From john@dryfish.org Sun Oct 1 01:26:45 2000 From: john@dryfish.org (John Wright) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 01:26:45 +0100 Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: <200009302122.OAA12141@zed.isi.edu>; from bmanning@ISI.EDU on Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 02:22:39PM -0700 References: <20000930180930.C18101@dryfish.org> <200009302122.OAA12141@zed.isi.edu> Message-ID: <20001001012645.A18967@dryfish.org> On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 02:22:39PM -0700, Bill Manning wrote: > Two birds w/ one stone. > > ) There is no IPv6 equivalent of global, private address space > as defined in RFC 1918. There is link-local and site-local, > which might suit your purposes. Searching in an RFC for those two keywords and I appear to have a happier network -- also beginning to understand the addressing scheme more. Thanks. From tony@lava.net Sun Oct 1 02:36:50 2000 From: tony@lava.net (Antonio Querubin) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 15:36:50 -1000 (HST) Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: <200009302122.OAA12141@zed.isi.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Bill Manning wrote: > If you have: 201:0600:0004:80cf::/48 and (remember) the > bits from 65-128 are "reserved" for your MAC or e164 address, > then you have /49 to /64 to carve up as subnets. > 16 delegation points, e.g. the functional equivalant of an > IPv4 /16. Does that help? Is it really required that we use the MAC address in bits 64-128? Ie. what prevents someone from just starting with some arbitrary number in the subnet field? Or for that matter what really prevents subnetting beyond a /64? From bmanning@ISI.EDU Sun Oct 1 04:59:44 2000 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 20:59:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: from "Antonio Querubin" at Sep 30, 2000 03:36:50 PM Message-ID: <200010010359.UAA05123@zed.isi.edu> % On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Bill Manning wrote: % % > If you have: 201:0600:0004:80cf::/48 and (remember) the % > bits from 65-128 are "reserved" for your MAC or e164 address, % > then you have /49 to /64 to carve up as subnets. % > 16 delegation points, e.g. the functional equivalant of an % > IPv4 /16. Does that help? % % Is it really required that we use the MAC address in bits 64-128? Ie. % what prevents someone from just starting with some arbitrary number in the % subnet field? Or for that matter what really prevents subnetting beyond a % /64? The value does not have to be a MAC address. E164s are known to work. The idea is that it is roughly an invarient, globally unique number w/o topologocal significance. Some applications are using system calls designed along these "8+8" boundaries. But, other than the fact that some stuff won't work, there is nothing to prevent you from carving up your space as you see fit. :) --bill From jguthrie@brokersys.com Sun Oct 1 06:36:30 2000 From: jguthrie@brokersys.com (Jonathan Guthrie) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 00:36:30 -0500 (CDT) Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Antonio Querubin wrote: > On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Bill Manning wrote: > > If you have: 201:0600:0004:80cf::/48 and (remember) the > > bits from 65-128 are "reserved" for your MAC or e164 address, > > then you have /49 to /64 to carve up as subnets. > > 16 delegation points, e.g. the functional equivalant of an > > IPv4 /16. Does that help? > Is it really required that we use the MAC address in bits 64-128? Ie. > what prevents someone from just starting with some arbitrary number in the > subnet field? Or for that matter what really prevents subnetting beyond a > /64? You need to read the rfc that talks about constructing an IPv6 address from an Ethernet address. Basically, what I understand is that as long as the global bit is not set, you can generate any address you want for bits 64-127. You use such addresses for things like tunnel endpoints, which aren't associated with Ethernet adapters and so the technique for converting Ethernet adapters to IPv6 addresses doesn't apply. It is also my understanding that tunnels (and, presumably, point-to-point IPv6 links like PPP or HDLC WAN sessions although I've never seen it done because I'm still new to this IPv6 thing) are usually set up as /127's. I do it this way for my downstream tunnels and it works. Those addresses are primarily of local interest, so you reset the global bit for them and pick them in pairs. It works because nobody expects bits 64-127 to be unique if the global bit is reset. What I don't understand is what to do if you want multiple global addresses on a single computer. Is there some way of generating multiple IPv6 addresses from a single Ethernet address or am I supposed to generate random global addresses and do a collision detection or do I have to buy a bunch of old, dead Ethernet cards and use their addresses? With the large address space available in IPv6, it makes sense to use address-based virtual hosting and server addresses should be global, or so I understand. -- Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) Brokersys +281-580-3358 http://www.brokersys.com/ 12703 Veterans Memorial #106, Houston, TX 77014, USA From tony@lava.net Sun Oct 1 07:00:31 2000 From: tony@lava.net (Antonio Querubin) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 20:00:31 -1000 (HST) Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Jonathan Guthrie wrote: > You need to read the rfc that talks about constructing an IPv6 address > from an Ethernet address. Basically, what I understand is that as long as > the global bit is not set, you can generate any address you want for > bits 64-127. You use such addresses for things like tunnel endpoints, > which aren't associated with Ethernet adapters and so the technique for > converting Ethernet adapters to IPv6 addresses doesn't apply. I've read the RFC but apart from the global invariance of this type of address why would anyone want to use it or organize and maintain their address space in such a manner? The global uniqueness is neat but other than that so what? Ethernet addresses are for the most part unique too but who in his right mind organizes networks by ethernet address? Similarly where's the incentive to organize a network using an IPv6 address that's in part based on the ethernet MAC address? > What I don't understand is what to do if you want multiple global > addresses on a single computer. Is there some way of generating multiple > IPv6 addresses from a single Ethernet address or am I supposed to generate > random global addresses and do a collision detection or do I have to buy a > bunch of old, dead Ethernet cards and use their addresses? With the large > address space available in IPv6, it makes sense to use address-based > virtual hosting and server addresses should be global, or so I understand. I've been wondering exactly the same thing... From isp@forumakad.pl Mon Oct 2 09:23:13 2000 From: isp@forumakad.pl (Eyck) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:23:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Web server s/w for Solaris 2.8 In-Reply-To: <000201c02926$8179c0b0$a3818c96@kontogianni> Message-ID: > do you know what is the available ipv6 Web server software for Solaris 2.8? > Does the Apache server, included in the distribution, support ipv6?? AFAIK it doesen't, try compiling it yourself ( but it tested it the lame way : telnet ::1 80, telnet ::1 8080 so I think either apache nor websphersth doesen't support ipv6) From mark.drayton@4thwave.co.uk Mon Oct 2 10:04:41 2000 From: mark.drayton@4thwave.co.uk (Mark Drayton) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:04:41 +0100 (BST) Subject: Tunnel request Message-ID: Hi I represent a small ISP in Hampshire, UK. We'd like to get a 6bone tunnel for testing and development. I've asked a few places in London for a tunnel, but haven't heard anything back from them so I'm asking here as http://www.6bone.net/6bone_hookup.html suggests. Our upstream provider is PSInet in Telehouse, London. Can anyone help us out? Many thanks Mark Drayton 4th Wave Technologies From john@dryfish.org Mon Oct 2 14:30:15 2000 From: john@dryfish.org (John Wright) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:30:15 +0100 Subject: Tunnel request In-Reply-To: ; from mark.drayton@4thwave.co.uk on Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 10:04:41AM +0100 References: Message-ID: <20001002143015.E30868@dryfish.org> On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 10:04:41AM +0100, Mark Drayton wrote: > Hi > > I represent a small ISP in Hampshire, UK. We'd like to get a 6bone tunnel > for testing and development. I've asked a few places in London for a > tunnel, but haven't heard anything back from them so I'm asking here as > http://www.6bone.net/6bone_hookup.html suggests. > > Our upstream provider is PSInet in Telehouse, London. > > Can anyone help us out? I've been playing with http://www.freenet6.net/ tunnels which even give you a setup perl script for your OS. The ipv4 traceroute from UK takes a while but for testing there's no problem. From tv@pobox.com Mon Oct 2 15:20:46 2000 From: tv@pobox.com (Todd Vierling) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:20:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 6to4 tunnel endpoint list? Message-ID: Someone else asked this as part of replying to a thread, but I'll ask it again: Is there a published list of public 6to4 ingress points? It'd be nice to survey the turnaround times.... -- -- Todd Vierling (tv@pobox.com) From brian@hursley.ibm.com Mon Oct 2 16:44:58 2000 From: brian@hursley.ibm.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 10:44:58 -0500 Subject: 6to4 tunnel endpoint list? References: Message-ID: <39D8AD7A.92DD748E@hursley.ibm.com> Todd, I don't understand your terminology. Do you mean active 6to4 sites (i.e. vanilla 6to4 routers) or 6to4 relay routers? In any case the RFC isn't even out yet... Brian Todd Vierling wrote: > > Someone else asked this as part of replying to a thread, but I'll ask it > again: > > Is there a published list of public 6to4 ingress points? It'd be nice to > survey the turnaround times.... > > -- > -- Todd Vierling (tv@pobox.com) From tv@pobox.com Mon Oct 2 17:02:19 2000 From: tv@pobox.com (Todd Vierling) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 12:02:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: 6to4 tunnel endpoint list? In-Reply-To: <39D8AD7A.92DD748E@hursley.ibm.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Brian E Carpenter wrote: : I don't understand your terminology. Do you mean active 6to4 sites (i.e. : vanilla 6to4 routers) or 6to4 relay routers? The latter, as in sites accepting 6to4 packets and injecting directly to the 6bone. MS has one, for instance: 6to4.ipv6.microsoft.com. : In any case the RFC isn't even out yet... Yes, I know it's in draft state, but it's also implemented in several stacks already, and there are now 2002::/16 outbound route(s) available to make round-trips work properly. -- -- Todd Vierling (tv@pobox.com) From maurik@servidor.unam.mx Mon Oct 2 17:32:59 2000 From: maurik@servidor.unam.mx (Mauricio =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hern=E1ndez=20Garc=EDa?=) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 11:32:59 -0500 Subject: linux tunnel References: Message-ID: <39D8B8BB.CD532D32@servidor.unam.mx> Hi Some one can helpme to configure my tunnel? I have a Linux Red Hat 6.2 system with 2.2.17 kernel and its configurated to use IPv6. I have some basic services working fine in my local network so, I want to go outside using a tunnel that I get in freenet6. They sendme some information (IPv6 and IPv4 addresses for both sides of the tunnel) to configure my system but I can't do it. I think my problem is with the route. Thanks -- Mauricio Hernandez Garcia Prospeccion e Innovacion Tecnologica Direccion General de Computo Academico, UNAM 5622-8316 From tony@lava.net Mon Oct 2 20:04:28 2000 From: tony@lava.net (Antonio Querubin) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 09:04:28 -1000 (HST) Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: <20001002035954.A64207@kato.home.snew.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, chuck yerkes wrote: > Then I got a tunnel (was playing on internal net before), > and had to renumber everything. > By hand. > That's when I learned about just having the gateway > server provide the prefix and letting the machines > set up their own addresss. > > When I have to renumber again, I change the prefix > at one machine and, next reboot, the machines are > renumbered. Like DHCP but static enough that the > conflicts are only created per duplicate MAC address; > that will happen never given that ethernet's lower > layers will also have trouble with that :). It seems like extremely inefficient use of subnet space just to avoid address conflicts on the same segment. It's a laudable goal but it seems like a solution chasing after a problem already solved by DHCP or good address management practices. And DHCP hands out more than just IP addresses. In the bigger IP address management world I can think of other problems that would arise using this scheme. Of concern to me is assignment of virtual host addresses and the problems associated with swapping ethernet cards, routers, etc. Maintaining a sane reverse DNS map sounds more difficult. > So, short answer: Number it what you want, but using > the MAC address makes admin much nicer. As long as its primary use is for link-local usage I can see it's advantages. But for global-scope usage any additional benefits seem very limited. From andrius@andrius.org Tue Oct 3 07:56:35 2000 From: andrius@andrius.org (Andrius Kasparavicius) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 08:56:35 +0200 (GMT-2) Subject: linux tunnel In-Reply-To: <39D8B8BB.CD532D32@servidor.unam.mx> Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Mauricio [iso-8859-1] Hernández García wrote: > using a tunnel that I get in freenet6. They sendme some information > (IPv6 and IPv4 addresses for both sides of the tunnel) to configure my > system but I can't do it. I think my problem is with the route. commands for simple IPv6 in IPv4 tunnel. ip tunnel add mode sit remote ttl 64 ip link set up ip -f inet6 route add fe80::/128 dev metric 1 ifconfig tunnelname add ip -f inet6 route add ::/0 via > if tunnel exist on other side..it should work, but freenet checks other IPv6 end's and removes not used tunnels. ------------------------- Kasparavicius Andrius ________________________________________________________________________ http://www.andrius.org ICQ:17701001 tel.: +370 87 25630 nick: Casper AND-RIPE AND-6BONE From oguz19@hotmail.com Tue Oct 3 23:21:53 2000 From: oguz19@hotmail.com (oguz rahmi kazanci) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 22:21:53 EEST Subject: mailing list Message-ID: Hi sirs, I don't want to exist in the 6bone mailing list anymore. I will be glad if someone can help me. Thanks for your help. Oguz _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From davidg@uk.uu.net Tue Oct 3 23:36:19 2000 From: davidg@uk.uu.net (David Gethings) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 23:36:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Jonathan Guthrie wrote: > > What I don't understand is what to do if you want multiple global > addresses on a single computer. Is there some way of generating multiple > IPv6 addresses from a single Ethernet address or am I supposed to generate > random global addresses and do a collision detection or do I have to buy a > bunch of old, dead Ethernet cards and use their addresses? With the large > address space available in IPv6, it makes sense to use address-based > virtual hosting and server addresses should be global, or so I understand. Jonathan, If I recall the IPv6 RFC correctly you can ues part of the last 64 bits for multiple addresses on a single computer. As you know the last 64 bits of an IPv6 address are taken from the computers MAC address (if you wish to allocate in that manner). But a MAC address is only 48 bits long, leaving a tasty 8 bits. As I understand it the computer *can* use these 8 bits to allocate multiple addresses without too much further configuration. How you do this in pratice though, I have no idea as I haven't looked into it. Regards -- David Gethings UUNET, a Worldcom Company, Network Activation Engineer Internet House, 332 Science Park, Email: davidg@uk.uu.net Cambridge, CB4 0BZ, United Kingdom. Phone: +44 (0)1223 581515 http://www.uk.uu.net/ From pcurran@ticl.co.uk Tue Oct 3 15:48:10 2000 From: pcurran@ticl.co.uk (peter@ticl) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:48:10 +0100 Subject: Protocol analyser Message-ID: <02fb01c02d48$f4b87b40$9e0114ac@creak.ticl.co.uk> Help!! I desperately (ie yesterday) need a sniffer that can grok IPv6 and that runs on Windows 2000. I have tried the Agilent demo, but this cannot handle fundamental things like ICMPv6 for NDP (so it sits in the chocolate fireguard list of most useless things). Can anybody point me in the right direction. Cheers Peter Curran TICL From shilpa@cse.iitb.ernet.in Wed Oct 4 03:53:10 2000 From: shilpa@cse.iitb.ernet.in (Shilpa Ghadge) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 08:23:10 +0530 (IST) Subject: mailing list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello, I also don't want to be in the 6bone mailing list. Can you help me? thanks Shilpa On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, oguz rahmi kazanci wrote: > Hi sirs, > I don't want to exist in the 6bone mailing list anymore. I will be glad > if someone can help me. > Thanks for your help. > Oguz > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > http://profiles.msn.com. > From baixauli@mat.upc.es Wed Oct 4 10:16:51 2000 From: baixauli@mat.upc.es (Julio Baixauli) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 11:16:51 +0200 Subject: How to unsubscribe References: <200004070921.CAA16721@zephyr.isi.edu> Message-ID: <39DAF583.38C6EE4E@mat.upc.es> majordomo@isi.edu wrote: > > -- > > Welcome to the 6bone mailing list! > > If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, > send the following command in email to > "6bone-request@isi.edu": > > unsubscribe > > Or you can send mail to "majordomo@isi.edu" with the following command > in the body of your email message: > > unsubscribe 6bone J_Baix > > Here's the general information for the list you've > subscribed to, in case you don't already have it: > > The 6bone list is for the discussion of the development of the initial IPv6 > network. > > To ADD yourself to this list, send a message to > with the line > > subscribe 6bone > > as the contents of the message. > > To REMOVE yourself from this list, send a message to > with the line > > unsubscribe 6bone > > as the contents of the message. > > Use of this list for other than its intended purpose is prohibited. -- ******************************************** Julio Baixauli Garreta baixauli@mat.upc.es ******************************************** From john@dryfish.org Wed Oct 4 11:09:42 2000 From: john@dryfish.org (John Wright) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:09:42 +0100 Subject: IRC servers again Message-ID: <20001004110942.D19707@dryfish.org> What were those IRC servers which are available over ipv6? I've found eu.irc6.net but I can't even ping6 it from my freenet6.net tunnel. Incidently, is there an archive of this mailing list? The threaded one appears to have vanished and the flat file appears to end in 1998. From jv@pilsedu.cz Wed Oct 4 15:56:03 2000 From: jv@pilsedu.cz (Jakub Vlasek) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 16:56:03 +0200 (CEST) Subject: IRC servers again In-Reply-To: <20001004110942.D19707@dryfish.org> Message-ID: try it.irc6.net ,irc.missingu.com, irc.belnet.be. Note that on many servers is freenet range restricted due to abuse. JV On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, John Wright wrote: > What were those IRC servers which are available over ipv6? I've found > eu.irc6.net but I can't even ping6 it from my freenet6.net tunnel. > > Incidently, is there an archive of this mailing list? The threaded > one appears to have vanished and the flat file appears to end in 1998. > > From louis@trapezoid.com Wed Oct 4 15:09:40 2000 From: louis@trapezoid.com (Louis Zuckerman) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 10:09:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Protocol analyser In-Reply-To: <02fb01c02d48$f4b87b40$9e0114ac@creak.ticl.co.uk> Message-ID: I've heard good things about NAI's Sniffer. Also, there's an open source program called Ethereal (ethereal.zing.org) that's really good. -Louis Z From jefft@ou.edu Wed Oct 4 16:54:32 2000 From: jefft@ou.edu (Jeff Taylor) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 10:54:32 -0500 Subject: Protocol analyser In-Reply-To: References: <02fb01c02d48$f4b87b40$9e0114ac@creak.ticl.co.uk> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20001004105343.02ef5ac0@pop.ou.edu> But NAI versions 3.5/4.0.2 do not run under WIN2K. At 10:09 AM 10/4/00 -0400, Louis Zuckerman wrote: >I've heard good things about NAI's Sniffer. Also, there's an open source >program called Ethereal (ethereal.zing.org) that's really good. > > -Louis Z From andrius@andrius.org Wed Oct 4 17:22:20 2000 From: andrius@andrius.org (Andrius Kasparavicius) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 18:22:20 +0200 (GMT-2) Subject: IRC servers again In-Reply-To: <20001004110942.D19707@dryfish.