18 16:38:41 1998 From: rlfink@lbl.gov (Bob Fink) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 08:38:41 -0700 Subject: scheduling for August IETF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1313963373-407283606@cnrmail.lbl.gov> Girsih, At 10:34 AM 6/18/98 -0500, Girish Chiruvolu wrote: > >may I suggest some discussions on QoS and Mobility (/Address) >management (w.r.t IPv6) for IETF meeting In what context to ngtrans? These are topics already covered by the ipng wg from an oversight point of view and actually going on in other working groups (diffserv and mobility). Bob From Ben Hockenhull Thu Jun 18 17:07:35 1998 From: Ben Hockenhull (Ben Hockenhull) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 12:07:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Whither IPv6 IOS? Message-ID: I sent a message to the contact at Cisco mentioned on the IPv6 software page, but got no response. I'm trying to determine where I can obtain an IOS image that contains IPv6 support, and, nearly as importantly, which routers are supported by that code. It'd be ideal if the 1605 were supported, since I have an extra. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Hockenhull benh@jpj.net From rlfink@lbl.gov Thu Jun 18 17:29:03 1998 From: rlfink@lbl.gov (Bob Fink) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:29:03 -0700 Subject: scheduling for August IETF In-Reply-To: References: <1313963373-407283606@cnrmail.lbl.gov> Message-ID: <1313960350-407465453@cnrmail.lbl.gov> Girish, At 10:59 AM 6/18/98 -0500, Girish Chiruvolu wrote: ... >Thats fine.., > >(I thought of some kind of brief overviews of the current >work w.r.t those topics/working-groups, but that dilutes the scope >of ngtrans (?) I guess/realize :-) Given this, I would as soon not include anything on the agenda about this. Generally the Mobility guys give a good overview at the IPng meeting, and the Diffserv efforts are definitely a work in progress that I would hesitate discussing at the ngtrans meeting. Thanks, Bob From Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no Fri Jun 19 09:04:31 1998 From: Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 10:04:31 +0200 Subject: What NGTrans is about (Re: scheduling for August IETF) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19980619100431.0216a660@dokka.maxware.no> (some hopefully irrelevant CCs deleted) Just to remind you what ngtrans is SUPPOSED to be doing: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The purpose of this group is to design the mechanisms and procedures to support the transition of the Internet from IPv4 to IPv6. The work of the group will fall into three areas: 1. Define the processes by which the Internet will be transitioned from IPv4 to IPv6. As part of this effort, the group will produce a document explaining to the general Internet community what mechanisms will be employed in the transition, how the transition will work, the assumptions about infrastructure deployment inherent in the operation of these mechanisms, and the types of functionality that applications developers will be able to assume as the protocol mix changes over time. 2. Define and specify the mandatory and optional mechanisms that vendors are to implement in hosts, routers, and other components of the Internet in order for the transition to be carried out. Dual protocol stack, encapsulation and header translation mechanisms must all be defined, as well as the interaction between hosts using different combinations of these mechanisms. The specifications produced will be used by people implementing these IPv6 systems. 3. Articulate a concrete operational plan for transitioning the Internet from IPv4 to IPv6. The result of this work will be a transition plan for the Internet that network operators and Internet subscribers can execute. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Furthermore, it's supposed to be finished by July 95 :-) I think ngtrans should be asking itself: - What will the group produce? - When will it produce it? - What else is needed to get the NG transition rolling? Harald A -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no From rlfink@lbl.gov Fri Jun 19 16:13:31 1998 From: rlfink@lbl.gov (Bob Fink) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 08:13:31 -0700 Subject: What NGTrans is about (Re: scheduling for August IETF) In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19980619100431.0216a660@dokka.maxware.no> References: Message-ID: <1313878469-412391225@cnrmail.lbl.gov> 6bone/ngtrans folk, The correct ngtrans charter is not the one Harald gives below (some recent update error on the ITEF web pages seems to have lost the recent charter, and it reverted to an old one). The current one is (and has been) available at: http://www.6bone.net/ngtrans_charter.html This and other ngtrans info is referenced thru the pointer at the text at the top of the 6bone home page: http://www.6bone.net/ I will be discussing the charter, timelines and the various questions of us with Harald, and will keep the list informed as I know more. Thanks, Bob ===== At 10:04 AM 6/19/98 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: >(some hopefully irrelevant CCs deleted) > >Just to remind