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, John Wright wrote: > What were those IRC servers which are available over ipv6? I've found > eu.irc6.net but I can't even ping6 it from my freenet6.net tunnel. be.irc6.net eu.irc6.net, today they are down ar IPv6..but sometimes work perfectly.. ------------------------- Kasparavicius Andrius ________________________________________________________________________ http://www.andrius.org ICQ:17701001 tel.: +370 87 25630 nick: Casper AND-RIPE AND-6BONE From Christoph Kuhles Wed Oct 4 18:07:10 2000 From: Christoph Kuhles (Christoph Kuhles) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:07:10 +0200 Subject: IRC servers again In-Reply-To: <20001004110942.D19707@dryfish.org> References: <20001004110942.D19707@dryfish.org> Message-ID: <42217193224.20001004190710@medikat.com> Hello, Wednesday, October 04, 2000, 12:09:42 PM, you wrote: JW> What were those IRC servers which are available over ipv6? I've found JW> eu.irc6.net but I can't even ping6 it from my freenet6.net tunnel. erlangen.irc6.net irc6.ircd.it irc.missingu.com irc.skynet.be ircnet.wanadoo.be are the ones I can think of right now ;-) Cheers, Christoph Kuhles CEO MediKat Europe GmbH i.G. From cchen@nougat.org Wed Oct 4 20:51:43 2000 From: cchen@nougat.org (Secret Asian Man) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 12:51:43 -0700 Subject: getting a tunnel peer... In-Reply-To: ; from jv@pilsedu.cz on Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:56:03PM +0200 References: <20001004110942.D19707@dryfish.org> Message-ID: <20001004125143.B10295@bonsai.nougat.org> In people's opinions, how long should a person wait after mailing a pTLA? I'm 14ms from verio's access point and it would be ideal, but knowing Verio, I don't know if anyone's even "home", so to speak... cc -- Christopher Kyin-hwa Chen "I've often wondered to myself: Does a vegetarian ever look forward to dinner?" --Julia Child From fink@es.net Wed Oct 4 21:43:05 2000 From: fink@es.net (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 13:43:05 -0700 Subject: getting a tunnel peer... In-Reply-To: <20001004125143.B10295@bonsai.nougat.org> References: <20001004110942.D19707@dryfish.org> Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20001004133559.02ad7938@imap2.es.net> At 12:51 PM 10/4/2000 -0700, Secret Asian Man wrote: >In people's opinions, how long should a person wait after mailing a pTLA? >I'm 14ms from verio's access point and it would be ideal, but knowing >Verio, I don't know if anyone's even "home", so to speak... A week is a reasonable wait, I would think. It seems that we have moved into a time when most 6bone pTLAs don't respond very promptly or want to only handle sites in thier own user community. The 6to4 mechanism will ventually be the real answer to this (i.e., not requiring a configured tunnel at all), but it is too soon to rely on it. This leaves trying harder to find a helpful pTLA (another pTLA, or trying several times more to the pTLAs not responding to you), trying the Viagenie end-system tunnel server , or waiting for the 6tap site tunnel server (not up yet). I would certainly like to hear other opinions on the topic of how best to find a helpful pTLA site. Bob From cchen@nougat.org Thu Oct 5 00:44:31 2000 From: cchen@nougat.org (Secret Asian Man) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 16:44:31 -0700 Subject: Registering Message-ID: <20001004164431.H10295@bonsai.nougat.org> I've been contacted with the appropriate numbers so I can start tunneling, but I have a few questions... For setting up a ipv6-site object, where do I find my AS number, or have one assigned to me? Are these analogous to ASNs in the other world (which cost quite a bit?) The documentation is a bit unclear in this respect, I'm afraid... cc -- Christopher Kyin-hwa Chen "But I don't want to do computer science. I want to have a sex life!" --Fred From jguthrie@brokersys.com Thu Oct 5 00:52:55 2000 From: jguthrie@brokersys.com (Jonathan Guthrie) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 18:52:55 -0500 (CDT) Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, David Gethings wrote: > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Jonathan Guthrie wrote: > > What I don't understand is what to do if you want multiple global > > addresses on a single computer. Is there some way of generating multiple > > IPv6 addresses from a single Ethernet address or am I supposed to generate > > random global addresses and do a collision detection or do I have to buy a > > bunch of old, dead Ethernet cards and use their addresses? With the large > > address space available in IPv6, it makes sense to use address-based > > virtual hosting and server addresses should be global, or so I understand. > If I recall the IPv6 RFC correctly you can ues part of the last 64 bits > for multiple addresses on a single computer. > As you know the last 64 bits of an IPv6 address are taken from the > computers MAC address (if you wish to allocate in that manner). But a MAC > address is only 48 bits long, leaving a tasty 8 bits. > As I understand it the computer *can* use these 8 bits to allocate > multiple addresses without too much further configuration. How you do this > in pratice though, I have no idea as I haven't looked into it. I presume the "8 bits" is part of a brain fog as 64-48 is 16, not 8. My reading of rfc2373 (which can be retrieved from ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2373.txt, if you have a mind to read it) is that those 16 bits (which are inserted starting at bit 24) are required to be 0xfffe. I don't want to speak ill of the standards process as it's tough enough to accomplish as it is, but didn't anybody consider the fact that people are going to want to use address-based virtual hosting when designing this scheme, or am I missing something? -- Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) Brokersys +281-580-3358 http://www.brokersys.com/ 12703 Veterans Memorial #106, Houston, TX 77014, USA From fink@es.net Thu Oct 5 00:53:40 2000 From: fink@es.net (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 16:53:40 -0700 Subject: Registering In-Reply-To: <20001004164431.H10295@bonsai.nougat.org> Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.0.20001004165309.02fa2eb0@imap2.es.net> At 04:44 PM 10/4/2000 -0700, Secret Asian Man wrote: >I've been contacted with the appropriate numbers so I can start tunneling, >but I have a few questions... > >For setting up a ipv6-site object, where do I find my AS number, or have >one assigned to me? Are these analogous to ASNs in the other world (which >cost quite a bit?) > >The documentation is a bit unclear in this respect, I'm afraid... Have to fix that. You can just use the ASN of your pTLA providing the prefix to you. Bob From mterry6249@uswest.net Thu Oct 5 00:56:00 2000 From: mterry6249@uswest.net (Terry Moore-Read) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 16:56:00 -0700 Subject: getting a tunnel peer... References: 970702581.6289.spknpop1.spkn.uswest.net Message-ID: <200010042357.QAA28715@gamma.isi.edu> I found viagenie to be very helpful - I tried the freenet6 server - once I had that working I put out a request on this list for a tunnel and was contacted directly by ipv6 staff at viagenie who had a site tunnel set up for me very quickly. >>> Bob Fink 10/04/00 01:43PM >>> At 12:51 PM 10/4/2000 -0700, Secret Asian Man wrote: >In people's opinions, how long should a person wait after mailing a pTLA? >I'm 14ms from verio's access point and it would be ideal, but knowing >Verio, I don't know if anyone's even "home", so to speak... A week is a reasonable wait, I would think. It seems that we have moved into a time when most 6bone pTLAs don't respond very promptly or want to only handle sites in thier own user community. The 6to4 mechanism will ventually be the real answer to this (i.e., not requiring a configured tunnel at all), but it is too soon to rely on it. This leaves trying harder to find a helpful pTLA (another pTLA, or trying several times more to the pTLAs not responding to you), trying the Viagenie end-system tunnel server , or waiting for the 6tap site tunnel server (not up yet). I would certainly like to hear other opinions on the topic of how best to find a helpful pTLA site. Bob From cchen@nougat.org Thu Oct 5 09:41:47 2000 From: cchen@nougat.org (Secret Asian Man) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 01:41:47 -0700 Subject: [tcole@wcug.wwu.edu: 6bone list archives back online] Message-ID: <20001005014146.C3188@bonsai.nougat.org> Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 03:37:49 -0700 From: Travis Cole To: 6bone@isi.edu Subject: 6bone list archives back online X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i For the past several years the Western Computer Users Group at Western Washington University has provided a web based archive of this mailing list at http://wcug.wwu.edu/lists/6bone/ Unfortunately due to hardware problems and insufficient time to deal with them, the list archives have been down for the last month. They are back up, and should be working fine. But we did not archive anything for the month of September. If anyone would like to see September archived by us, and has an archive we can sync with, then I will see what I can do about munging that into our archive. You may also notice that our search is broken. I will be trying to fix that soon, so please bear with us. And I just noticed John Wright , on this list, asking what happened to our archive. Well, its back up and working :) Thanks. -- --Travis From sarahemm@technodyke.com Thu Oct 5 15:50:52 2000 From: sarahemm@technodyke.com (Sarah Nordstrom) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 07:50:52 -0700 Subject: 6bone via dynamic ipv4? Message-ID: <200010051450.HAA16707@mail8.bigmailbox.com> Hi, Looking through all the documentation and things, i haven't found any references to being able to (or not being able to) be on the 6bone if you have a dynamic ipv4 address. I've looked for a provider that offers static IPs locally, but they all seem to be $70-$100/month, which isn't any good for home use... Can it be done with a dynamic IP? Thanks, -- Sarah Nordstrom ------------------------------------------------------------ Techno Dyke Headquarters -> http://www.technodyke.com The Gathering Place for the Web Savvy Dyke! From jguthrie@brokersys.com Thu Oct 5 18:28:46 2000 From: jguthrie@brokersys.com (Jonathan Guthrie) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:28:46 -0500 (CDT) Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: <200010050152.e951qDs28774@strat.East.Sun.COM> Message-ID: On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Sebastien Roy wrote: > > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Jonathan Guthrie wrote: > > > > What I don't understand is what to do if you want multiple global > > > > addresses on a single computer. > > My reading of rfc2373 (which can be retrieved from > > ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2373.txt, if you have a mind to read it) is > > that those 16 bits (which are inserted starting at bit 24) are required to > > be 0xfffe. > > I don't want to speak ill of the standards process as it's tough enough to > > accomplish as it is, but didn't anybody consider the fact that people are > > going to want to use address-based virtual hosting when designing this > > scheme, or am I missing something? > It's perfectly acceptable to manually configure multiple global IPv6 > addresses on a single interface. There's no mandate on using > stateless address autoconfiguration, or on using an IEEE 48bit MAC > address as a token to the EUI-64 based identifier (i.e., ::1 is a > perfectly fine interface identifier as long as it's unique on the > link). It's also acceptable to use stateless address > autoconfiguration in combination with manual configuration, or any > other stateful protocols. Yes, ::1 is a perfectly fine interface identifier, and I make use but it's not a GLOBAL interface identifier. That is, interface identifiers with the global bit set are guaranteed to be unique on the Internet. Perhaps my terminology is incorrect, but unless I can put multiple globally-unique interface identifiers on the same box, an awful lot of the magic IPv6 promises simply isn't there. Here's why: Currently the Internet is a "stupid network". That is, as far as any of the endpoints hooked to the Internet is concerned, you put bits in and you get bits out. Any interaction is between you and the far end, not with the network itself. That means that adding a capability, like a new service type, simply requires that both ends support it: The network doesn't have to be modified. Contrast this with the PSTN, where to do anything requires interacting directly with the network and where adding services (like call waiting, caller id, and so forth) requires modification, sometimes substantial modifications, to the network. For a more complete discussion of "stupid networks", check out http://www.camworld.com/att.html. The thing is, the Internet is NOT stupid with respect to routing. In order to do anything more complicated than a single nonredundant connection, you have to have your equipment interact with the routing structure of the Internet. One of the most common questions on the Zebra (a freeware routing protocol package) is "I've got two connections to the Internet at my house from different providers, can I use Zebra to help me use both of them at the same time?" The answer, of course, is "no" because multihoming requires (in principle and usually in practice) that the entire Internet understand that routes through both providers are equally valid for the addresses in question. Globally-unique interface identifiers gives us a chance to change that. With globally-unique interface identifiers, it becomes possible for the software at the endpoints to determine that multiple routing options exist and to exercise their own control over what routes a packet take. The rest of the Internet can simply take the attitude that the routing structure is a tree and pass the packets along, fat, dumb, and happy. Of course, this requires more than the adoption of IPv6 to accomplish. In particular, it requires the ability for the TCP and UDP implementations to recognize that packets sent from the same globally-unique interface identifier are from the same place even if the network numbers are different and it requires the routing software to routinely make routing decisions, at least in part, on the source address, and it may require other things I haven't thought of. However, the point is that it doesn't work unless most interface identifiers are globally unique. I believe that many people will want to have multiple globally-unique interface identifiers on the same computer. Is there a standard way of doing this? -- Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) Brokersys +281-580-3358 http://www.brokersys.com/ 12703 Veterans Memorial #106, Houston, TX 77014, USA From fink@es.net Thu Oct 5 20:27:04 2000 From: fink@es.net (Bob Fink) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 12:27:04 -0700 Subject: 6bone via dynamic ipv4? In-Reply-To: <200010051450.HAA16707@mail8.bigmailbox.com> Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.0.20001005122427.02e6ea00@imap2.es.net> Sarah, At 07:50 AM 10/5/2000 -0700, Sarah Nordstrom wrote: >Hi, > Looking through all the documentation and things, i haven't found any > references to being able to (or not being able to) be on the 6bone if you > have a dynamic ipv4 address. I've looked for a provider that offers > static IPs locally, but they all seem to be $70-$100/month, which isn't > any good for home use... Can it be done with a dynamic IP? I believe you can use a dynamic IPv4 address for your tunnel for only as long as it is assigned to you. Then you would be using something like the freenet6 service on an intermittent basis (i.e., you need to redo the tunnel if you get a new address). Bob From cchen@nougat.org Thu Oct 5 20:39:08 2000 From: cchen@nougat.org (Secret Asian Man) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:39:08 -0700 Subject: 6bone via dynamic ipv4? In-Reply-To: <200010051450.HAA16707@mail8.bigmailbox.com>; from sarahemm@technodyke.com on Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 07:50:52AM -0700 References: <200010051450.HAA16707@mail8.bigmailbox.com> Message-ID: <20001005123908.G7022@bonsai.nougat.org> On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 07:50:52AM -0700, Sarah Nordstrom wrote: > Looking through all the documentation and things, i haven't found any references to being able to (or not being able to) be on the 6bone if you have a dynamic ipv4 address. I've looked for a provider that offers static IPs locally, but they all seem to be $70-$100/month, which isn't any good for home use... Can it be done with a dynamic IP? The problem with having a dynamic IP is having to reconfigure the tunnel at the other end of the connection every time, which is something your uplink is probably not going to want to do. There is a service that does 6in4 tunnels to dynamic IPs, but the 6bone is not it :( My idea if youre dialing up is to establish the connection somewhere that HAS a static IP, then dial in there... Maybe your work would like to be Protocolically Progressive. cc -- Christopher Kyin-hwa Chen "I'm in love with the world, through the eyes of a girl, who's still around, the morning after." --Elliott Smith From crawdad@fnal.gov Thu Oct 5 21:22:23 2000 From: crawdad@fnal.gov (Matt Crawford) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 15:22:23 -0500 Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 03 Oct 2000 23:36:19 BST. Message-ID: <200010052022.PAA12333@gungnir.fnal.gov> > If I recall the IPv6 RFC correctly you can ues part of the last 64 bits > for multiple addresses on a single computer. No. All 64 bits are for multiple interface identifiers on the same subnet. If some of those interfaces happen to belong to the same host, that's all right. If some of them identify the same interface, I guess that's all right too, but isn't HTTP 1.1 prevalent enough that the usual reason for this can finally go away? Maybe not... > As you know the last 64 bits of an IPv6 address are taken from the > computers MAC address (if you wish to allocate in that manner). But a MAC > address is only 48 bits long, leaving a tasty 8 bits. > > As I understand it the computer *can* use these 8 bits to allocate > multiple addresses without too much further configuration. How you do this > in pratice though, I have no idea as I haven't looked into it. No. For IPv6 addresses beginning with 001 binary, the bottom 64 bits ARE an EUI-64 with its 7th bit (the Universal/Local bit) flipped. A certain portion of EUI-64 space is reserved by the IEEE to denote a 48-bit MAC address, and that's the origin of the 0xfffe in the middle. Any EUI-64 with the 7th bit equal to '1', which corresponds to an IPv6 interface identifier with that bit '0', is locally controlled. If you configure an interface to use such an identifier, the RFC 2462 DAD process will check for duplicates on the link. From tony@lava.net Fri Oct 6 03:59:57 2000 From: tony@lava.net (Antonio Querubin) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 16:59:57 -1000 (HST) Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Jonathan Guthrie wrote: > Yes, ::1 is a perfectly fine interface identifier, and I make use but it's > not a GLOBAL interface identifier. That is, interface identifiers with > the global bit set are guaranteed to be unique on the Internet. Perhaps > my terminology is incorrect, but unless I can put multiple globally-unique > interface identifiers on the same box, an awful lot of the magic IPv6 > promises simply isn't there. I'm not sure what this really buys us. So it's globally unique, ok. We already had that with IPv4 - though it wasn't 'guaranteed' to be unique. But where's the 'magic'? > The thing is, the Internet is NOT stupid with respect to routing. In > order to do anything more complicated than a single nonredundant > connection, you have to have your equipment interact with the routing > structure of the Internet. One of the most common questions on the Zebra > (a freeware routing protocol package) is "I've got two connections to the > Internet at my house from different providers, can I use Zebra to help me > use both of them at the same time?" The answer, of course, is "no" > because multihoming requires (in principle and usually in practice) that > the entire Internet understand that routes through both providers are > equally valid for the addresses in question. > > Globally-unique interface identifiers gives us a chance to change that. > > With globally-unique interface identifiers, it becomes possible for the > software at the endpoints to determine that multiple routing options exist > and to exercise their own control over what routes a packet take. The > rest of the Internet can simply take the attitude that the routing > structure is a tree and pass the packets along, fat, dumb, and happy. How so? How does a globally unique IPv6 address provide this capability that a globally unique IPv4 address does not? > Of course, this requires more than the adoption of IPv6 to accomplish. > In particular, it requires the ability for the TCP and UDP implementations > to recognize that packets sent from the same globally-unique interface > identifier are from the same place even if the network numbers are > different and it requires the routing software to routinely make routing > decisions, at least in part, on the source address, and it may require > other things I haven't thought of. However, the point is that it doesn't > work unless most interface identifiers are globally unique. Uh, so one more time, how does the global uniqueness property of an IPv6 address provide this capability that a globally unique IPv4 address can't? > I believe that many people will want to have multiple globally-unique > interface identifiers on the same computer. Is there a standard way of > doing this? The most common way hosting sites assign multiple addresses is to just number them sequentially. It's pretty simple and mindless and doesn't require knowledge of the ethernet address on any NIC card. Ie. it's KISS compliant :) From Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr Fri Oct 6 09:49:28 2000 From: Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr (Francis Dupont) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 10:49:28 +0200 Subject: 6bone via dynamic ipv4? In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 05 Oct 2000 07:50:52 PDT. <200010051450.HAA16707@mail8.bigmailbox.com> Message-ID: <200010060849.KAA03052@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> In your previous mail you wrote: Looking through all the documentation and things, i haven't found any references to being able to (or not being able to) be on the 6bone if you have a dynamic ipv4 address. => I've tried to solve this problem in the internet-draft draft-ietf-ngtrans-hometun-00.txt I have a prototype for FreeBSD 4.1 for both ends (of the tunnel). Regards Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr From peter@ipsec.nu Fri Oct 6 09:55:55 2000 From: peter@ipsec.nu (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_H=E5kanson?=) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:55:55 +0200 (CEST) Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Jonathan Guthrie wrote: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Sebastien Roy wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Jonathan Guthrie wrote: > > > > > > What I don't understand is what to do if you want multiple global > > > > > addresses on a single computer. > > > > My reading of rfc2373 (which can be retrieved from > > > ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2373.txt, if you have a mind to read it) is > > > that those 16 bits (which are inserted starting at bit 24) are required to > > > be 0xfffe. %%%%snip%%%%%%%%%%%> > %%%%%%snip%%%%%%%%% > Globally-unique interface identifiers gives us a chance to change that. > > With globally-unique interface identifiers, it becomes possible for the > software at the endpoints to determine that multiple routing options exist > and to exercise their own control over what routes a packet take. The > rest of the Internet can simply take the attitude that the routing > structure is a tree and pass the packets along, fat, dumb, and happy. > > Of course, this requires more than the adoption of IPv6 to accomplish. > In particular, it requires the ability for the TCP and UDP implementations > to recognize that packets sent from the same globally-unique interface > identifier are from the same place even if the network numbers are > different and it requires the routing software to routinely make routing > decisions, at least in part, on the source address, and it may require > other things I haven't thought of. However, the point is that it doesn't > work unless most interface identifiers are globally unique. There is no such thing as GLOBLLY UNIQUE IEEE adressess available everywhere! In a restricted sence one may rely on "unique" MAC-adresses. That is if certain technologies are used on link-level, restricted to a subset of it's capabilities, and noone ever makes any administrative mistakes (or plain cheats). But in the long run we cannot build network infrastructure on the assumption that "linklayer technology never changes". Just think of ATM. It uses no IEEE adresses. One have to create one, (and how do i create a unique ?) same goes for ppp links, Frame-delay links, mobile UTMS phones etc. This is one of the design "features" of ipv6 that prevents deplayment. My 2 cents > > I believe that many people will want to have multiple globally-unique > interface identifiers on the same computer. Is there a standard way of > doing this? DNS. It's a globally unique (and that can be guarranteed unique). > -- > Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) > Brokersys +281-580-3358 http://www.brokersys.com/ > 12703 Veterans Memorial #106, Houston, TX 77014, USA > > -- Peter Håkanson | Melissa ? Lovletter ? Joke ? Mothers day ? tfn 0707 328101 | Not on this mailsystem! IPSec sverige || ipsec.nu | It's safe by design ! Lundbystrand Sweden | (in contrast to some other) From Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr Fri Oct 6 10:27:48 2000 From: Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr (Francis Dupont) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 11:27:48 +0200 Subject: 6bone via dynamic ipv4? In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 05 Oct 2000 12:39:08 PDT. <20001005123908.G7022@bonsai.nougat.org> Message-ID: <200010060927.LAA03206@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> In your previous mail you wrote: The problem with having a dynamic IP is having to reconfigure the tunnel at the other end of the connection every time, which is something your uplink is probably not going to want to do. There is a service that does 6in4 tunnels to dynamic IPs, but the 6bone is not it :( => there is not true because you can keep the same (ie. static) IPv6 addresses. If you have a way to reconfigure the tunnel (read my draft :-) then you can use the 6bone with trouble. Regards Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr PS: of course if you have an intermittent connectivity or your ISP doesn't want you really use the uplink then you should go to a tunnel broker service like Freenet6. My draft applies in the case of an Internet access (not an online service) with an all-inclusive price. From Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr Fri Oct 6 10:31:40 2000 From: Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr (Francis Dupont) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 11:31:40 +0200 Subject: 6bone via dynamic ipv4? In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 05 Oct 2000 12:27:04 PDT. <5.0.0.25.0.20001005122427.02e6ea00@imap2.es.net> Message-ID: <200010060931.LAA03225@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> In your previous mail you wrote: > Looking through all the documentation and things, i haven't found any > references to being able to (or not being able to) be on the 6bone if you > have a dynamic ipv4 address. I've looked for a provider that offers > static IPs locally, but they all seem to be $70-$100/month, which isn't > any good for home use... Can it be done with a dynamic IP? I believe you can use a dynamic IPv4 address for your tunnel for only as long as it is assigned to you. Then you would be using something like the freenet6 service on an intermittent basis (i.e., you need to redo the tunnel if you get a new address). => there are two possible answers: - technical one (or how to do it) - not technical one (or why your ISP doesn't want to sell real Internet access). In this case the "one dynamic IPv4 address" is only a part of the whole problem... Regards Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr PS: I am still convinced that home networks are an important thing for the iPv6 future then we should keep this question. From brian@hursley.ibm.com Fri Oct 6 15:16:50 2000 From: brian@hursley.ibm.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 09:16:50 -0500 Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? References: Message-ID: <39DDDED2.4E5E6335@hursley.ibm.com> Antonio Querubin wrote: ... > Uh, so one more time, how does the global uniqueness property of an IPv6 > address provide this capability that a globally unique IPv4 address can't? IPv4 addresses aren't globally unique these days - we lost that with NAT. The intent is for IPv6 to restore the uniqueness property, not to create some magic new property. Brian From tony@lava.net Fri Oct 6 19:16:42 2000 From: tony@lava.net (Antonio Querubin) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 08:16:42 -1000 (HST) Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: <39DDDED2.4E5E6335@hursley.ibm.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > IPv4 addresses aren't globally unique these days - we lost that > with NAT. The intent is for IPv6 to restore the uniqueness property, > not to create some magic new property. Not everyone uses NAT. For those of us that don't, how does a MAC-based IPv6 address provide uniqueness that a sequentially assigned (or any other scheme that provides uniqueness) IPv6 address does not? My point is that uniqueness can be obtained in different ways. However, the MAC-based addressing scheme buys very little that can't also be obtained in other simpler ways that are easier to manage. I suspect that MAC-based addressing will fall into the 'good idea but in practice...' category. As I mentioned before, I think it violates the KISS principle and I think is just one additional piece of baggage that slows down the adoption of IPv6. From brian@hursley.ibm.com Fri Oct 6 19:18:19 2000 From: brian@hursley.ibm.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 13:18:19 -0500 Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? References: Message-ID: <39DE176B.F4D6D1F3@hursley.ibm.com> Antonio Querubin wrote: > > On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > IPv4 addresses aren't globally unique these days - we lost that > > with NAT. The intent is for IPv6 to restore the uniqueness property, > > not to create some magic new property. > > Not everyone uses NAT. For those of us that don't, how does a MAC-based > IPv6 address provide uniqueness that a sequentially assigned (or any other > scheme that provides uniqueness) IPv6 address does not? Well, it can be unique in the bottom 64 bits alone. On some models of the future that is a useful property. > > My point is that uniqueness can be obtained in different ways. However, > the MAC-based addressing scheme buys very little that can't also be > obtained in other simpler ways that are easier to manage. Huh? What can be simpler than auto-configuration using the MAC address of your NIC? No management required. If you want multiple addresses per interface, you have to do something else of course - but whatever it is will be more complicated than auto-config. > I suspect that > MAC-based addressing will fall into the 'good idea but in practice...' > category. As I mentioned before, I think it violates the KISS principle > and I think is just one additional piece of baggage that slows down the > adoption of IPv6. I believe exactly the opposite. Brian From tony@lava.net Sat Oct 7 00:08:19 2000 From: tony@lava.net (Antonio Querubin) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:08:19 -1000 (HST) Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: <39DE176B.F4D6D1F3@hursley.ibm.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Huh? What can be simpler than auto-configuration using the MAC address > of your NIC? No management required. If you want multiple addresses > per interface, you have to do something else of course - but whatever > it is will be more complicated than auto-config. As I said in another part of this thread - what does this buy you that DHCP doesn't already? Configuration may be simple perhaps if you confine analysing the effects to just IP configuration on the box itself. You still have to manage your domain name space and the reverse mapping (ie. why should you be required to change IP address and update DNS records just because you change the ethernet card in your system?). Then there is the inherent inefficiency of the scheme. From kaos@ocs.com.au Sat Oct 7 02:53:19 2000 From: kaos@ocs.com.au (Keith Owens) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 12:53:19 +1100 Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 06 Oct 2000 13:08:19 -1000." Message-ID: <29862.970883599@ocs3.ocs-net> On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:08:19 -1000 (HST), Antonio Querubin wrote: >As I said in another part of this thread - what does this buy you that >DHCP doesn't already? The ability to plug two or more IPv6 devices into a free standing LAN and have them work out of the box without setting up DHCP or DNS first. Think about the small office that has a few PCs and printers and is not yet connected to the outside world. IPX handles this case nicely, IPv4 cannot without DHCP or equivalent, IPv6 uses link local addresses which are autoconfigured using MAC. Smart houses anyone? From KEITHT@hthk.com Sat Oct 7 03:32:43 2000 From: KEITHT@hthk.com (Keith Tang (HTHK - Engineer II, NW3G)) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 10:32:43 +0800 Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? Message-ID: Hi an: Somebody said "I am sure you are aware that building a 3G network requires obtaining IP version 6 addresses". Is this true or not, And in why he said this. Keith Tang From KEITHT@hthk.com Sat Oct 7 03:45:39 2000 From: KEITHT@hthk.com (Keith Tang (HTHK - Engineer II, NW3G)) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 10:45:39 +0800 Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? Message-ID: Hi My name is Keith Tang. I am Working in a Telcom. Company as a 3G System Engineer Someone told me if I want to build 3G telephone System, I Must have Ipv6 Bone support. But I think IPV4 also able to support 3G. Is that right? Keith Tang From tony@lava.net Sat Oct 7 04:45:01 2000 From: tony@lava.net (Antonio Querubin) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:45:01 -1000 (HST) Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: <29862.970883599@ocs3.ocs-net> Message-ID: On Sat, 7 Oct 2000, Keith Owens wrote: > The ability to plug two or more IPv6 devices into a free standing LAN > and have them work out of the box without setting up DHCP or DNS first. > Think about the small office that has a few PCs and printers and is not > yet connected to the outside world. IPX handles this case nicely, IPv4 > cannot without DHCP or equivalent, IPv6 uses link local addresses which > are autoconfigured using MAC. Smart houses anyone? No argument with that. For link-local and site-local addresses we don't care about global uniqueness now do we? My concern is with the global-scope addressing and it's impact on address space as well as DNS management. From brad@anduin.eldar.org Sat Oct 7 05:01:00 2000 From: brad@anduin.eldar.org (Brad Spencer) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 00:01:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: (message from Antonio Querubin on Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:08:19 -1000 (HST)) Message-ID: <200010070401.AAA27167@anduin.eldar.org> On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Huh? What can be simpler than auto-configuration using the MAC address > of your NIC? No management required. If you want multiple addresses > per interface, you have to do something else of course - but whatever > it is will be more complicated than auto-config. As I said in another part of this thread - what does this buy you that DHCP doesn't already? I think of autoconfiguration as a companion to the DHCP idea. We have routed, gated and whatever, right?? Technically, we wouldn't have to have all of those either. There is a minor advantage with it in networks where there is not a working DHCPv6 server, like the one I have at home. I had to set up the router, in any case, and it was very simple to run the advertisement server on that machine. All the client has to do is ask for a router solicitation and the IPv6 parts get configured. Configuration may be simple perhaps if you confine analysing the effects to just IP configuration on the box itself. You still have to manage your domain name space and the reverse mapping (ie. why should you be required to change IP address and update DNS records just because you change the ethernet card in your system?). Then there is the inherent inefficiency of the scheme. In an environment that is more or less stable, say a lab of Sun workstations, there isn't much churn in the MAC addresses. I suspect that it might be a matter of pain... if the environment has more flux, then a DHCP server would probably make sense. It certainly doesn't for things here at home. For my Toshiba notebook, I do use a manually set IPv6 address, just in case I swap out ethernet cards. It was taken from a router solicitation run against one ethernet card. Brad Spencer - brad@anduin.eldar.org http://anduin.eldar.org - & - http://mellon.ipv6.eldar.org [IPv6 only] [finger brad@anduin.eldar.org for PGP public key] From jguthrie@brokersys.com Sun Oct 8 15:44:08 2000 From: jguthrie@brokersys.com (Jonathan Guthrie) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:44:08 -0500 (CDT) Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, [ISO-8859-1] Peter Håkanson wrote: > There is no such thing as GLOBLLY UNIQUE IEEE adressess available everywhere! > In a restricted sence one may rely on "unique" MAC-adresses. That is > if certain technologies are used on link-level, restricted to a > subset of it's capabilities, and noone ever makes any administrative > mistakes (or plain cheats). ...and you're willing to diagnose odd errors, sometimes. (I've actually met people who have received two Ethernet cards with the same MAC address.) > But in the long run we cannot build network infrastructure on > the assumption that "linklayer technology never changes". > Just think of ATM. It uses no IEEE adresses. One have to create > one, (and how do i create a unique ?) same goes for ppp links, > Frame-delay links, mobile UTMS phones etc. > This is one of the design "features" of ipv6 that prevents deplayment. I disagree. There is absolutely nothing preventing anyone who finds the automatic mechanism to be too confusing from using addresses that don't have anything to do with IEEE anything. They still work just fine, and anyone can use them, if they choose. What's holding back IPv6 is this: No commonly-available routing equipment, no commonly-available remote access equipment, and no commonly-available end user software. I own an ISP. A little "one-lunged" ISP. My business is just the sort of enterprise that can derive the most benefit from the widespread deployment of IPv6. Now, I've got my network on the 6bone, and I've even set up a couple of tunnels to provide 6bone access to the places I most commonly access the Internet from, but that doesn't help my customers because none of the equipment I use to deliver Internet access (I've got an Imagestream Enterprise router, a Max 4000, a Max 4002, a Max 4048, and a Max 6000) knows anything about IPv6. Even if they did, none of the people who dial in have the capability to run IPv6 over PPP. To get 6bone access, they'd have to set up their own tunnels. This is a pain in the neck for people who have dynamically-allocated IPv4 addresses, which constitute the bulk of my customer base. > > I believe that many people will want to have multiple globally-unique > > interface identifiers on the same computer. Is there a standard way of > > doing this? > DNS. It's a globally unique (and that can be guarranteed unique). Yes, host names are globally-unique, but they don't indicate the route needed to get to the destination, but IPv6 addresses are constructed with the idea that the structure of the prefix would reveal the routing structure of the Internet. That means that the amount of routing information distributed around the various backbone providers can be reduced without any reduction in the functionality available to the end user. Now, I suppose you could use the DNS to distribute the information that addresses with various prefixes belong to the same physical adapter, but I would prefer some mechanism (like an ICMP6 AKA message or some such) that doesn't involve third parties setting up their equipment correctly and individuals setting up their own DNS servers entail dangers that I don't like to contemplate. (Judging by the difficulty the professionals at Time Warner Communications have in setting up their DNS servers, I don't want to think about your average "Joe on the street" trying to do it.) No, it's got be built in to the software and not dependant on the mercy of a DNS administrator. -- Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) Brokersys +281-580-3358 http://www.brokersys.com/ 12703 Veterans Memorial #106, Houston, TX 77014, USA From jguthrie@brokersys.com Sun Oct 8 15:51:36 2000 From: jguthrie@brokersys.com (Jonathan Guthrie) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:51:36 -0500 (CDT) Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Antonio Querubin wrote: > On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Jonathan Guthrie wrote: > > Yes, ::1 is a perfectly fine interface identifier, and I make use but it's > > not a GLOBAL interface identifier. That is, interface identifiers with > > the global bit set are guaranteed to be unique on the Internet. Perhaps > > my terminology is incorrect, but unless I can put multiple globally-unique > > interface identifiers on the same box, an awful lot of the magic IPv6 > > promises simply isn't there. > I'm not sure what this really buys us. So it's globally unique, ok. We > already had that with IPv4 - though it wasn't 'guaranteed' to be unique. > But where's the 'magic'? The "magic", oddly enough, is contained in the part that isn't unique. What makes the scheme work is the fact that the routing information is embedded in the prefix. IPv4 addresses aren't long enough for that to happen. What that means is that you can send a packet to a particular destination one way by using one address and another way by using a different address. That means that to achieve multihoming, all you have to do is make the > > The thing is, the Internet is NOT stupid with respect to routing. In > > order to do anything more complicated than a single nonredundant > > connection, you have to have your equipment interact with the routing > > structure of the Internet. One of the most common questions on the Zebra > > (a freeware routing protocol package) is "I've got two connections to the > > Internet at my house from different providers, can I use Zebra to help me > > use both of them at the same time?" The answer, of course, is "no" > > because multihoming requires (in principle and usually in practice) that > > the entire Internet understand that routes through both providers are > > equally valid for the addresses in question. > > > > Globally-unique interface identifiers gives us a chance to change that. > > > > With globally-unique interface identifiers, it becomes possible for the > > software at the endpoints to determine that multiple routing options exist > > and to exercise their own control over what routes a packet take. The > > rest of the Internet can simply take the attitude that the routing > > structure is a tree and pass the packets along, fat, dumb, and happy. > How so? How does a globally unique IPv6 address provide this capability > that a globally unique IPv4 address does not? I'm not talking about a globally unique IPv6 ADDRESS, I'm talking about a globally unique bottom 64 bits. If you can guarantee that the bottom 64 bits are unique, then you can tell if two different IPv6 addresses (which ARE going to be globally unique, just like IPv4 addresses) are really from the same computer. There is no equivalent to this in IPv4. There is nothing even close to this in IPv4. > > I believe that many people will want to have multiple globally-unique > > interface identifiers on the same computer. Is there a standard way of > > doing this? > The most common way hosting sites assign multiple addresses is to just > number them sequentially. It's pretty simple and mindless and doesn't > require knowledge of the ethernet address on any NIC card. Ie. it's KISS > compliant :) Since you don't understand what a globally-unique interface identifier IS and how it's different from a globally-unique address, you probably won't understand why what you describe is not particularly useful, with respect to easy multihoming. -- Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) Brokersys +281-580-3358 http://www.brokersys.com/ 12703 Veterans Memorial #106, Houston, TX 77014, USA From tony@lava.net Sun Oct 8 21:30:10 2000 From: tony@lava.net (Antonio Querubin) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 10:30:10 -1000 (HST) Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 8 Oct 2000, Jonathan Guthrie wrote: > The "magic", oddly enough, is contained in the part that isn't unique. > What makes the scheme work is the fact that the routing information is > embedded in the prefix. IPv4 addresses aren't long enough for that to > happen. What that means is that you can send a packet to a particular > destination one way by using one address and another way by using a > different address. That means that to achieve multihoming, all you have > to do is make the Understood. But "where's the beef?" Ie. great idea but there's little to nothing that implements this. That being the case, the magic is just vaporware at this point. Working at an ISP that has thousands of customers and IP addresses to manage I see the problems in integrating MAC-based