you what ngtrans is SUPPOSED to be doing: >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >The purpose of this group is to design the mechanisms and procedures to >support the transition of the Internet from IPv4 to IPv6. >The work of the group will fall into three areas: > >1. Define the processes by which the Internet will be transitioned from >IPv4 to IPv6. As part of this effort, the group will produce a document >explaining to the general Internet community what mechanisms will be >employed in the transition, how the transition will work, the assumptions >about infrastructure deployment inherent in the operation of these >mechanisms, and the types of functionality that applications developers >will be able to assume as the protocol mix changes over time. > >2. Define and specify the mandatory and optional mechanisms that vendors >are to implement in hosts, routers, and other components of the Internet in >order for the transition to be carried out. Dual protocol stack, >encapsulation and header translation mechanisms must all be defined, as >well as the interaction between hosts using different combinations of these >mechanisms. The specifications produced will be used by people implementing >these IPv6 systems. > >3. Articulate a concrete operational plan for transitioning the Internet >from IPv4 to IPv6. The result of this work will be a transition plan for >the Internet that network operators and Internet subscribers can execute. >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Furthermore, it's supposed to be finished by July 95 :-) > >I think ngtrans should be asking itself: > >- What will the group produce? >- When will it produce it? >- What else is needed to get the NG transition rolling? > > Harald A > > > > > >-- >Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway >Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no > From bound@zk3.dec.com Tue Jun 23 17:50:47 1998 From: bound@zk3.dec.com (bound@zk3.dec.com) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 12:50:47 -0400 Subject: What NGTrans is about (Re: scheduling for August IETF) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Jun 1998 08:13:31 PDT." <1313878469-412391225@cnrmail.lbl.gov> Message-ID: <199806231650.AA02532@wasted.zk3.dec.com> Bob, I understand the charter is different. But I would like to highly recommend we take Harald's list to heart regrarding transitioning the Internet and especially folks getting real IPv6 addresses. Just because its not in the charter does not mean we should not care. I realize you and Bob Hinden have been working this offline regarding real IPv6 addresses. Maybe it is time to take this from offline to online, or I can bring it up on a different list. my .02 cents, thanks /jim From peterdd@gto.net.om Tue Jun 23 18:59:02 1998 From: peterdd@gto.net.om (peter dawson) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 21:59:02 +0400 Subject: (ngtrans) Re: What NGTrans is about (Re: scheduling for August IETF) References: <199806231650.AA02532@wasted.zk3.dec.com> Message-ID: <358FECE6.E7DEA392@gto.net.om> Bob Just a matter of academic curiosity. With the nIANA doing work with the Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses also known as the "Green Paper", won't this effect the bigger picture in context of real IPv6 addresses ?? /Pete bound@zk3.dec.com wrote: > Bob, > > I understand the charter is different. But I would like to > highly > recommend we take Harald's list to heart regrarding > transitioning the > Internet and especially folks getting real IPv6 addresses. > Just because > its not in the charter does not mean we should not care. > > I realize you and Bob Hinden have been working this offline > regarding > real IPv6 addresses. Maybe it is time to take this from > offline to > online, or I can bring it up on a different list. > > my .02 cents, > thanks > /jim From rlfink@lbl.gov Tue Jun 23 18:45:13 1998 From: rlfink@lbl.gov (Bob Fink) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 10:45:13 -0700 Subject: (ngtrans) Re: What NGTrans is about (Re: scheduling for August IETF) In-Reply-To: <358FECE6.E7DEA392@gto.net.om> References: <199806231650.AA02532@wasted.zk3.dec.com> Message-ID: <1313520719-433912769@cnrmail.lbl.gov> Peter, At 09:59 PM 6/23/98 +0400, peter dawson wrote: >Bob > >Just a matter of academic curiosity. With the nIANA doing work with the >Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses also >known as the "Green Paper", won't this effect the bigger picture >in context of real IPv6 addresses ?? The primary work going on at this time to ready for IPv6 address allocation in the "Aggregatable Unicast" space is being done by the regional address registries (RIPE, ARIN and APNIC) with some comment and oversight by the IANA. The I-D just issued (see below) is the IETF's current input (at least IPng WG's input) to the registries, with the registries participation and input to it as well from the Stockholm RIPE meeting of several weeks ago. This I-D now will have to go thru some process at the IAB/IESG/IETF to issue it as an RFC of some type for the IANA and registries use. I doubt that the "Magaziner" efforts underway, and reported in the newest "whitepaper(?)" just released, will materially affect this process as this process seems consistent with it (at least the way I read it). Bob --- Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 10:16:10 -0400 From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: IETF-Announce:;;;;@CNRI.Reston.VA.US;@Eng.Sun.COM;;; Cc: ipng@sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM Subject: (IPng 5882) I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipngwg-tla-assignment-04.