addressing as outweighing the 'potential' benefits for a long time to come. > I'm not talking about a globally unique IPv6 ADDRESS, I'm talking about a > globally unique bottom 64 bits. If you can guarantee that the bottom > 64 bits are unique, then you can tell if two different IPv6 addresses > (which ARE going to be globally unique, just like IPv4 addresses) are > really from the same computer. There is no equivalent to this in > IPv4. There is nothing even close to this in IPv4. Understood. But see above. > Since you don't understand what a globally-unique interface identifier IS > and how it's different from a globally-unique address, you probably won't > understand why what you describe is not particularly useful, with respect > to easy multihoming. Bad assumption. As a multi-homed ISP I do understand the issues. I just want to drive home the point that while some may think that MAC-based addressing is some kind of holy grail, others may feel otherwise especially when other management issues are taken into consideration. The widespread adoption of MAC-based addressing has some serious hurdles to overcome. In the meantime, I don't see why more traditional schemes can't continue to be used or be discouraged in favor of MAC-based addressing. From tony@lava.net Sun Oct 8 21:56:04 2000 From: tony@lava.net (Antonio Querubin) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 10:56:04 -1000 (HST) Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 8 Oct 2000, Jonathan Guthrie wrote: > ...and you're willing to diagnose odd errors, sometimes. (I've actually > met people who have received two Ethernet cards with the same MAC > address.) Sometimes? Try supporting tens of thousands of customers and subnets sometime. > > But in the long run we cannot build network infrastructure on > > the assumption that "linklayer technology never changes". > > > Just think of ATM. It uses no IEEE adresses. One have to create > > one, (and how do i create a unique ?) same goes for ppp links, > > Frame-delay links, mobile UTMS phones etc. > > > This is one of the design "features" of ipv6 that prevents deplayment. > > I disagree. There is absolutely nothing preventing anyone who finds the > automatic mechanism to be too confusing from using addresses that don't > have anything to do with IEEE anything. They still work just fine, and It's not confusing. It actually makes sense if you want to take advantage of what it offers. But as mentioned in a previous reply "where's the beef?" > anyone can use them, if they choose. What's holding back IPv6 is this: > No commonly-available routing equipment, no commonly-available remote > access equipment, and no commonly-available end user software. Ah, acceptance of reality I see. That's a good thing :) If you think of the adoption of IPv6 as World War II with many hurdles/goals/missions to accomplish in order to win the war and then view MAC-based addressing as one of those goals, you may understand why I think MAC-based addressing might be 'A Bridge Too Far'. Eventually we'll get there but it may be a long long while. The widespread adoption of IPv6 will require its acceptance by network service providers who are willing to integrate it into their network. They'll take the path of least resistance and anything that adds significant complexity or work wont be easily accepted. From kre@munnari.OZ.AU Mon Oct 9 00:27:20 2000 From: kre@munnari.OZ.AU (Robert Elz) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 10:27:20 +1100 Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 08 Oct 2000 10:30:10 -1000." Message-ID: <22502.971047640@mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 10:30:10 -1000 (HST) From: Antonio Querubin Message-ID: | Working at an ISP that has thousands of | customers and IP addresses to manage I see the problems in integrating | MAC-based addressing as outweighing the 'potential' benefits for a long | time to come. If on your nets you want to use DHCP (ie: you have someone employed whose job it is to manage such a thing, which you probably do), then IPv6 lets you tell all the clients to use DHCP to fetch addresses (DHCPv6 that is, as they have to ve v6 addresses fetched, obviously). It was always known and accepted that there would be sites that would want easy automatic address configuration, and others which prefer centralised address management - the IPv6 specs support both. You get to choose when you configure your routers (and you get to choose per subnet). | Bad assumption. As a multi-homed ISP I do understand the issues. I just | want to drive home the point that while some may think that MAC-based | addressing is some kind of holy grail, others may feel otherwise | especially when other management issues are taken into consideration. Yes, so what is the problem supposed to be? No-one is forcing MAC based IPv6 addresses upon anyone. | The widespread adoption of MAC-based addressing has some serious hurdles | to overcome. You mean that if I choose to use MAC based addressing, it somehow creates a problem for you? Unless you were being forced to use MAC based addresses (for the nets upon which you assign addresses) what's the problem? | In the meantime, I don't see why more traditional schemes | can't continue to be used or be discouraged in favor of MAC-based | addressing. They can be used. You seem to be totally unaware of just what is in the IPv6 specs. I'd encourage you to go read them before critisising what you obviously don't really understand. kre From peter@ipsec.nu Mon Oct 9 10:04:48 2000 From: peter@ipsec.nu (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_H=E5kanson?=) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 11:04:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 8 Oct 2000, Jonathan Guthrie wrote: > On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Antonio Querubin wrote: > > > On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Jonathan Guthrie wrote: > > > > Yes, ::1 is a perfectly fine interface identifier, and I make use but it's > > > not a GLOBAL interface identifier. That is, interface identifiers with > > > the global bit set are guaranteed to be unique on the Internet. Perhaps > > > my terminology is incorrect, but unless I can put multiple globally-unique > > > interface identifiers on the same box, an awful lot of the magic IPv6 > > > promises simply isn't there. > %%%%% snip %%%%%%%% > %%%% snip %%%%%%% > I'm not talking about a globally unique IPv6 ADDRESS, I'm talking about a > globally unique bottom 64 bits. If you can guarantee that the bottom > 64 bits are unique, then you can tell if two different IPv6 addresses > (which ARE going to be globally unique, just like IPv4 addresses) are > really from the same computer. There is no equivalent to this in > IPv4. There is nothing even close to this in IPv4. Ok, now we are talking. I'll say what noone has told openly : THERE IS NO WAY TO GUARRANTEE A GLOBALLY UNIQUE BOTTOM 64 BITS. Mac addresses did not do it, i have seen ethernet boards with duplicate addresses, i have seen boxes where the adresses comes from otger places, i have seen eqipment where no IEEE adresses is used at all. How on earth could one make any assumtions that the bottom 64 bits is unique ? At the best one could say "they are probably unique on this subnetwork". > > > > I believe that many people will want to have multiple globally-unique > > > interface identifiers on the same computer. Is there a standard way of > > > doing this? > > > The most common way hosting sites assign multiple addresses is to just > > number them sequentially. It's pretty simple and mindless and doesn't > > require knowledge of the ethernet address on any NIC card. Ie. it's KISS > > compliant :) > > Since you don't understand what a globally-unique interface identifier IS > and how it's different from a globally-unique address, you probably won't > understand why what you describe is not particularly useful, with respect > to easy multihoming. It's understandable that noone understands what a "globally-unique interface identifier IS". During the BIG-IP list days (where IPng was discussed), during the period where ipv6 took form, there was a discussion about a thing called "locators". Whenever discussion focused on locators, they were supposed to look like "IEEE-adresses", but with other properties. Noone ever came with a good description. Now on top of that, IEEE is no infinite source of addresses. The 46 bits available is beginning to be scarce, increasing them to 62 bits will only delay the lifetime. As opposed to ip(4) adresses then may not be reused. What will be used as " globally-unique interface identifiers" when we are out of IEEE adresses ?? > -- > Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) > Brokersys +281-580-3358 http://www.brokersys.com/ > 12703 Veterans Memorial #106, Houston, TX 77014, USA > > > -- Peter Håkanson | Melissa ? Lovletter ? Joke ? Mothers day ? tfn 0707 328101 | Not on this mailsystem! IPSec sverige || ipsec.nu | It's safe by design ! Lundbystrand Sweden | (in contrast to some other) From woeber@cc.univie.ac.at Mon Oct 9 16:31:59 2000 From: woeber@cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 15:31:59 MET-DST Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? Message-ID: <009F158E.87275E00.10@cc.univie.ac.at> >The widespread adoption of MAC-based addressing has some serious hurdles >to overcome. In the meantime, I don't see why more traditional schemes >can't continue to be used or be discouraged in favor of MAC-based >addressing. I don't see why you try to make "us" believe that there is a problem? No part of the IPv6 Addressing Architecture requires the use of this MAC address magic. In fact the whole system is designed to work perfectly *without* that mechanism, including a mandatory mechanism to detect duplicate interface addresses within the same prefix space (as may happen due to manual and/or DHCP-style configuration activity ;-). There is more than one IF type around these days, which does not have a MAC address. Still those links can be used, even using autoconfiguration (e.g. serial links :-). And there is a draft which deals with security issues in using the MAC-address based magic. And there is a draft that deals with ICPMv6 based revDNS functionality. So what. Come on, reality check, please.... -WW _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From bmanning@ISI.EDU Mon Oct 9 18:05:40 2000 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:05:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: <009F158E.87275E00.10@cc.univie.ac.at> from "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" at Oct 09, 2000 03:31:59 PM Message-ID: <200010091705.KAA28916@zed.isi.edu> % And there is a draft that deals with ICPMv6 based revDNS functionality. % % So what. Come on, reality check, please.... % -WW With or without the 20% gratutity for parties greater than 8? :) Realistically, the ICMP based DNS stuff has certain logistical issues when the number of nodes and/or the diameter of the topology gets "large". --bill From peter@ipsec.nu Mon Oct 9 22:31:12 2000 From: peter@ipsec.nu (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_H=E5kanson?=) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 23:31:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: <009F158E.87275E00.10@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > >The widespread adoption of MAC-based addressing has some serious hurdles > >to overcome. In the meantime, I don't see why more traditional schemes > >can't continue to be used or be discouraged in favor of MAC-based > >addressing. > > I don't see why you try to make "us" believe that there is a problem? > > No part of the IPv6 Addressing Architecture requires the use of this MAC > address magic. In fact the whole system is designed to work perfectly > *without* that mechanism, including a mandatory mechanism to detect > duplicate interface addresses within the same prefix space (as may > happen due to manual and/or DHCP-style configuration activity ;-). without the "MAC address macic" we could use 64 bit addresses. Just to mention one difference. > > There is more than one IF type around these days, which does not have a > MAC address. Still those links can be used, even using autoconfiguration > (e.g. serial links :-). > > And there is a draft which deals with security issues in using the > MAC-address based magic. > > And there is a draft that deals with ICPMv6 based revDNS functionality. > > So what. Come on, reality check, please.... the reality is that MAC addresses is the exception ... > -WW > _________________________________:_____________________________________ > Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at > UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 > Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 > A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > -- Peter Håkanson | Melissa ? Lovletter ? Joke ? Mothers day ? tfn 0707 328101 | Not on this mailsystem! IPSec sverige || ipsec.nu | It's safe by design ! Lundbystrand Sweden | (in contrast to some other) From kre@munnari.OZ.AU Mon Oct 9 23:37:24 2000 From: kre@munnari.OZ.AU (Robert Elz) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:37:24 +1100 Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 09 Oct 2000 23:31:12 +0200." Message-ID: <661.971131044@mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 23:31:12 +0200 (CEST) From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_H=E5kanson?= Message-ID: | without the "MAC address macic" we could use 64 bit addresses. Just to | mention one difference. Only if no-one was allowed to use the "MAC address magic" way of easy configuration. And even then, using 64 bit addresses would cut the effective address space by 8-12 (maybe even 16) bits (ie: now we probably have an effective address space of something between 72 and 80 bits, assuming that the vast majority of the low 64 won't be doing much productive), and there are plenty of people who believe that the addresses we have are likely to become too small. I am pretty sure they're wrong, and even a (more tightly controlled perhaps) 64 bit address space would be adequate, but ... And in any case, this discussion was all held, and finally resolved, more than 5 years ago. Attempting to start it all again now helps no-one. There are getting to be a lot of IPv6 implementations around now, they are not all going to change without a very good reason. kre From kre@munnari.OZ.AU Mon Oct 9 23:40:42 2000 From: kre@munnari.OZ.AU (Robert Elz) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:40:42 +1100 Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 09 Oct 2000 10:05:40 PDT." <200010091705.KAA28916@zed.isi.edu> Message-ID: <670.971131242@mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 10:05:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Bill Manning Message-ID: <200010091705.KAA28916@zed.isi.edu> | Realistically, the ICMP based DNS stuff has certain logistical issues | when the number of nodes and/or the diameter of the topology gets "large". Provided that the actual lookups are done by something that caches the answers (positive and negative) and returns future answers from the cache, there really shouldn't be much difference between ICMP address->name translation and DNS name->address translation. As it is most in-addr.arpa (or ip6.int or ip6.arpa) servers live right near the net that is being translated - the net traffic to get an answer isn't going to be appreciably different either way. kre From gphillips@clarkie.net Tue Oct 10 23:54:35 2000 From: gphillips@clarkie.net (Geoff) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:54:35 -0400 Subject: Private network Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.0.20001010184649.009f3b50@127.0.0.1> Hi, Please forgive me if I sound naive or misunderstood some posts. But there was a thread going on about reserve IPv6 address such as Private Network addresses of IPv4 (ie 10.0.0.0). My understanding of the threads was that there were no reserved IP addresses (one reason why I haven't gone on 6bone yet). Now, while reading about IPv6 I have read the contrary that 1111 1110 10 (12 bits) 0 (52 bits) 64 bit unique ID (64 bits) (this was taken from Routing in the Internet 2nd Ed. By Christian Huitema). Who's right and or where did I go astray in my misunderstanding. Thank you, Geoffrey Phillips 508-795-6841 http://www.clarkie.cc/ geoff_phillips@acm.org (Professional) gphillips@clarkie.net (Professional) resume at: http://www.clarkie.net/ From jeff@muzi.com Wed Oct 11 03:30:39 2000 From: jeff@muzi.com (Li Hong) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:30:39 +0800 Subject: IPV6 client-server through freenet6 Message-ID: <20001011023039.96182.qmail@muzi.com> Hi, Is it possible to build IPv6 client and IPv6 server socket program through freenet6? Anyone know some good reference on this? Thanks. Hong -- _______________________________________________ Get your free email from http://mail.muzi.com Powered by Outblaze From kyhwana@world-net.co.nz Wed Oct 11 09:06:27 2000 From: kyhwana@world-net.co.nz (Daniel Richards) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 21:06:27 +1300 Subject: IPV6 client-server through freenet6 In-Reply-To: <20001011023039.96182.qmail@muzi.com> References: <20001011023039.96182.qmail@muzi.com> Message-ID: <00101121083200.02303@leopard.lan> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Li Hong wrote: > Hi, > > Is it possible to build IPv6 client and IPv6 server socket program through freenet6? Anyone know some good reference on this? Thanks. Im not exactly sure what you mean, but I assume you mean a server/client of some sort, that can use IPv6? There are already a bunch of servers/clients (like apache + ipv6 and so on) that will do IPv6, all that needs to be done is to have them recognise IPv6 addresses and such, since the IPv6 stack should take care of routing/etc. Freenet6 is just a tunnel service, so that you can auctally USE the client/servers on the ipv6 network. Oh, I dont suppose anyone knows what happened to eu.irc6.net? -- http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/decss/ - Kyh's DeCSS stuff http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/DRpubkey.txt "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic." From kontogia@cti.gr Wed Oct 11 09:53:40 2000 From: kontogia@cti.gr (Kontogianni Vicky) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:53:40 +0300 Subject: Squid on Solaris2.8 Message-ID: <000201c03360$c14b2be0$a3818c96@kontogianni> Hello everybody, has anybody tried to compile Squid 1.1.22 + KAME patch (squid-1.1.22-v6-20000823.diff) on a SPARC Solaris 2.8 System succesfully? I get errors during the make process... Thanks in advance for the answers, Vicky Kontogianni Network Technologies Sector Computer Technology Institute Patras - GREECE Tel. +30 61 960377 e-mail: kontogia@cti.gr From sgunderson@bigfoot.com Wed Oct 11 13:43:19 2000 From: sgunderson@bigfoot.com (Steinar H. Gunderson) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:43:19 +0200 Subject: Squid on Solaris2.8 In-Reply-To: <000201c03360$c14b2be0$a3818c96@kontogianni>; from kontogia@cti.gr on Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:53:40AM +0300 References: <000201c03360$c14b2be0$a3818c96@kontogianni> Message-ID: <20001011144319.A14092@uio.no> On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:53:40AM +0300, Kontogianni Vicky wrote: >has anybody tried to compile Squid 1.1.22 + KAME patch >(squid-1.1.22-v6-20000823.diff) on a SPARC Solaris 2.8 System succesfully? I >get errors during the make process... Why Squid 1.1? That is ANCIENT -- the latest (stable) Squid version is 2.3STABLE4, if I remember correctly... /* Steinar */ From pcurran@ticl.co.uk Wed Oct 11 11:47:34 2000 From: pcurran@ticl.co.uk (Peter Curran) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:47:34 +0100 Subject: Private network References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001010184649.009f3b50@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <001701c03370$aa7daa90$0f0120c1@desktop> Geoff There are three types of Unicast address in IPv6: Link-local: (fe80::/64): These are only valid across the link (physical network) to which you are attached. They cannot be routed and are normally assigned automatically during autoconfiguration. Site-local: (fec0::/64): These are only valid within a single organisation (which could span multiple sites). They are routable addresses, but contain no public routing information and so cannot be routed across the Internet. They are equivalent to the RFC1918 address range (network 10, etc) in terms of the way they are intended to be used - they are private addresses. Global: These are assigned and managed by regional and local internet registries (ISPs) and contain public routing information - so they work on the Internet. They are designed so that the 16-bit space assigned for routing within an organisation's network (the SLA field) corresponds with the equivalent field (Subnet ID) within the site-local address. This means that a site could use both site-local and global addressing and maintain the same internal routing structure. The wisdom of using both global and site local addresses has been questioned many times on the IPNG list. There are clearly 'gotchas' to using site-local addresses in this way. I hope this clears up the confusion over what addresses exist and what they are for. You should really check out RFC2460 for the details. I am not clear why you think the existence or otherwise of site-local addresses effects your ability to connect to the 6bone. You need a single global IPv4 address. Contact one for the tunnel brokers (I suggest freenet6), supply your data and you will be assigned a global IPv6 prefix for your network. Thats it! Cheers Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Geoff" To: <6bone@ISI.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 11:54 PM Subject: Private network > Hi, > > Please forgive me if I sound naive or misunderstood some posts. > But there was a thread going on about reserve IPv6 address such as Private > Network addresses of IPv4 (ie 10.0.0.0). My understanding of the threads > was that there were no reserved IP addresses (one reason why I haven't gone > on 6bone yet). Now, while reading about IPv6 I have read the contrary that > 1111 1110 10 (12 bits) 0 (52 bits) 64 bit unique ID (64 bits) (this was > taken from Routing in the Internet 2nd Ed. By Christian Huitema). Who's > right and or where did I go astray in my misunderstanding. > > Thank you, > > Geoffrey Phillips > 508-795-6841 > > http://www.clarkie.cc/ > geoff_phillips@acm.org (Professional) > gphillips@clarkie.net (Professional) > resume at: http://www.clarkie.net/ > > From Niklas@hoglund.pp.se Wed Oct 11 12:22:48 2000 From: Niklas@hoglund.pp.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Niklas_H=F6glund?=) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:22:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: v6 trouble Message-ID: Hi! I'm having some trouble setting up and v6 tunnel against freenet6, I'm running Linux (debian)... If anyone have some ideas/hints, let me hear it =) commands i enter: echo 0 >/proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/all/autoconf echo 0 >/proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/all/accept_ra echo 0 >/proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/all/accept_redirects echo 0 >/proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/all/router_solicitations echo 1 >/proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/all/forwarding echo 1 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/all/forwarding ifconfig sit0 up ifconfig eth0 add 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff:0:0:0:139 ifconfig sit0 tunnel ::206.123.31.102 ifconfig sit1 up route -A inet6 add ::0/ gw fe80::206.123.31.102 dev sit1 after this I ping6 fe80::206.123.31.102, and in tcpdump i see: 14:34:21.961782 fe80::260:8ff:fe79:c9f5 > ff02::1:ff7b:1f66 icmpv6: neigh sol My hw address is 00:60:08:79:C9:F5. When i traceroute6 to www.kame.net (3ffe:501:4819:2000:5054:ff:fedc:50d2) I see: 14:36:32.719868 192.71.82.210 > 206.123.31.102: v6-in-v4 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::139 > 3ffe:501:4819:2000:5054:ff:fedc:50d2 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::139.1024 > 3ffe:501:4819:2000:5054:ff:fedc:50d2.33434: udp 16 (DF) Any obvious faults I've done? //N From davidg@uk.uu.net Wed Oct 11 12:41:09 2000 From: davidg@uk.uu.net (David Gethings) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:41:09 +0100 (BST) Subject: ipv6 addressing - non-routable equivalents? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > I presume the "8 bits" is part of a brain fog as 64-48 is 16, not 8. > > My reading of rfc2373 (which can be retrieved from > ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2373.txt, if you have a mind to read it) is > that those 16 bits (which are inserted starting at bit 24) are required to > be 0xfffe. > > I don't want to speak ill of the standards process as it's tough enough to > accomplish as it is, but didn't anybody consider the fact that people are > going to want to use address-based virtual hosting when designing this > scheme, or am I missing something? > -- Hi John, You're quite right, appendix A of rfc2372 does specify that the "spare" 16 bits should be set to 0xffe. Next time I comment on a public list like this I'll make sure it isn't 4am and I not trying to also console a crying baby in my arms! Dave From tsoome@ut.ee Wed Oct 11 13:37:38 2000 From: tsoome@ut.ee (Toomas Soome) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:37:38 +0200 Subject: Squid on Solaris2.8 References: <000201c03360$c14b2be0$a3818c96@kontogianni> Message-ID: <39E45F12.68508B47@ut.ee> Kontogianni Vicky wrote: > > Hello everybody, > > has anybody tried to compile Squid 1.1.22 + KAME patch > (squid-1.1.22-v6-20000823.diff) on a SPARC Solaris 2.8 System succesfully? I > get errors during the make process... > it could be interesting for testing purposes, but as squid-2.3 is current release, I would not recommend anyone to use very old version.... toomas -- Silence is the element in which great things fashion themselves. -- Thomas Carlyle From gphillips@clarkie.net Wed Oct 11 18:33:43 2000 From: gphillips@clarkie.net (Geoff) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:33:43 -0400 Subject: Private network In-Reply-To: <001701c03370$aa7daa90$0f0120c1@desktop> References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001010184649.009f3b50@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.0.20001011133250.009f60e0@127.0.0.1> At 11:47 AM 10/11/00 +0100, Peter Curran wrote: >I hope this clears up the confusion over what addresses exist and what they >are for. You should really check out RFC2460 for the details. Yes, that did clear things up. Thank you. Geoffrey Phillips 508-795-6841 http://www.clarkie.cc/ geoff_phillips@acm.org (Professional) gphillips@clarkie.net (Professional) resume at: http://www.clarkie.net/ From htu@hustcc.whnet.edu.cn Thu Oct 12 03:58:04 2000 From: htu@hustcc.whnet.edu.cn (Tu hao) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:58:4 +0800 Subject: want to know the latest research about IPv6 Message-ID: <200010120309.e9C39mJ04182@hustcc.whnet.edu.cn> Hi, I want to know the lastest research work about IPv6 ,who can tell me something about it ,or where can find . Thank you, Tu hao htu@hustcc.whnet.edu.cn From kontogia@cti.gr Thu Oct 12 07:44:09 2000 From: kontogia@cti.gr (Kontogianni Vicky) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 09:44:09 +0300 Subject: Squid on Solaris2.8 In-Reply-To: <39E45F12.68508B47@ut.ee> Message-ID: <001701c03417$d3abd5c0$a3818c96@kontogianni> You are right,but it seems that the patch applies to this very old version...Does the earliest version of Squid support IPv6??? Vicky. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-6bone@ISI.EDU [mailto:owner-6bone@ISI.EDU]On > Behalf Of Toomas Soome > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 3:38 PM > To: 6bone@ISI.EDU > Subject: Re: Squid on Solaris2.8 > > > Kontogianni Vicky wrote: > > > > Hello everybody, > > > > has anybody tried to compile Squid 1.1.22 + KAME patch > > (squid-1.1.22-v6-20000823.diff) on a SPARC Solaris 2.8 > System succesfully? I > > get errors during the make process... > > > > it could be interesting for testing purposes, but as squid-2.3 is > current release, I would not recommend anyone to use very old > version.... > > toomas > -- > Silence is the element in which great things fashion themselves. > -- Thomas Carlyle From tsoome@ut.ee Thu Oct 12 07:50:53 2000 From: tsoome@ut.ee (Toomas Soome) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 08:50:53 +0200 (EET) Subject: Squid on Solaris2.8 In-Reply-To: <001701c03417$d3abd5c0$a3818c96@kontogianni> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Kontogianni Vicky wrote: > You are right,but it seems that the patch applies to this very old > version...Does the earliest version of Squid support IPv6??? I'm afraid... no. I asked the squid developers about ipv6 support, but the answer was something like 'sure, we are happy to have ipv6 support, but just now there is no support for ipv6'. and ipv6 port will require some amount of time - I can't afford this time just now:( toomas -- Champagne don't make me lazy. Cocaine don't drive me crazy. Ain't nobody's business but my own. -- Taj Mahal From kunitake@tyo.mind.co.jp Thu Oct 12 12:08:10 2000 From: kunitake@tyo.mind.co.jp (KUNITAKE Koichi) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:08:10 +0900 Subject: v6 trouble In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39E59B9A118.BE0BKUNITAKE@172.31.18.181> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:22:48 +0000 (GMT) Niklas Höglund wrote: > Hi! > I'm having some trouble setting up and v6 tunnel against freenet6, > I'm running Linux (debian)... If anyone have some ideas/hints, let me hear > it =) Hmmm...when "forwarding" is on, Linux ignore default route(::/0) It means Linux using as a router must have full route!! ;-( So, you'll need to input following commands... # ifconfig sit0 up # ifconfig eth0 add 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff:0:0:0:139 # ifconfig sit0 tunnel ::206.123.31.102 # ifconfig sit1 up # route -A inet6 add 3ffe::0/16 gw fe80::206.123.31.102 dev sit1 # route -A inet6 add 3ffe::0/16 gw ::206.123.31.102 dev sit0 # route -A inet6 add 2000::0/12 gw fe80::206.123.31.102 dev sit1 # route -A inet6 add 2000::0/12 gw ::206.123.31.102 dev sit0 Of course, I think it's nothing but a workaround... --------------------------------------------- MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC INFORMATION NETWORK CORPORATION KUNITAKE Koichi --------------------------------------------- From jason@jax-inc.com Thu Oct 12 15:27:03 2000 From: jason@jax-inc.com (Jason Bogin) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:27:03 -0400 Subject: want to know the latest research about IPv6 Message-ID: <71760B58DB78D111BF3D00C0F01783591AF07B@WEB_SERVER> Tu, I did some research at the University of North Florida in December of 1999. Go to http://www.jax-inc.com/ipv6 thanks, Jason -----Original Message----- From: Tu hao To: 6bone@isi.edu Sent: 10/11/00 1:00 PM Subject: want to know the latest research about IPv6 This message uses a character set that is not supported by the Internet Service. To view the original message content, open the attached message. If the text doesn't display correctly, save the attachment to disk, and then open it using a viewer that can display the original character set. <> From fink@es.net Fri Oct 13 00:28:37 2000 From: fink@es.net (Bob Fink) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:28:37 -0700 Subject: 6bone pTLA request from NEXTRA/SVSBB - close 26Oct00 Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.0.20001012162523.02c31de8@imap2.es.net> 6bone folk: The IPv6-site SVSBB is asking for a pTLA on behalf of NEXTRA, an ISP in Slovakia. This open review period will end 26 October. Comments to me or the list please. Thanks, Bob === >From: Jan Oravec >Subject: Re: request for 6bone pTLA >To: fink@es.net (Bob Fink) >Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 00:04:50 +0200 (CEST) > > > You need to to look at section 7 of RFC2772: > > > > > >here are my comments to each subsections: > >1a) my ipv6-site is called SVSBB, as short for School Computing Centre in > Slovak language. inet6num is now 3ffe:2280:8::/48 (provided by STUBA) > mnter and person objects seems to be ok... it was very good for getting > experience with BGP and IPv6.. >1b) one month ago i switched to BGP4+ routing, it seems to work fine... i > have now BGP4+ connectivity to STUBA, INTOUCH-NL, EURONET-BE and also to > ASH-DE. last one isn't working because they were announcing my /48 zone > so i turned it off because it's not valid to do that... router for pTLA > zone will be located in backbone of NEXTRA, it will be probably some > kind of cisco or OpenBSD machine. BGP peering will be made with STUBA: > > 1 gww.ba.nextra.sk (195.168.1.1) 0.727 ms 0.465 ms 0.648 ms > 2 gwsix.nextra.sk (195.168.55.42) 1.015 ms 1.836 ms 1.902 ms > 3 Sanet-gw.six.sk (192.108.148.10) 1.586 ms 1.666 ms 3.123 ms > 4 peon.cvt.stuba.sk (147.175.1.16) 1.227 ms 0.994 ms 1.439 ms > > and INTOUCH-NL: > 1 gww.ba.nextra.sk (195.168.1.1) 0.674 ms 0.428 ms 0.425 ms > 2 nb12b01-fe1-0-0.nb.telenor.net (148.122.66.25) 1.314 ms 1.017 > ms 1.192 ms > 3 nb13b01-s1-1-0.nb.telenor.net (148.122.65.105) 53.553 ms 54.615 > ms 150.261 ms > 4 nb08b01-s0-0-1.nb.telenor.net (148.122.65.77) 53.837 ms 53.339 > ms 55.829 ms > 5 nb06b01-s5-0-0.nb.telenor.net (148.122.65.90) 55.333 ms 53.782 > ms 55.787 ms > 6 ams-ix.intouch.net (193.148.15.93) 53.962 ms 55.675 ms 55.471 ms > 7 ipv6-nikhef.intouch.net (212.19.192.218) 56.273 ms * 55.074 ms > > and we will ask another pTLA's for peering.. > > backup router will be in SVSBB which is end-site of different ISP and > all clients will be offered also backup connection.. > > in this time, NEXTRA is fastest ISP in Slovakia.. > they have 155 Mbps to Prague, another 155 Mbps to Wien and 34 Mbps to > SIX - Slovak Internet eXchange - peering center.. > >1c) DNS seems to be working fine... i have now 2 reverse nameservers.. > reverse DNS of pTLA will be runned on ns.wilbury.sk and > ns[1,2,3].wilbury.sk and probably also on ns.nextra.sk > >1d) we have site http://www.6bone.sk which is now in Slovak language... the > problem is only that it's not running on ipv6, but it will be done as > soon as possible > >2a) members of support staff: > Jan Oravec - wsx@svsbb.sk > Juraj Lutter - otis@wilbury.sk, juraj.lutter@in.nextra.sk > there will be probably next one, we are now looking who have enough > knowledge about BGP and routing.. we have enough time for it at this > time... > >2b) it's already created... 6bone@svsbb.sk, probably will change to > 6bone@6bone.sk.. it's forwarding to me and Juraj Lutter... > maybe some mailing list would be good idea.. > >3) there is already 10 servers connected each at least 2 users... we are > making one freeshell machine with ipv6 connectivity and it will be ready > in monday, so probably we will get some more users...and also NEXTRA is > bigges ISP in Slovakia so i think that it's guarantee for enough users > existing tunnels of SVSBB will be immediatelly reconnected to new > router.. > >4) we read rules and agree.. we will test whether routers are working fine > before connecting BGPs to world.. > >so this mail is request for pTLA for NEXTRA, Slovakia > > > >Sincerely, > >Jan Oravec From aaron@Aaron.homeip.net Fri Oct 13 03:44:11 2000 From: aaron@Aaron.homeip.net (Aaron Plattner) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:44:11 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Firewalled tunnel Message-ID: Hi. At my house my dad is using SyGate (a NAT program) running on Windows 2000 (no ipv6 support), while I run Linux. I was trying to set up a freenet6 tunnel, but I can't get it to work through SyGate. Is it even possible to set up a tunnel through a firewall like this? (I think SyGate will only do TCP and UDP). Thank you, Aaron Plattner From kyhwana@world-net.co.nz Fri Oct 13 09:47:00 2000 From: kyhwana@world-net.co.nz (Daniel Richards) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 21:47:00 +1300 Subject: Firewalled tunnel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00101321492401.03264@leopard.lan> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Aaron Plattner wrote: > Hi. > At my house my dad is using SyGate (a NAT program) running on Windows > 2000 (no ipv6 support), while I run Linux. I was trying to set up a > freenet6 tunnel, but I can't get it to work through SyGate. Is it even > possible to set up a tunnel through a firewall like this? (I think SyGate > will only do TCP and UDP). Hmm, you have to be able to route/forward ICMP type 41, which is ipv6 icmp stuff. It IS doable, at least in linux/freebsd using NAT, but it's no preferrable. If Sygate can't do ICMP, you're out of luck, maybe you could pick up a cheap 486 and convince your dad to let you use linux/freebsd for NAT ? :) -- http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/decss/ - Kyh's DeCSS stuff http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/DRpubkey.txt "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic." From mwoliver@us.ibm.com Fri Oct 13 14:27:27 2000 From: mwoliver@us.ibm.com (Michael Oliver/Tampa/Contr/AT&T/IJV) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:27:27 -0400 Subject: Firewalled tunnel Message-ID: I have several computers at home behind a cable modem. The gateway is a server running Windows 2000 Advanced Server and using a NAT/PAT application called WinRoute. I know that WinRoute has the ability to pass traffic of protocol type 41, but I do not think that SyGate does. I may be wrong, but when I was helping a friend of mine set up an IPSec tunnel to our office, it required us to open protocol 50 on SyGate, and we searched everywhere for a method to do so. In the end, we found out that the apprule.cfg file that sygate uses to allow/disallow traffic could only be configured to allow TCP/UDP port numbers, not specific protocols. The IPSec support within SyGate is built in to the application, therefore not configurable. Note that I am not an expert on SyGate, but support for protocol 41 may be built in as well, or they may have a new version that allows this configuration now. Aaron, since your Dad is using Win2K, have you talked to him about downloading the IPv6 kit from MSDN? The new kit allows you to set up a tunnel through Microsoft lickety-split, no prob. In my environment, I have the IPv6 kit installed on several Win2k Pro clients, as well as the AdvSrv that is the gateway (WinRoute). On the gateway, all I have to do is go to the command line, enter the command "6to4cfg.exe -r -s" and my whole LAN then has connectivity to the 6BONE. Let me know how it goes, ok? Michael W. Oliver oliver.michael@gargantuan.com (home) mwoliver@att.com (work) Daniel Richards @ISI.EDU on 10/13/2000 05:47:00 PM Please respond to kyhwana@world-net.co.nz Sent by: owner-6bone@ISI.EDU To: 6bone@ISI.EDU cc: Subject: Re: Firewalled tunnel On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, Aaron Plattner wrote: > Hi. > At my house my dad is using SyGate (a NAT program) running on Windows > 2000 (no ipv6 support), while I run Linux. I was trying to set up a > freenet6 tunnel, but I can't get it to work through SyGate. Is it even > possible to set up a tunnel through a firewall like this? (I think SyGate > will only do TCP and UDP). Hmm, you have to be able to route/forward ICMP type 41, which is ipv6 icmp stuff. It IS doable, at least in linux/freebsd using NAT, but it's no preferrable. If Sygate can't do ICMP, you're out of luck, maybe you could pick up a cheap 486 and convince your dad to let you use linux/freebsd for NAT ? :) -- http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/decss/ - Kyh's DeCSS stuff http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/DRpubkey.txt "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic." From pcurran@ticl.co.uk Fri Oct 13 20:07:57 2000 From: pcurran@ticl.co.uk (Peter Curran) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 20:07:57 +0100 Subject: Protocol Analysers for Win2K/v6 Message-ID: <007b01c03548$e5ce64c0$0f0120c1@desktop> A few days ago I asked for help in locating such a beast. As usual, a number of colleagues from the list pointed me at various products - many thanks for taking the time to reply. As I suspect that this either is, or will be soon, an FAQ - I thought I should summarise the answer to the list so that anybody who needs this info in the future can dig it out of the archive. So here goes..... Question: Is there a protocol analyser package for Windows 2000 that can interpret IPv6 packets? Answer: Yes, there are a number...... 1. Microsoft have an updated version of their Network Monitor application that handles all IPv6 headers that I have shown it (that is most, but does not include any MIPv6 stuff). This is commercial software, but a demo version is available for download that expires after 90 days. The updated version is available from: ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/transfer/outgoing/bussys/winnt/netmon2.zip The password for the .zip file is "capture". 2. Wild Packets (formerly AG Group) have a product called EtherPeek. This runs under Windows 2000 and handles a subset of IPv6 packets - frustratingly it does not seem to recognise IPsec over v4 or v6. A demo version is available for download, the full product retails for $995. http://www.wildpackets.com/products/Etherpeek.html 3. The freeware Ethereal analyser now runs under Windows 2000. This is a pretty good package if you just want to see the traffic and look at packets to see what is going on. It does not have any sophisticated reporting tools like the commercial products. It seems to handle all the IPv6 traffic I have shown it. http://www.ethereal.com 4. The Agilent network analyser (from Agilent, a part of HP) claims support for IPv6. This goes no further than recognising a v6-over-Ethernet packet, decoding the basic v6 header and thats about it. I am informed by Agilent that the production version has more complete support (I was using a demo/Beta version). http://www.agilent.com Cheers Peter Curran TICL From joris.dobbelsteen@mail.com Sat Oct 14 13:10:18 2000 From: joris.dobbelsteen@mail.com (Joris Dobbelsteen) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 14:10:18 +0200 Subject: IPv6 (and IPv4 routing) Message-ID: <000201c035d7$b8536dd0$01ff1fac@Thuis.local> 6Bone WG, Does anyone have some software for IPv6 that works over a dial-up line? Microsoft doesn't support this yet... I hope this is free software and not commercial software that you need to buy or expires.... This is regarding IPv4 routing: Another question is how to setup routing on a W2K Adv Svr. Currently RRAS is configured for VPN and routing on the LAN (2 network adapters). How can I configure routing (NAT) to a demand-dial line, with ONE limitation: * The modem may NOT RESPOND to incoming calls.... And I have a DNS server that works fine. Maybe that ICS may work??? But without the IP address 192.168.0.1 (192.168.10.13 instead)... Thanks, - Joris Dobbelsteen From kyhwana@world-net.co.nz Sat Oct 14 23:39:48 2000 From: kyhwana@world-net.co.nz (Daniel Richards) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 11:39:48 +1300 Subject: IPv6 (and IPv4 routing) In-Reply-To: <000201c035d7$b8536dd0$01ff1fac@Thuis.local> References: <000201c035d7$b8536dd0$01ff1fac@Thuis.local> Message-ID: <00101511421600.01335@leopard.lan> On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, you wrote: > 6Bone WG, > > Does anyone have some software for IPv6 that works over a dial-up line? Microsoft doesn't support this yet... > I hope this is free software and not commercial software that you need to buy or expires.... Ahhh.. Again, FreeBSD (and probably openBSD) and Linux support IPv6 and you can get all sorts of clients/servers that work with IPv6, for freee. (beer and speech) And yes, you can do IPv6 over IPv4 in all three OS's, I have FreeBSD working with freenet6 -- http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/decss/ - Kyh's DeCSS stuff http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/DRpubkey.txt "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic." From joris.dobbelsteen@mail.com Mon Oct 16 10:42:22 2000 From: joris.dobbelsteen@mail.com (Joris Dobbelsteen) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:42:22 +0200 Subject: IPv6 (and IPv4 routing) In-Reply-To: <00101511421600.01335@leopard.lan> Message-ID: <000701c03755$d407c240$01ff1fac@Thuis.local> ............ Forget to mention that I meant Windows 2000 and NOT a Linux-/Unix-based system. Wow, was that a mistake, I get mail about xBSD and Linux..... That's why Microsoft was mentioned in my mail and not someone else.... - Joris > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-6bone@ISI.EDU [mailto:owner-6bone@ISI.EDU]On Behalf Of > Daniel Richards > Sent: Sunday, 15 October 2000 0:40 > To: 6Bone > Subject: Re: IPv6 (and IPv4 routing) > > My part... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, you wrote: > > 6Bone WG, > > > > Does anyone have some software for IPv6 that works over a > dial-up line? Microsoft doesn't support this yet... > > I hope this is free software and not commercial software > that you need to buy or expires.... ============ > Ahhh.. > Again, FreeBSD (and probably openBSD) and Linux support IPv6 > and you can get > all sorts of clients/servers that work with IPv6, for freee. > (beer and speech) > And yes, you can do IPv6 over IPv4 in all three OS's, I have > FreeBSD working > with freenet6 > > > -- > http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/decss/ - Kyh's DeCSS stuff > http://shell.world-net.co.nz/~kyhwana/DRpubkey.txt > "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and > promptly vanishes in a puff of > logic." > From KEITHT@hthk.com Mon Oct 16 11:10:05 2000 From: KEITHT@hthk.com (Keith Tang (HTHK - Engineer II, NW3G)) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:10:05 +0800 Subject: Squid on Solaris2.8 Message-ID: Hi, I a question about IPv6 Allocation. 