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IPNG Working Group of the IETF. Title : Proposed TLA and NLA Assignment Rules Author(s) : B. Hinden Filename : draft-ietf-ipngwg-tla-assignment-04.txt Pages : 10 Date : 12-Jun-98 This document proposes rules for Top-Level Aggregation Identifiers (TLA ID) and Next-Level Aggregation Identifiers (NLA ID) as defined in [AGGR]. These proposed rules apply to registries allocating TLA ID's and to organizations receiving TLA ID's. This proposal is intended as input from the IPng working group to the IANA and Registries. It is not intended for any official IETF status. Its content represents the result of extensive discussion between the IPng working group, IANA, and Registries. ... From pdesai@wins.hrl.com Thu Jun 25 20:23:16 1998 From: pdesai@wins.hrl.com (Priyank Desai) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 12:23:16 -0700 Subject: configuring a 2-host ipv6 n/w on same link Message-ID: <3592A3A4.4C373AA4@wins.hrl.com> Hi! I am trying to set up a ipv6 network using two machines running linux-2.1.106. I have installed bind-8.1.1 resolver, the necessary modutils.... MY question is : 1. How do u make the network active ( an active ipv6 network -how to configure it 2. What will be my ipv6 address. 3. how do I test whether my network is running ipv6 or not?..send ipv6 packets ??? 4. Are the other applications like TELNET, TFTP, POP, HTTP Daemon Aache, client Chimera, TTCP, PTCP TCP Wrapper, SSH ...etc... necessary before I see my network as an active ipv6 network and before i test it? please also let me know some links or rfc's which can help me meet my goal.... thanks, regards, Priyank From lf@elemental.net Fri Jun 26 13:42:51 1998 From: lf@elemental.net (Lars Fenneberg) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 14:42:51 +0200 Subject: configuring a 2-host ipv6 n/w on same link In-Reply-To: <3592A3A4.4C373AA4@wins.hrl.com>; from Priyank Desai on Thu, Jun 25, 1998 at 12:23:16PM -0700 References: <3592A3A4.4C373AA4@wins.hrl.com> Message-ID: <19980626144251.01217@gimli.elemental.net> Hi! Quoting Priyank Desai (pdesai@wins.hrl.com): > I am trying to set up a ipv6 network using two machines running > linux-2.1.106. I have installed bind-8.1.1 resolver, the necessary > modutils.... > please also let me know some links or rfc's which can help me meet my > goal.... Have a look at Peter Bieringer's IPv6-HOWTO for Linux at: http://www.bieringer.de/linux/IPv6/default.html Lars. -- Lars Fenneberg, lf@elemental.net (private), lf@cityline.net (work) pgp 1024/1A3A7A4D D1 28 F1 FF 3C 6B C0 27 CC 9C 6C 09 34 0A 55 18 From pdesai@wins.hrl.com Fri Jun 26 22:35:41 1998 From: pdesai@wins.hrl.com (Priyank Desai) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 14:35:41 -0700 Subject: ---> want to connect to the six bone Message-ID: <3594142D.9FDA4623@wins.hrl.com> Hi! We here at HRL, have a couple of Linux machines running 2.1.106, ready with the ipv6 code...we would like to join the six bone... Can any body guide us in that matter?.. What r the requirements and what do I do to get a tunnel connection.? thanks, regards, Priyank Desai HRL From pdesai@wins.hrl.com Sat Jun 27 01:05:43 1998 From: pdesai@wins.hrl.com (Priyank Desai) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 17:05:43 -0700 Subject: getting connected to the sixbone Message-ID: <35943757.170F2A33@wins.hrl.com> Hi! I want to get connected to the 6bone... can any body provide me with a tunnel? A step-by-step procedure to do so will be appreciated. Can any one provide me a tunnel? HOST 1 HOST2 ip : 206.17.46.195 206.17.46.194 host : sixbone2.wins.hrl.com sixbone1.wins.hrl.com default gw : 206.17.46.193 default gw : 206.17.46.193 subnet : 255.255.255.240 ubnet : 255.255.255.240 name server : 206.17.46.85 name server : 206.17.46.85 thanks, regards, priyank --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- " When Going Gets Tough, The Tough Get Going !!! " ----------------------------------------------------------- From pdesai@wins.hrl.com Tue Jun 30 18:42:55 1998 From: pdesai@wins.hrl.com (Priyank) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 10:42:55 -0700 Subject: -> TUNNEL NEEDED Message-ID: <3599239F.9D8383A2@wins.hrl.com> Hi! I am interested in getting connected to the 6bone.. I have two machines running ipv6, with linux 2.1.106. host 1 : host name : sixbone1.wins.hrl.com domain : wins.hrl.com ip : 206.17.46.194 D GW : 206.17.46.193 Name server: 206.17.46.85 IPv6 : fe80::200:coff:fe7f:fdec/10 host 2 : host name : sixbone2.wins.hrl.com domain : wins.hrl.com ip : 206.17.46.195 D GW : 206.17.46.193 Name server: 206.17.46.85 IPv6 : fe80::200:coff:fe71:fdec/10 Can any body suggest me the step by step procedure needed hence forth...? thanks, regards, -P