1. I know RIR will offer Sub-TLA in the bootstrap phase, is this policy Temporal operated, but when the RIR will offer TLA address to the ISP? I am confusing with Sub-TLA and TLA, could someone give me idea? KEITH From jhmartin@mail.com Mon Oct 16 17:36:04 2000 From: jhmartin@mail.com (Jason Martin) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 09:36:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: v6 trouble In-Reply-To: <39E59B9A118.BE0BKUNITAKE@172.31.18.181> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > Hi! > > I'm having some trouble setting up and v6 tunnel against freenet6, > > I'm running Linux (debian)... If anyone have some ideas/hints, let me hear > > it =) > > Hmmm...when "forwarding" is on, Linux ignore default route(::/0) > It means Linux using as a router must have full route!! ;-( > So, you'll need to input following commands... This isn't really true, is it? At least, for ipv4 I can use a default route w/o having a 'full' route table. Has this changed for v6? Thanks, - -Jason Martin > > # ifconfig sit0 up > # ifconfig eth0 add 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff:0:0:0:139 > # ifconfig sit0 tunnel ::206.123.31.102 > # ifconfig sit1 up > # route -A inet6 add 3ffe::0/16 gw fe80::206.123.31.102 dev sit1 > # route -A inet6 add 3ffe::0/16 gw ::206.123.31.102 dev sit0 > # route -A inet6 add 2000::0/12 gw fe80::206.123.31.102 dev sit1 > # route -A inet6 add 2000::0/12 gw ::206.123.31.102 dev sit0 - -- Kamikaze Pilot Wanted: Experienced only need apply. PGP KeyID=0x60FD6DDA PGP Fingerprint:06 A4 24 E6 EC E2 E2 DE 68 74 1B 0E 9D 8F 27 92 60 FD 6D DA -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE56y5+nY8nkmD9bdoRAhyoAKDH/Km66DUQN05faEVqTNiu5MixoACgmsPl 3KjroBmZPH0CrR0dcm26IDA= =Nwbg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From fink@es.net Mon Oct 16 23:19:50 2000 From: fink@es.net (Bob Fink) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:19:50 -0700 Subject: 6bone pTLA 3FFE:80D0::/28 assigned to MIMOS-MY Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.0.20001016151225.03048bc8@imap2.es.net> The 2-week pTLA review period for MIMOS-MY has passed with no negative comments, so I have assigned them 3FFE:80D0::/28. It will be a short while until they setup their inet6num object. Please help them as appropriate for peering and reverse DNS entry. Thanks, Bob From ckennedy@GROOVY.ORG Tue Oct 17 00:09:40 2000 From: ckennedy@GROOVY.ORG (Chris Kennedy) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:09:40 -0500 Subject: v6 trouble In-Reply-To: ; from jhmartin@mail.com on Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 09:36:04AM -0700 References: <39E59B9A118.BE0BKUNITAKE@172.31.18.181> Message-ID: <20001016180940.A632@GROOVY.ORG> On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 09:36:04AM -0700, Jason Martin wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Hi! > > > I'm having some trouble setting up and v6 tunnel against freenet6, > > > I'm running Linux (debian)... If anyone have some ideas/hints, let me hear > > > it =) > > > > Hmmm...when "forwarding" is on, Linux ignore default route(::/0) > > It means Linux using as a router must have full route!! ;-( > > So, you'll need to input following commands... > This isn't really true, is it? At least, for ipv4 I can use a default > route w/o having a 'full' route table. Has this changed for v6? > > Thanks, > - -Jason Martin > I had to setup the routes for a tunnel server this way, for routing ipv6 out to the 6bone through the tunnel server from the tunnel endpoints. they were able to have local ipv6 network access fine but out past the main ipv6 gateway to the 6bone they would not be able to access anything. I just discovered that adding specific routes for a prefix would allow the endpoints to access the 6bone. I think it is a bug in the Linux kernel, but didn't have the time to dig into the problem anymore than geting it to work for that server. It seemed like the server forwarding the ipv6 packets would treat those forwarded packets with another routing table that didn't include the default as an option like the locally generated packets have, so you had to add those specific prefixes to give those packets the route. Thanks, Chris K -- Chris Kennedy / ckennedy@iland.net / (660) 829-4638x117 I-Land Internet Services / Network Operations Center \|/ ____ \|/ "@'/ .. \`@" /_| \__/ |_\ \__U_/ -Linux SPARC Kernel Oops > > > > > # ifconfig sit0 up > > # ifconfig eth0 add 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff:0:0:0:139 > > # ifconfig sit0 tunnel ::206.123.31.102 > > # ifconfig sit1 up > > # route -A inet6 add 3ffe::0/16 gw fe80::206.123.31.102 dev sit1 > > # route -A inet6 add 3ffe::0/16 gw ::206.123.31.102 dev sit0 > > # route -A inet6 add 2000::0/12 gw fe80::206.123.31.102 dev sit1 > > # route -A inet6 add 2000::0/12 gw ::206.123.31.102 dev sit0 > > - -- > Kamikaze Pilot Wanted: Experienced only need apply. > PGP KeyID=0x60FD6DDA > PGP Fingerprint:06 A4 24 E6 EC E2 E2 DE 68 74 1B 0E 9D 8F 27 92 60 FD 6D DA > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org > > iD8DBQE56y5+nY8nkmD9bdoRAhyoAKDH/Km66DUQN05faEVqTNiu5MixoACgmsPl > 3KjroBmZPH0CrR0dcm26IDA= > =Nwbg > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > From kunitake@tyo.mind.co.jp Tue Oct 17 01:38:11 2000 From: kunitake@tyo.mind.co.jp (KUNITAKE Koichi) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:38:11 +0900 Subject: v6 trouble In-Reply-To: References: <39E59B9A118.BE0BKUNITAKE@172.31.18.181> Message-ID: <39EB9F732F8.FED2KUNITAKE@172.31.18.181> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 09:36:04 -0700 (PDT) Jason Martin wrote: > > > Hi! > > > I'm having some trouble setting up and v6 tunnel against freenet6, > > > I'm running Linux (debian)... If anyone have some ideas/hints, let me hear > > > it =) > > > > Hmmm...when "forwarding" is on, Linux ignore default route(::/0) > > It means Linux using as a router must have full route!! ;-( > > So, you'll need to input following commands... > This isn't really true, is it? At least, for ipv4 I can use a default > route w/o having a 'full' route table. Has this changed for v6? Yes, this specification have been changed for IPv6 (only when Linux is used as a router). We can use a default route(0.0.0.0/0) for IPv4 both as a host and as a router :-) Regard, --------------------------------------------- MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC INFORMATION NETWORK CORPORATION KUNITAKE Koichi --------------------------------------------- From dancer@zeor.simegen.com Tue Oct 17 03:02:19 2000 From: dancer@zeor.simegen.com (Dancer) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 19:02:19 -0700 Subject: v6 trouble References: <39E59B9A118.BE0BKUNITAKE@172.31.18.181> <20001016180940.A632@GROOVY.ORG> Message-ID: <39EBB32B.245C2CB6@zeor.simegen.com> Chris Kennedy wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 09:36:04AM -0700, Jason Martin wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > Hi! > > > > I'm having some trouble setting up and v6 tunnel against freenet6, > > > > I'm running Linux (debian)... If anyone have some ideas/hints, let me hear > > > > it =) > > > > > > Hmmm...when "forwarding" is on, Linux ignore default route(::/0) > > > It means Linux using as a router must have full route!! ;-( > > > So, you'll need to input following commands... > > This isn't really true, is it? At least, for ipv4 I can use a default > > route w/o having a 'full' route table. Has this changed for v6? > > > > Thanks, > > - -Jason Martin > > > > I had to setup the routes for a tunnel server this way, for > routing ipv6 out to the 6bone through the tunnel server from the > tunnel endpoints. they were able to have local ipv6 network access > fine but out past the main ipv6 gateway to the 6bone they would not > be able to access anything. I just discovered that adding specific > routes for a prefix would allow the endpoints to access the 6bone. > I think it is a bug in the Linux kernel, but didn't have the time > to dig into the problem anymore than geting it to work for that server. > It seemed like the server forwarding the ipv6 packets would treat those > forwarded packets with another routing table that didn't include the > default as an option like the locally generated packets have, so you > had to add those specific prefixes to give those packets the route. > Alexey's take on this is that the default route does not exist when _forwarding_ ipv6 packets. It's only checked when originating them. I felt it was a bug, and queried him. He told me it was intentionally that way. D From jworkman@pimpworks.org Tue Oct 17 06:55:15 2000 From: jworkman@pimpworks.org (Jeff Workman) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 01:55:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Trouble connecting to freenet6 with OpenBSD Message-ID: All, OK, after a week of fiddling with this, I am finally going to admit defeat and ask you guys for help. I am trying to connect to freenet6 with an OpenBSD 2.7 machine. Using the script generated on their web page does not work for me and I have tried modifying it to no avail. Here's what I'm doing: # ifconfig gif0 12.20.153.71 206.123.31.102 # ifconfig gif0 inet6 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff:0:0:0:521 \ 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff:0:0:0:520 prefixlen 127 This statement produces an error about: ifconfig: SIOCDIFADDR: Address family not supported by protocol family but...the interface still configures...I think.. # route add -inet6 default 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff:0:0:0:521 The above statement doesn't make a lot of sense to *me*, because it looks like I'm trying to make the local host the default gateway! But then again, I'm pretty ignorant about ipv6, which is why I'm conducting this experiment to begin with. Anyhow, back to the shell.... # ping6 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff:0:0:0:520 PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) pimpworks.us.freenet6.net --> 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::520 16 bytes from 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::520, icmp_seq=0 hlim=64 time=69.098 ms 16 bytes from 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::520, icmp_seq=1 hlim=64 time=64.858 ms 16 bytes from 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::520, icmp_seq=2 hlim=64 time=64.571 ms ^C Well, that worked, but...let's try going somewhere else... # traceroute6 altavista.ipv6.digital.com traceroute to altavista.ipv6.digital.com (3ffe:1200:2001:1:8000::1), 30 hops max, 12 byte packets 1 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::4f0 64.827 ms 65.925 ms 65.138 ms 2 * * * 3 * * * 4 * * * ^C Nope, that didn't work...and neither does anywhere else. So, can somebody tell me what I am doing wrong? TIA, Jeff -- "For competitive reasons we can't tell you the location of our fiber." -- An anonymous representative of a very large telco "For competitive reasons we can't tell you the location of our backhoe." -- An anonymous representative of a contractor. From ksbn@kt.co.kr Tue Oct 17 11:01:04 2000 From: ksbn@kt.co.kr (ksb) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:01:04 +0900 Subject: Bind9 Message-ID: <39EC2360.7496AD5E@kt.co.kr> How are you? I'm using the Solaris8 box. I hope to make a DNSv6 server using bind9. Will you send me where I can get the documents of bind9? Thank you. -- Kim, Sahng-Beom / Korea Telecom TEL : +82-42-870-8322 FAX : +82-42-870-8279 E-mail : ksbn@kt.co.kr -- From john@dryfish.org Tue Oct 17 11:29:37 2000 From: john@dryfish.org (John Wright) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:29:37 +0100 Subject: Trouble connecting to freenet6 with OpenBSD In-Reply-To: ; from jworkman@pimpworks.org on Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 01:55:15AM -0400 References: Message-ID: <20001017112937.B19059@dryfish.org> On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 01:55:15AM -0400, Jeff Workman wrote: > [...] > > Here's what I'm doing: > > # ifconfig gif0 12.20.153.71 206.123.31.102 firstly, this should be ifconfig gif0 giftunnel 12.20.... > # ifconfig gif0 inet6 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff:0:0:0:521 \ > 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff:0:0:0:520 prefixlen 127 > > This statement produces an error about: > > ifconfig: SIOCDIFADDR: Address family not supported by protocol family I usually ignore that one. > but...the interface still configures...I think.. > > [...] > > # traceroute6 altavista.ipv6.digital.com > traceroute to altavista.ipv6.digital.com (3ffe:1200:2001:1:8000::1), 30 > hops max, 12 byte packets > 1 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::4f0 64.827 ms 65.925 ms 65.138 ms > 2 * * * > 3 * * * > 4 * * * > ^C I found that the connectivity from freenet6 was a bit poor but I was always able to get to www.6bone.net, try that. From capitani@sun1.spfo.unibo.it Tue Oct 17 12:05:05 2000 From: capitani@sun1.spfo.unibo.it (Gianluca Capitani) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:05:05 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Bind9 Message-ID: <200010171105.NAA22039@sun1.spfo.unibo.it> Hi, bind9 and documents are available at: http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/bind9.html and Administrator reference Manual in pdf format at: http://www.nominum.com/resources/documentation/index.html Hope this help you. Best Regards, Gianluca Capitani > How are you? > > I'm using the Solaris8 box. > I hope to make a DNSv6 server using bind9. > Will you send me where I can get the documents > of bind9? > > Thank you. > > > From hswu@ns.6test.edu.cn Tue Oct 17 15:11:08 2000 From: hswu@ns.6test.edu.cn (Haisang Wu) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:11:08 +0800 (CST) Subject: How about Flow Label Message-ID: <200010171411.WAA13588@ns.6test.edu.cn> Hi, all I noticed the Flow Label field in IPv6 header has been changed from 24 bits to 20 bits in RFC 2460. Is the purpose is only to leave TC field as 8-bit DSCP? Has any of RFC and draft proposed its usage? Has any of us began to think about using the 20 bit flow label? I mean, should we only use the 20 bits to identify flows, or should we use it to provide more QoS mechanism, such as adaptive mapping and adaptive service in multicast? I am doing some survey on this, and wish to get help from 6BONE friends. Thanks to all of you. Best Haisang from CERNET From hasan.ali@uk.pwcglobal.com Tue Oct 17 14:55:21 2000 From: hasan.ali@uk.pwcglobal.com (hasan.ali@uk.pwcglobal.com) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:55:21 +0100 Subject: Security models from Telcos in IPV6 implementations? Message-ID: <8025697B.004CFDDD.00@uk-emamta003.ema.pwcinternal.com> Memo from Hasan Ali of PricewaterhouseCoopers -------------------- Start of message text -------------------- Hi All, A point for discussion, possibly. I've heard a statement that telcos may "tie in" potential users of their IPV6 services, by using unique security models. This has been suggested as a reason for IPV6 adoption becoming less likely. This seems very much in conflict with the core benefits - both in business and other terms - of the internet, and I suspect the argument has key weakesses in that the most likely analogy would be with a VPN service. So what would actually happen is the equivalent of a secure connection service that can connect to any point that's part of the underlying internet, but with a proprietary client software requirement. In other words, I don't think that this is an issue that makes the eventual deployment of IPV6 less likely. However what do the other readers on this list think? Are there any showstoppers of this kind, or is the view that - eventually - an IPV6 future is inevitable? How certain are we all that IPV6 must happen? Regards, Hasan --------------------- End of message text -------------------- The principal place of business of PricewaterhouseCoopers and its associate partnerships is 1 Embankment Place, London WC2N 6NN where lists of the partners' names are available for inspection. All partners in the associate partnerships are authorised to conduct business as agents of, and all contracts for services to clients are with, PricewaterhouseCoopers. The UK firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers is authorised by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales to carry on investment business. PricewaterhouseCoopers is a member of the world-wide PricewaterhouseCoopers organisation. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From christian.edward.gruber@gmx.net Tue Oct 17 16:56:04 2000 From: christian.edward.gruber@gmx.net (Christian Edward Gruber) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 11:56:04 -0400 Subject: Trouble connecting to freenet6 with OpenBSD References: <20001017112937.B19059@dryfish.org> Message-ID: <050f01c03852$c1bcbf20$0200910a@israil> I just had this same problem yesterday, and fixed it by making: cat > /etc/hostname.gif0 up giftunnel up inet6 EOF Then adding route add blah blah to rc.local Don't forget to set /etc/sysctl.conf to have: net.inet6.ip6.forward=1 It didn't work until I rebooted (artifacts from futzing around) but now it works and I can traceroute6 stuff. NOW my problem is DNS. ;) regards, Christian. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Wright" To: <6bone@ISI.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 6:29 AM Subject: Re: Trouble connecting to freenet6 with OpenBSD > On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 01:55:15AM -0400, Jeff Workman wrote: > > [...] > > > > Here's what I'm doing: > > > > # ifconfig gif0 12.20.153.71 206.123.31.102 > > firstly, this should be ifconfig gif0 giftunnel 12.20.... > > > # ifconfig gif0 inet6 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff:0:0:0:521 \ > > 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff:0:0:0:520 prefixlen 127 > > > > This statement produces an error about: > > > > ifconfig: SIOCDIFADDR: Address family not supported by protocol family > > I usually ignore that one. > > > but...the interface still configures...I think.. > > > > [...] > > > > # traceroute6 altavista.ipv6.digital.com > > traceroute to altavista.ipv6.digital.com (3ffe:1200:2001:1:8000::1), 30 > > hops max, 12 byte packets > > 1 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::4f0 64.827 ms 65.925 ms 65.138 ms > > 2 * * * > > 3 * * * > > 4 * * * > > ^C > > I found that the connectivity from freenet6 was a bit poor but I was always > able to get to www.6bone.net, try that. > From brusso@phys.hawaii.edu Wed Oct 18 00:23:45 2000 From: brusso@phys.hawaii.edu (Brian Russo) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:23:45 -1000 Subject: Security models from Telcos in IPV6 implementations? In-Reply-To: <8025697B.004CFDDD.00@uk-emamta003.ema.pwcinternal.com>; from hasan.ali@uk.pwcglobal.com on Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 02:55:21PM +0100 References: <8025697B.004CFDDD.00@uk-emamta003.ema.pwcinternal.com> Message-ID: <20001017132345.B31581@uhhepr.phys.hawaii.edu> On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 02:55:21PM +0100, hasan.ali@uk.pwcglobal.com wrote: > Hi All, > > A point for discussion, possibly. > > I've heard a statement that telcos may "tie in" potential users of their IPV6 > services, by using unique security models. This has been suggested as a reason > for IPV6 adoption becoming less likely. any chance you could elaborate on this statement. provide a URL? which telcos? etc.. more info would be helpful/prudent if you really wish intelligent discussion to result thanks - brianr -- +------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Brian Russo (808) 957 2333 | University of Hawaii High Energy Physics Group | UCE senders will be charged $100 USD under US Code Title 47, Sec.227(b)(1)(C) From paul@clubi.ie Sat Oct 21 02:14:15 2000 From: paul@clubi.ie (Paul Jakma) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 02:14:15 +0100 (IST) Subject: initial peer request: preferably INEX, EI. Message-ID: hi, I'm looking for someone to tunnel to for 6bone access. It's for my little home network: dial-up with a static IP (hibernia.clubi.ie), usually online for a couple of hours every evening. private v4 addresses internally. I'm looking to experiment with and get used to ipv6, with a view to rolling out a small test ipv6 network at work sometime in the future months. preferred peers: - anyone on INEX (irish ISP peering point), or within a hop or so from it. or - anyone on JANET. or - anyone.. :) regards, -- Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie PGP5 key: http://www.clubi.ie/jakma/publickey.txt ------------------------------------------- Fortune: Those who claim the dead never return to life haven't ever been around here at quitting time. From davidt@xfiles.nildram.co.uk Sat Oct 21 14:05:42 2000 From: davidt@xfiles.nildram.co.uk (David Taylor) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 14:05:42 +0100 Subject: 6bone peer request Message-ID: <20001021140541.A28358@xfiles.yadt.co.uk> --qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable After trying to find a peer, and being unsucessful, I thought I'd ask here. I have a static IP, and a flatrate dialup connection, so I'm on almost 24/7, and would like to be connected to the 6bone so I can get to know the technology, which will hopefully be being used on the internet sometime in the future :) Anyone who is close (hop wise) to UUNET would be nice, although anywhere in England would probably be fine, as I'm only on a dialup.. --=20 David Taylor davidt@yadt.co.uk --qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE58ZSlfIqKXSsJ/xERAi2JAJwOIkT2hAH5ohyCUuguU0YFSGSvYQCgtexh GHQBp8o0soXnRil6RZXOG+8= =lB+W -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS-- From davidt@xfiles.nildram.co.uk Sat Oct 21 20:33:00 2000 From: davidt@xfiles.nildram.co.uk (David Taylor) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:33:00 +0100 Subject: 6bone peer request In-Reply-To: <20001021140541.A28358@xfiles.yadt.co.uk>; from davidt@xfiles.nildram.co.uk on Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 14:05:42 +0100 References: <20001021140541.A28358@xfiles.yadt.co.uk> Message-ID: <20001021203300.D15476@xfiles.yadt.co.uk> --at6+YcpfzWZg/htY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, David Taylor wrote: >=20 > Anyone who is close (hop wise) to UUNET would be nice, although anywhere = in > England would probably be fine, as I'm only on a dialup.. >=20 Oops. I was referring to UUNET UK, whom I've already asked. They won't give me a tunnel because I'm only a dialup (which I can understand). I'm looking for a endpoint somewhere in the UK... I'd prefer to avoid routing all my 6bone traffic transatlantically, if at all possible. However, if I can't find anyone, I suppose it isn't possible :) --=20 David Taylor davidt@yadt.co.uk --at6+YcpfzWZg/htY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE58e9sfIqKXSsJ/xERAu2IAJ9GeDeiMt/HawBRcY9Em5Cerpax/wCeMj3r ngkQ40S2EUa9tIRlR93VC1s= =6maV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --at6+YcpfzWZg/htY-- From ksbn@kt.co.kr Mon Oct 23 04:15:58 2000 From: ksbn@kt.co.kr (ksb) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:15:58 +0900 Subject: TLA or sTLA References: Message-ID: <39F3AD6E.27F4B2D1@kt.co.kr> How are you. Tim Chown wrote: > The /35 allocation is an initial allocation to the provider; the "real" > allocation is a /29, which you can grow into. A number of people have > suggested assigning the /29 from the start. > > 2001: 16 bits (fixed prefix, unicast addressing) > top level: 13 bits (allows for 8,000+ top level ISPs) > intermediate: 6+13 bits > site level: 16 bits (on the assumption of /48 per site) Thank you for your good information. > What do you mean by "several IPv6 businesses" ? One ISP(like Korea Telecom) can operate a research IPv6 network (KOREN in Korea), a business IPv6 network and a mobile IPv6 network (ex: IMT-2000). In that case, the IPv6 addressing planner hopes to have 3 sTLA. Telco should be changed to ISPs. ISPs (from Telco) like to keep the E.164 format(telephone number architecture) and they try to insert E.164 in IPv6 address architecture. Should ISPs follow RFC 2373? Then I have a guestion. What are good points of IS-IS (rather than OSPF)? Thank you. -- Kim, Sahng-Beom / Korea Telecom TEL : +82-42-870-8322 FAX : +82-42-870-8279 E-mail : ksbn@kt.co.kr -- From ksbn@kt.co.kr Mon Oct 23 06:13:28 2000 From: ksbn@kt.co.kr (ksb) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:13:28 +0900 Subject: TLA or sTLA (Re) Message-ID: <39F3C8F7.D3F77093@kt.co.kr> Message was returned. So I try again, sorry to make trouble. Tim Chown wrote: > The /35 allocation is an initial allocation to the provider; the "real" > allocation is a /29, which you can grow into. A number of people have > suggested assigning the /29 from the start. > > 2001: 16 bits (fixed prefix, unicast addressing) > top level: 13 bits (allows for 8,000+ top level ISPs) > intermediate: 6+13 bits > site level: 16 bits (on the assumption of /48 per site) Thank you for your good information. > What do you mean by "several IPv6 businesses" ? One ISP(like Korea Telecom) can operate a research IPv6 network (KOREN in Korea), a business IPv6 network and a mobile IPv6 network (ex: IMT-2000). In that case, the IPv6 addressing planner hopes to have 3 sTLAs. Telco should be changed to ISP (paradigm shift). ISPs (from Telcos) like to keep the E.164 format(telephone number architecture) and they try to insert E.164 in IPv6 address architecture. Should ISPs follow RFC 2373? Then I have a guestion. What are good points of IS-IS (rather than OSPF)? Thank you. -- Kim, Sahng-Beom / Korea Telecom TEL : +82-42-870-8322 FAX : +82-42-870-8279 E-mail : ksbn@kt.co.kr -- From andrius@andrius.org Mon Oct 23 08:27:50 2000 From: andrius@andrius.org (Andrius Kasparavicius) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 09:27:50 +0200 (GMT-2) Subject: The initial allocation IPv6 prefixes In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20001022124328.00b26a30@pop.schulte.org> Message-ID: On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Christopher Schulte wrote: > site has several useful documents on this subject: > http://www.iana.org/ipaddress/ip-addresses.htm yeah, somethink I mean.. http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/ipv6-address-space.txt compare with: RFC1884 So, "Reserved for Geographic-Based Unicast Addresses" is not reserved anymore? ------------------------- Kasparavicius Andrius From Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr Mon Oct 23 09:20:17 2000 From: Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr (Francis Dupont) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 10:20:17 +0200 Subject: TLA or sTLA In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:15:58 +0900. <39F3AD6E.27F4B2D1@kt.co.kr> Message-ID: <200010230820.KAA03693@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> In your previous mail you wrote: Then I have a guestion. What are good points of IS-IS (rather than OSPF)? => there was a thread about this in the cisco-nsp mailing-list (I kept some key messages if you can't find this). Regards Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr From kontogia@cti.gr Mon Oct 23 11:57:34 2000 From: kontogia@cti.gr (Kontogianni Vicky) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:57:34 +0300 Subject: Question about reverse DNS Message-ID: <001f01c03ce0$194d6fa0$a3818c96@kontogianni> Hello there, I am trying to configure the DNS services, what are the steps in order to configure the reverse DNS?? The zone files are ready, but to who should I address for the delegation of my "reverse" domain?? Thank you in advance for the responses, Vicky Kontogianni Network Technologies Sector Computer Technology Institute Patras - GREECE Tel. +30 61 960377 e-mail: kontogia@cti.gr From capitani@sun1.spfo.unibo.it Mon Oct 23 12:58:27 2000 From: capitani@sun1.spfo.unibo.it (Gianluca Capitani) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:58:27 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: The initial allocation IPv6 prefixes Message-ID: <200010231158.NAA04503@sun1.spfo.unibo.it> Hi, RFC1884 is obsoleted by RFC2373 , excerpt from rfc-index.txt : 1884 IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture. R. Hinden, S. Deering, Editors. December 1995. (Format: TXT=37860 bytes) (Obsoleted by RFC2373) (Status: HISTORIC) RFC1884 is in status HISTORIC.. excerpt for rfc2373 in rfc-index.txt is : 2373 IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture. R. Hinden, S. Deering. July 1998. (Format: TXT=52526 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1884) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD) in RFC2373 geographic based unicast-address is not more defined (Pg. 6) . Best Regards, Gianluca Capitani > From: Andrius Kasparavicius > X-Sender: and@lolo.logina.lt > To: Christopher Schulte > Cc: Andrius Kasparavicius , users@ipv6.org, > 6bone <6bone@ISI.EDU>, IPv6 Forum > Subject: Re: The initial allocation IPv6 prefixes > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Christopher Schulte wrote: > > > site has several useful documents on this subject: > > http://www.iana.org/ipaddress/ip-addresses.htm > > yeah, somethink I mean.. > > http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/ipv6-address-space.txt > compare with: > RFC1884 > > So, "Reserved for Geographic-Based Unicast Addresses" is not reserved > anymore? > ------------------------- > Kasparavicius Andrius > > > > > From 6bone@schulte.org Mon Oct 23 17:25:30 2000 From: 6bone@schulte.org (6bone@schulte.org) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 11:25:30 -0500 Subject: Question about reverse DNS In-Reply-To: <001f01c03ce0$194d6fa0$a3818c96@kontogianni> Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.2.20001023111921.029a6eb0@pop.schulte.org> At 01:57 PM 10/23/2000 +0300, Kontogianni Vicky wrote: >I am trying to configure the DNS services, what are the steps in order to >configure the reverse DNS?? The zone files are ready, but to who should I >address for the delegation of my "reverse" domain?? From http://www.isi.edu/~sekiya/IPv6/DNS.html#Reversezone: "Each organization operating a top level aggregator receives a sub-domain corresponding to their TLA. In turn, they will delegate further subdomains to transit providers. The process goes recursively until a prefix is assigned to an end site or network." So, talk to your upstream.... my tunnel provider (sprint) delegated my reverse of 3ffe:2900:e00a::/48 by default.... The corresponding zone in my NS would be a.0.0.e.0.0.9.2.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. You can also just 'dig' the ip6.int domain yourself and follow the delegation tree, if all else fails and you can't get a straight answer from anyone. Have fun. -- Christopher Schulte | christopher@schulte.org http://www.schulteconsulting.com/ - Consulting http://noc.schulte.org/ - IPv4 209.134.156.192/28 http://www.ipv6.schulte.org/ - IPv6 3ffe:2900:e00a::/48 From rzm@icm.edu.pl Mon Oct 23 21:58:54 2000 From: rzm@icm.edu.pl (Rafal Maszkowski) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 22:58:54 +0200 Subject: 2001:... nets - formal side Message-ID: <20001023225854.Q8578@burza.icm.edu.pl> Is there any mailing list for 2001:... nets administrators? After getting new 2001.../35 from RIPE we should write regulations concerning assingnment of the subnets. I hope some admins could share their regulations with us. I can host a list for discussing such topics if there is a need. R. -- W iskier krzesaniu ¿ywem/Materia³ to rzecz g³ówna From fink@es.net Wed Oct 25 02:34:15 2000 From: fink@es.net (Bob Fink) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 18:34:15 -0700 Subject: 2001:... nets - formal side In-Reply-To: <20001023225854.Q8578@burza.icm.edu.pl> Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.0.20001024183132.02ef3fe0@imap2.es.net> Rafal, At 10:58 PM 10/23/2000 +0200, Rafal Maszkowski wrote: >Is there any mailing list for 2001:... nets administrators? After getting new >2001.../35 from RIPE we should write regulations concerning assingnment of the >subnets. I hope some admins could share their regulations with us. I can >host a >list for discussing such topics if there is a need. No there is isn't. At this time all three registries (ARIN, RIPE-NCC, APNIC) keep the data in slightly different ways. It would take three different scripts to parse and create a mail list of sub-TLA holders. Anyone out there willing to try? I think it would be a good idea to try to keep the production IPv6 sub-TLA holders together in a mailing list. Bob From fink@es.net Thu Oct 26 01:54:07 2000 From: fink@es.net (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:54:07 -0700 Subject: New UNAM's production IPv6 prefix, 2001:0448::/35 In-Reply-To: <39F772A8.E692C682@redes.unam.mx> References: <4.1.19990731165858.02315d70@imap2.es.net> Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.0.20001025175343.02d25b70@imap2.es.net> At 05:54 PM 10/25/2000 -0600, Cesar Olvera wrote: >IPv6 community, > >The production IPv6 prefix, 2001:0448::/35, has been assigned by ARIN >to National University of Mexico (UNAM). > >This is a milestone for IPv6 deployment in Mexico an Latin America. Congratulations to you and Mexico! Bob From barry@linuxnl.za.net Thu Oct 26 20:44:31 2000 From: barry@linuxnl.za.net (Barry Rutten) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 21:44:31 +0200 Subject: ipv6 ircd Message-ID: <39F8899F.C78C8BBC@linuxnl.za.net> Are there any ircd with ipv6 enabled witch I can download or are there any patches I can apply? From jv@pilsedu.cz Fri Oct 27 00:26:30 2000 From: jv@pilsedu.cz (Jakub Vlasek) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 01:26:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: ipv6 ircd In-Reply-To: <39F8899F.C78C8BBC@linuxnl.za.net> Message-ID: IRCNet's ircd is fully ipv6 enabled download ftp://ftp.irc.org/irc/server/irc2.10.3p1.tgz JV On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Barry Rutten wrote: > Are there any ircd with ipv6 enabled witch I can download or are there > any patches I can apply? > > > > From BMcNamara@zama.net Fri Oct 27 00:38:22 2000 From: BMcNamara@zama.net (Bradley W. McNamara) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 16:38:22 -0700 Subject: ipv6 ircd References: <39F8899F.C78C8BBC@linuxnl.za.net> Message-ID: <39F8C06E.45C31F80@zama.net> Barry, The latest ircd is IPv6 enabled/aware. The latest version is 2.10.3p1, and can be downloaded from http://www.irc.org, or from http://www.zama6.net/pub/ipv6/src/. Hope this helps. Brad McNamara ZAMA Networks, Inc. Barry Rutten wrote: > Are there any ircd with ipv6 enabled witch I can download or are there > any patches I can apply? From dlitz@dlitz.net Fri Oct 27 03:53:18 2000 From: dlitz@dlitz.net (Dwayne C . Litzenberger) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 20:53:18 -0600 Subject: Request for tunnel: sprint Message-ID: <20001026205318.A10895@zed.dcl> --ibTvN161/egqYuK8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm looking for a good low-latency tunnelpoint. Any takers? Do a traceroute/ping to 24.72.34.190 . Lower than 70ms ping would be wonderful. --=20 Dwayne C. Litzenberger - dlitz@dlitz.net - Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists. - See the mail headers for GPG/advertising/homepage information. --ibTvN161/egqYuK8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjn47h4ACgkQ+Zi22OJyw8Nv+ACgoMrQG69DSoaUN/tkakT8EyIk Z6kAoLUdB1ajpsgF3QLxjQfyV0/iXMlm =CuV9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ibTvN161/egqYuK8-- From KEITHT@hthk.com Fri Oct 27 03:49:43 2000 From: KEITHT@hthk.com (Keith Tang (HTHK - Engineer II, NW3G)) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:49:43 +0800 Subject: IPv6 tunnel Message-ID: My location is Hong Kong,I have a windows2000 PC at home , with a cisco router. It connects to a ISP providing an real IPv4 by Leased Line. So I want to use this windows 2000 PC with an IPV6 address to connect to 6bone. 1. Should I get my first 6bone IPv6 address from > an end-site of an existing pTLA 6bone ISP, because I need an IPv4 to > IPv6 gateway connection. 2. If the answer is "yes" for the Q1. Where can I find an existing PTLA 6Bone ISP in my location or others 3.There is one organization I found from 6 bone. But I have no access to connect the contact person even by Email. If I want to do the same something as this company. What are the steps? Last updated Thu Oct 26 04:09:06 BST 2000 ipv6-site DEVA origin AS4058 LINKAGENET descr Deva.net descr Tsuen Wan, Hong Kong country HK - HONG KONG /ipv6/6Bone/Whois/bycountry.html - HK /ipv6/6Bone/Whois/bycountry.html - HK prefix 3FFE:C00:8008::/48 Aggregatable Global Unicast Address TLA-ID: 0x1ffe, Sub-TLA: 0x180 6Bone 6BONE :CISCO :DEVA : application ping 6bone-router.deva.net application ping ipv6.deva.net application ftp ftp://ipv6.deva.net tunnels type source Dest dest site dest prefix protocol comment IPv6 in IPv4 203.85.103.1 6bone-router.deva.net 192.31.7.104 eng-ios-dirtylab-gw.cisco.com CISCO /ipv6/6Bone/Whois/bycountry.html - US /ipv6/6Bone/Whois/bycountry.html - US 3FFE:C00::/24 STATIC IPv6 in IPv4 203.85.103.1 6bone-router.deva.net 203.72.242.20 NCU-TW /ipv6/6Bone/Whois/bycountry.html - TW /ipv6/6Bone/Whois/bycountry.html - TW 3FFE:3600:5::/48 STATIC contact AKH18 Operational since December 2, 1997. Willing to add new tunnels upon request. mnt-by DEVA-NOC changed avatar@deva.net 19th September 1998 From KEITHT@hthk.com Fri Oct 27 04:00:24 2000 From: KEITHT@hthk.com (Keith Tang (HTHK - Engineer II, NW3G)) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:00:24 +0800 Subject: 6bone peer request Message-ID: Hi I have some questions 1. I have a static IPv4 address with a router. before I form a tunnel for an endpoint, Should I give an IPv6 address first. 2. I only an end-user, who can provide me an IPv6 address. ---------- From: David Taylor [SMTP:davidt@xfiles.nildram.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 3:33 AM To: 6bone@ISI.EDU Subject: Re: 6bone peer request On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, David Taylor wrote: > > Anyone who is close (hop wise) to UUNET would be nice, although anywhere in > England would probably be fine, as I'm only on a dialup.. > Oops. I was referring to UUNET UK, whom I've already asked. They won't give me a tunnel because I'm only a dialup (which I can understand). I'm looking for a endpoint somewhere in the UK... I'd prefer to avoid routing all my 6bone traffic transatlantically, if at all possible. However, if I can't find anyone, I suppose it isn't possible :) -- David Taylor davidt@yadt.co.uk From Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca Fri Oct 27 07:20:00 2000 From: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca (Marc Blanchet) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 02:20:00 -0400 Subject: 2001:... nets - formal side In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20001024183132.02ef3fe0@imap2.es.net> References: <20001023225854.Q8578@burza.icm.edu.pl> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20001027021919.01f02f08@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> At/À 18:34 2000-10-24 -0700, Bob Fink you wrote/vous écriviez: >Rafal, > >At 10:58 PM 10/23/2000 +0200, Rafal Maszkowski wrote: >>Is there any mailing list for 2001:... nets administrators? After getting new >>2001.../35 from RIPE we should write regulations concerning assingnment >>of the >>subnets. I hope some admins could share their regulations with us. I can >>host a >>list for discussing such topics if there is a need. > >No there is isn't. At this time all three registries (ARIN, RIPE-NCC, >APNIC) keep the data in slightly different ways. It would take three >different scripts to parse and create a mail list of sub-TLA holders. very good idea. >Anyone out there willing to try? consider it done. will be announced soon. Marc. >I think it would be a good idea to try to keep the production IPv6 sub-TLA >holders together in a mailing list. > > >Bob Marc Blanchet Viagénie inc. tel: 418-656-9254 http://www.viagenie.qc.ca ---------------------------------------------------------- Normos (http://www.normos.org): Internet standards portal: IETF RFC, drafts, IANA, W3C, ATMForum, ISO, ... all in one place. From kristoff.bonne@skypro.be Fri Oct 27 09:03:48 2000 From: kristoff.bonne@skypro.be (Kristoff Bonne) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:03:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: internal routing-protocols for IPv6 Message-ID: Greetings, Just a general question; for the moment, static routing works just fine, but what would be the best INTERNAL routing-protocol for a IPv6-network? (Looking into the possibility to have cisco-router or unix-boxes acting as routers). - RIP-for-IPv6 (is this 'RIPv6' ???)? Is it just as limited at RIP on IPv4? - OSPF. OK, I've seen RFCs on this, but are there already implementations off this? - EIGRP? Does EIGRP exist for IPv6? As this is 'cisco-stuff', not supported on unix-boxes, I guess. - ISIS? We used to do both OSI CLNS and IPv4 routing in this; so ... could IPv6 be added? Are there implementations of this? - internal BGP? Supported by the unix-routers? Cheerio! Kr. Bonne. -- KB905-RIPE (HOME) belgacom internet backbone (c=be,a=rtt,p=belgacomgroup,s=Bonne,g=Kristoff) International Connectivity kristoff@belbone.net fax: +32 2 2435122 From KEITHT@hthk.com Fri Oct 27 09:16:47 2000 From: KEITHT@hthk.com (Keith Tang (HTHK - Engineer II, NW3G)) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 16:16:47 +0800 Subject: Add tunneling request Message-ID: I'm looking for a good tunnelpoint. Anyone help? My location is Hong Kong Keith Tang From davidg@uk.uu.net Fri Oct 27 12:02:20 2000 From: davidg@uk.uu.net (David Gethings) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:02:20 +0100 (BST) Subject: internal routing-protocols for IPv6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Kristoff Bonne wrote: > Greetings, > > > Just a general question; for the moment, static routing works just > fine, but what would be the best INTERNAL routing-protocol for a > IPv6-network? > (Looking into the possibility to have cisco-router or unix-boxes acting as > routers). > > - RIP-for-IPv6 (is this 'RIPv6' ???)? > Is it just as limited at RIP on IPv4? > > - OSPF. > OK, I've seen RFCs on this, but are there already implementations off > this? > > - EIGRP? > Does EIGRP exist for IPv6? As this is 'cisco-stuff', not supported on > unix-boxes, I guess. > > - ISIS? > We used to do both OSI CLNS and IPv4 routing in this; so ... could IPv6 be > added? Are there implementations of this? > > - internal BGP? > Supported by the unix-routers? > > > > Cheerio! Kr. Bonne. Hi Kristoff, Cisco have a statement of direction regarding IPv6. You can find it, and other useful things, at http://www.cisco.com/ipv6/ This should answer all you Cisco related questions. Regards -- David Gethings UUNET, a Worldcom Company, Network Activation Engineer Internet House, 332 Science Park, Email: davidg@uk.uu.net Cambridge, CB4 0BZ, United Kingdom. Phone: +44 (0)1223 581515 http://www.uk.uu.net/ From bmanning@ISI.EDU Fri Oct 27 15:49:42 2000 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 07:49:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 2001:... nets - formal side In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001027021919.01f02f08@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> from "Marc Blanchet" at Oct 27, 2000 02:20:00 AM Message-ID: <200010271449.HAA15711@zed.isi.edu> % >No there is isn't. At this time all three registries (ARIN, RIPE-NCC, % >APNIC) keep the data in slightly different ways. It would take three % >different scripts to parse and create a mail list of sub-TLA holders. % % very good idea. Well yes and no. % >Anyone out there willing to try? % % consider it done. will be announced soon. What about the registrations under those sub-TLAs? If you are going to give this a go, you might look at the IETFs old RIDE wg material. -- --bill From richdr@microsoft.com Fri Oct 27 15:56:17 2000 From: richdr@microsoft.com (Richard Draves) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 07:56:17 -0700 Subject: 6bone peer request Message-ID: <7695E2F6903F7A41961F8CF888D87EA8011AB4AA@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> > I have some questions > 1. I have a static IPv4 address with a router. before I > form a tunnel > for an endpoint, Should I give an IPv6 address first. > 2. I only an end-user, who can provide me an IPv6 address. You could use 6to4. From fink@es.net Sat Oct 28 00:55:36 2000 From: fink@es.net (Bob Fink) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 16:55:36 -0700 Subject: 6bone pTLA 3FFE:80E0::/28 assigned to NEXTRA Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.0.20001027164511.03f9da60@imap2.es.net> The 2-week pTLA review period for NEXTRA/SVSBB has passed with no negative comments, so I have assigned them pTLA 3FFE:80E0::/28. It will be a short while until they setup their inet6num object and ipv6-site object for NEXTRA as they have been operating as SVSBB. Please help them as appropriate for peering and reverse DNS entry. Thanks, Bob From fink@es.net Sat Oct 28 01:26:45 2000 From: fink@es.net (Bob Fink) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:26:45 -0700 Subject: ZAMA 6bone pTLA request Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.0.20001027172008.03fa13e8@imap2.es.net> ZAMA networks has requested a 6bone pTLA. Please send comments to me or the list by 17 November (I am out of town the previous week so wouldn't process it before then anyway). Thanks, Bob >From: "Kerry Hu" >To: >Subject: application for pTLA >Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:13:12 +1000 > >Hi Bob, >Here is the application for a pTLA of Zama Networks. Please review! >Thanks, > >Kerry. > > >7. Guidelines for 6Bone pTLA sites > > The following rules apply to qualify for a 6Bone pTLA allocation. It > should be recognized that holders of 6Bone pTLA allocations are > expected to provide production quality backbone network services for > the 6Bone. > > 1. The pTLA Applicant must have a minimum of three (3) months > qualifying experience as a 6Bone end-site or pNLA transit. During > the entire qualifying period the Applicant must be operationally > providing the following: > >A: Zama have joined 6bone since Aug 5th, 2000 > > a. Fully maintained, up to date, 6Bone Registry entries for their > ipv6-site inet6num, mntner, and person objects, including each > tunnel that the Applicant has. > >A: records are fully maintained and updated. >ipv6-site: ZAMA >origin: AS9940 >descr: Zama Networks > Seattle >prefix: 3FFE:C00:801B::/48 >tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 ipv6.zama.net -> ipv6-router.cisco.com CISCO >BGP4+ >contact: KH2-6BONE >notify: ipv6@zama6.net >changed: khu@zama.net 20000805 >source: 6BONE > > > b. Fully maintained, and reliable, BGP4+ peering and connectivity > between the Applicant's boundary router and the appropriate > connection point into the 6Bone. This router must be IPv6 > pingable. This criteria is judged by members of the 6Bone > Operations Group at the time of the Applicant's pTLA request. > >A: Zama is connected to 6bone via Cisco running BGP4+. > > c. Fully maintained DNS forward (AAAA) and reverse (ip6.int) > entries for the Applicant's router(s) and at least one host > system. > >A: We have two name servers running Bind 9 with full forward and reverse >records. > Name servers are: corvette.zama6.net and catera.zama6.net > > d. A fully maintained, and reliable, IPv6-accessible system > providing, at a mimimum, one or more web pages, describing the > Applicant's IPv6 services. This server must be IPv6 pingable. > >A: www.zama6.net is the web server and can be accessed by both v4 and v6. > > 2. The pTLA Applicant MUST have the ability and intent to provide > "production-quality" 6Bone backbone service. Applicants must > provide a statement and information in support of this claim. > This MUST include the following: > >A: Zama is committed to build an IPv6 backbone network with statement >mentioned in www.zama.net web pages. > > a. A support staff of two persons minimum, three preferable, with > person attributes registered for each in the ipv6-site object > for the pTLA applicant. > >A: Kerry Hu: kh2-6bone, Brian Skeen: BS2-6BONE, Grant Furness: GF2-6BONE >Brad Mcnamara: BWM1-6BONE > > b. A common mailbox for support contact purposes that all support > staff have acess to, pointed to with a notify attribute in the > ipv6-site object for the pTLA Applicant. > >A: an email box ipv6@zama6.net up and running. > > 3. The pTLA Applicant MUST have a potential "user community" that > would be served by its becoming a pTLA, e.g., the Applicant is a > major provider of Internet service in a region, country, or focus > of interest. Applicant must provide a statement and information in > support this claim. > >A: www.zama.net pages state that we are committed to provide IPv6 backbone >services. > > 4. The pTLA Applicant MUST commit to abide by the current 6Bone > operational rules and policies as they exist at time of its > application, and agree to abide by future 6Bone backbone > operational rules and policies as they evolve by consensus of the > 6Bone backbone and user community. > >A: we agree the rules and policies. > > When an Applicant seeks to receive a pTLA allocation, it will apply > to the 6Bone Operations Group (see section 8 below) by providing to > the Group information in support of its claims that it meets the > criteria above. From poptix@POPTIX.NET Sat Oct 28 01:52:45 2000 From: poptix@POPTIX.NET (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 19:52:45 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Wireless ISP, Mobility (Peer request) Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Howdy, I manage the network for a large ISP in Minnesota who is in the wireless internet business (2.4 and 5.2/8 ghz), we're interested in the mobility features of ipv6 and I'd like to peer with someone 'nearby', I've already sent out a few peering requests, but they have gone unanswered, thus my reason for spamming the list. I've currently got a few spare Cisco routers ready to go, and have been doing my own testing with freenet6. I would appreciate anyone who allowed me to peer with them. FYI, I tried the two nearest points I could find, es.net and merit.edu Matthew S. Hallacy XtraTyme Technologies Systems/Network Administrator -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org Filter: gpg4pine 4.0 (http://azzie.robotics.net) iD8DBQE5+iNhyECZjIgidSERAqDZAJ96UH/ysyx9jkwces7gXDZ5h9kF2wCdFa4O og8a2tsiViSCJZKRlGx5ANU= =HL6k -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From bromisc@tqsolutions.demon.co.uk Sat Oct 28 08:16:59 2000 From: bromisc@tqsolutions.demon.co.uk (brougham Baker) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 08:16:59 +0100 Subject: freenet6.net gone? Message-ID: <090401c040af$11624040$0a00a8c0@wintermute> First post for me here, Guys, I'm on a dial-up only. The only way I've found to get on the 6bone so far is/was by freenet6. Are they offering this service anymore? Are there any alternatives? -- Bro "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws." -- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged" From barry@linuxnl.za.net Sat Oct 28 11:56:24 2000 From: barry@linuxnl.za.net (Barry Rutten) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 12:56:24 +0200 Subject: freenet6.net gone? Message-ID: <39FAB0D8.819E14EB@linuxnl.za.net> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------7F607D31B934E1DF1F9DED7D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------7F607D31B934E1DF1F9DED7D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Message-ID: <39FAB096.7FBB8B05@linuxnl.za.net> Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 12:55:18 +0200 From: Barry Rutten Organization: HELLWare Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.17 i686) X-Accept-Language: nl, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: brougham Baker Subject: Re: freenet6.net gone? References: <090401c040af$11624040$0a00a8c0@wintermute> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit brougham Baker wrote: > First post for me here, > > Guys, > > I'm on a dial-up only. The only way I've found to get on the 6bone so far > is/was by freenet6. > > Are they offering this service anymore? > Are there any alternatives? > > -- > Bro > "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government > has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't > enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a > crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws." > -- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged" I too am looking for alternatives, 1 or 2 days ago freenet was down aswell but yesterday they where back so i guess they are just having some routing problems or something --------------7F607D31B934E1DF1F9DED7D-- From Florent.Parent@viagenie.qc.ca Sat Oct 28 15:27:36 2000 From: Florent.Parent@viagenie.qc.ca (Florent Parent) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 10:27:36 -0400 Subject: freenet6.net gone? In-Reply-To: <39FAB0D8.819E14EB@linuxnl.za.net> Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.2.20001028102109.029c9cf8@localhost> Our Internet connectivity is now back up (Saturday, 10:00 EST). There was some major work on our optical fiber link in the past twelve hours. It is not easy to warn the Freenet6 users of such outages. Sorry for the inconvenience. Florent. At 12:56 2000-10-28 +0200, Barry Rutten wrote: >brougham Baker wrote: > > > First post for me here, > > > > Guys, > > > > I'm on a dial-up only. The only way I've found to get on the 6bone so far > > is/was by freenet6. > > > > Are they offering this service anymore? > > Are there any alternatives? > > > > -- > > Bro > > "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government > > has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't > > enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a > > crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws." > > -- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged" > >I too am looking for alternatives, 1 or 2 days ago freenet was down aswell >but yesterday they where back so i guess they are just having some routing >problems or something From Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr Sat Oct 28 16:18:29 2000 From: Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr (Francis Dupont) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 17:18:29 +0200 Subject: internal routing-protocols for IPv6 In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:03:48 +0200. Message-ID: <200010281518.RAA29113@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> In your previous mail you wrote: Just a general question; for the moment, static routing works just fine, but what would be the best INTERNAL routing-protocol for a IPv6-network? (Looking into the possibility to have cisco-router or unix-boxes acting as routers). - RIP-for-IPv6 (is this 'RIPv6' ???)? Is it just as limited at RIP on IPv4? => RIPng is RIPv2 with IPv6 support. Cheap but very limited... - OSPF. OK, I've seen RFCs on this, but are there already implementations off this? => at least one easy to find (Zebra). - EIGRP? Does EIGRP exist for IPv6? As this is 'cisco-stuff', not supported on unix-boxes, I guess. => it is a patented protocol too. And as far as I know there is no support for IPv6 even it should be easy to add. - ISIS? We used to do both OSI CLNS and IPv4 routing in this; so ... could IPv6 be added? Are there implementations of this? => there are some plans about IPv6 support in the new IS-IS but not yet available. - internal BGP? => *not* an IGP! Supported by the unix-routers? => yes, BGP4+ for IPv6 is supported by many softwares (nearly as much supported as RIPng). Regards Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr From kristoff.bonne@skypro.be Sat Oct 28 17:44:50 2000 From: kristoff.bonne@skypro.be (Kristoff Bonne) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 18:44:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: internal routing-protocols for IPv6 In-Reply-To: <200010281518.RAA29113@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> Message-ID: Salutation/greetings, (also to everybody else who replied too) >> Just a general question; for the moment, static routing works just >> fine, but what would be the best INTERNAL routing-protocol for a >> IPv6-network? >> (Looking into the possibility to have cisco-router or unix-boxes acting >> as routers). > - RIP-for-IPv6 (is this 'RIPv6' ???)? > Is it just as limited at RIP on IPv4? > => RIPng is RIPv2 with IPv6 support. Cheap but very limited... True, but I guess this is a first step. At least, it's better than static routing. ;-) At this time, I only have a single box (a cisco-router) acting as 'gateway' to the 6bone; but I like to add redundancy to this; so I do need to get rid of static routes. > - OSPF. > OK, I've seen RFCs on this, but are there already implementations off > this? > => at least one easy to find (Zebra). As my 'central point' is a cisco-router, I would need it BOTH in cisco and on the unix-boxes. (I could use RIP to go to a unix-box and then use zebra to continue in OSPF; but let's not make things more difficult then necessairy. ;-) > - EIGRP? > Does EIGRP exist for IPv6? As this is 'cisco-stuff', not supported on > unix-boxes, I guess. > => it is a patented protocol too. And as far as I know there is no support > for IPv6 even it should be easy to add. OK. Bad idea. Next! > - ISIS? > We used to do both OSI CLNS and IPv4 routing in this; so ... could IPv6 be > added? Are there implementations of this? > => there are some plans about IPv6 support in the new IS-IS but not yet > available. If I remember correctly from the time I used this), one of the great things about ISIS, is that you can use a single routing-protocol to carry both OSI and IPv4 routing. So, it would be great to use a single routing-protocol to carry both IPv4 and IPv6 routing. Anycase, are there any implementations of ISIS on unix-boxes. (without the v6-extensions, that is!) > - internal BGP? > => *not* an IGP! Technically speaking not, but you could use it as a IGP (just assign a private AS-number to your 'customers'). Again the same remark: This would have the advantage to use a single routing-protocol for both v4 and v6 routing. > Supported by the unix-routers? > => yes, BGP4+ for IPv6 is supported by many softwares (nearly as much > supported as RIPng). Great! Cheerio! Kr. Bonne. -- KB905-RIPE (HOME) belgacom internet backbone (c=be,a=rtt,p=belgacomgroup,s=Bonne,g=Kristoff) International Connectivity kristoff@belbone.net fax: +32 2 2435122 From Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr Sat Oct 28 18:08:43 2000 From: Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr (Francis Dupont) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:08:43 +0200 Subject: internal routing-protocols for IPv6 In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 28 Oct 2000 18:44:50 +0200. Message-ID: <200010281708.TAA30058@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> In your previous mail you wrote: > => RIPng is RIPv2 with IPv6 support. Cheap but very limited... True, but I guess this is a first step. At least, it's better than static routing. ;-) => it is why RIPng is heavily used as an IGP today (for instance I use it here). As far as you know the limits it is a good choice. > => there are some plans about IPv6 support in the new IS-IS but not yet > available. If I remember correctly from the time I used this), one of the great things about ISIS, is that you can use a single routing-protocol to carry both OSI and IPv4 routing. => this is the Ships-In-the-Night argument. So, it would be great to use a single routing-protocol to carry both IPv4 and IPv6 routing. => perhaps, it really depends of the topology. Anycase, are there any implementations of ISIS on unix-boxes. (without the v6-extensions, that is!) => gated has/had one. The real problem is you need a CLNS support on your Unix box (ie. a real old 4.4 BSD). > - internal BGP? > => *not* an IGP! Technically speaking not, but you could use it as a IGP (just assign a private AS-number to your 'customers'). => iBGP is a weak part of BGP, for instance the full mesh constraint is a real pain (and confederation/reflectors nighmares). Again the same remark: This would have the advantage to use a single routing-protocol for both v4 and v6 routing. => I believe no implementation really does both on the same TCP connection even this is possible (and capabilities give a way to negociate this, this was a target of my co-author of RFC 2545, Pedro Roque). Thanks Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr From Ben Lovett Sat Oct 28 21:55:01 2000 From: Ben Lovett (Ben Lovett) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 13:55:01 -0700 Subject: Problems getting FreeNet6's tunnel working Message-ID: <20001028135501.A5658@bsdguru.com> Hello, I run FreeBSD 4.1.1-STABLE on a laptop. My PPP connection consists of a static IP, and when at school, I have a static IP. Here's the problem, after running the perl script provided by Freenet6, I am still unable to connect to the 6bone. I do have the gif interfaces, so that is not the problem. But, here is what i get when trying to ping any ipv6 host: PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::2c7 --> 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::2c6 ping6: sendmsg: No route to host ping6: wrote 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::2c6 16 chars, ret=-1 ping6: sendmsg: No route to host ping6: wrote 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::2c6 16 chars, ret=-1 The perl script provided *SHOULD* set my routes properly, but, it seems that it isn't. Is there anyone available who can help me remedy this problem? Thanks, Ben Lovett From Ben Lovett Sat Oct 28 23:58:30 2000 From: Ben Lovett (Ben Lovett) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 15:58:30 -0700 Subject: Problems getting FreeNet6's tunnel working Message-ID: <20001028155830.A11580@bsdguru.com> Hello, I run FreeBSD 4.1.1-STABLE on a laptop. My PPP connection consists of a static IP, and when at school, I have a static IP. Here's the problem, after running the perl script provided by Freenet6, I am still unable to connect to the 6bone. I do have the gif interfaces, so that is not the problem. But, here is what i get when trying to ping any ipv6 host: PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::2c7 --> 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::2c6 ping6: sendmsg: No route to host ping6: wrote 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::2c6 16 chars, ret=-1 ping6: sendmsg: No route to host ping6: wrote 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::2c6 16 chars, ret=-1 The perl script provided *SHOULD* set my routes properly, but, it seems that it isn't. Is there anyone available who can help me remedy this problem? Thanks, Ben Lovett From jruigrok@via-net-works.nl Sun Oct 29 09:48:22 2000 From: jruigrok@via-net-works.nl (Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 10:48:22 +0100 Subject: Problems getting FreeNet6's tunnel working In-Reply-To: <20001028135501.A5658@bsdguru.com>; from blovett@bsdguru.com on Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 01:55:01PM -0700 References: <20001028135501.A5658@bsdguru.com> Message-ID: <20001029104822.A37055@lucifer.bart.nl> Hi Ben, -On [20001029 00:05], Ben Lovett (blovett@bsdguru.com) wrote: >I run FreeBSD 4.1.1-STABLE on a laptop. My PPP connection consists of a >static IP, and when at school, I have a static IP. > >Here's the problem, after running the perl script provided by Freenet6, >I am still unable to connect to the 6bone. I do have the gif >interfaces, so that is not the problem. But, here is what i get when >trying to ping any ipv6 host: Can you give me ifconfig -a, gifconfig -a and netstat -rn -f inet6 ? I think one problem is that for the gif interface the prefixlength needs to be set to 128 instead of the 127 as was present in the script IIRC. Expect some commits soon to CURRENT and subsequently STABLE so that rc.conf can provide auto link set-up what the script now does. -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven Network- and systemadministrator VIA Net.Works The Netherlands BSD: Technical excellence at its best http://www.via-net-works.nl Cogito, ergo sum... From dante@tvnet.hu Sun Oct 29 13:52:18 2000 From: dante@tvnet.hu (Peter Debreczeni) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 14:52:18 +0100 Subject: internal routing-protocols for IPv6 References: Message-ID: <39FC2B92.1102796C@tvnet.hu> Kristoff Bonne wrote: > > Salutation/greetings, (also to everybody else who replied too) > > >> Just a general question; for the moment, static routing works just > >> fine, but what would be the best INTERNAL routing-protocol for a > >> IPv6-network? > >> (Looking into the possibility to have cisco-router or unix-boxes acting > >> as routers). > > > - RIP-for-IPv6 (is this 'RIPv6' ???)? > > Is it just as limited at RIP on IPv4? > > => RIPng is RIPv2 with IPv6 support. Cheap but very limited... > > True, but I guess this is a first step. > At least, it's better than static routing. ;-) RIP is a funny thing , but not a trully routing protocol ... :) > > At this time, I only have a single box (a cisco-router) acting as > 'gateway' to the 6bone; but I like to add redundancy to this; so I do need > to get rid of static routes. > > > - OSPF. > > OK, I've seen RFCs on this, but are there already implementations off > > this? > > => at least one easy to find (Zebra). > As my 'central point' is a cisco-router, I would need it BOTH in cisco and > on the unix-boxes. > > (I could use RIP to go to a unix-box and then use zebra to continue in > OSPF; but let's not make things more difficult then necessairy. ;-) Why u need to use RIP? OSPF is a good internal use routing protocol, but we used with zebra , and sometimes zebra freezed our ciscos OSPF. I don`t remember what sw version, but if sb would like to know i`ll see it. > > > - EIGRP? > > Does EIGRP exist for IPv6? As this is 'cisco-stuff', not supported on > > unix-boxes, I guess. > > => it is a patented protocol too. And as far as I know there is no support > > for IPv6 even it should be easy to add. > OK. Bad idea. > Next! > > > - ISIS? > > We used to do both OSI CLNS and IPv4 routing in this; so ... could IPv6 be > > added? Are there implementations of this? > > => there are some plans about IPv6 support in the new IS-IS but not yet > > available. > > If I remember correctly from the time I used this), one of the great > things about ISIS, is that you can use a single routing-protocol to carry > both OSI and IPv4 routing. > > So, it would be great to use a single routing-protocol to carry both IPv4 > and IPv6 routing. > > Anycase, are there any implementations of ISIS on unix-boxes. (without the > v6-extensions, that is!) > > > - internal BGP? > > => *not* an IGP! > Technically speaking not, but you could use it as a IGP (just assign a > private AS-number to your 'customers'). > > Again the same remark: > This would have the advantage to use a single routing-protocol for both > v4 and v6 routing. > > > Supported by the unix-routers? > > => yes, BGP4+ for IPv6 is supported by many softwares (nearly as much > > supported as RIPng). > Great! > > Cheerio! Kr. Bonne. > -- > KB905-RIPE (HOME) belgacom internet backbone > (c=be,a=rtt,p=belgacomgroup,s=Bonne,g=Kristoff) International Connectivity > kristoff@belbone.net fax: +32 2 2435122 From Ben Lovett Sun Oct 29 14:15:23 2000 From: Ben Lovett (Ben Lovett) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 06:15:23 -0800 Subject: Problems getting FreeNet6's tunnel working In-Reply-To: <20001028155830.A11580@bsdguru.com>; from blovett@bsdguru.com on Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 03:58:30PM -0700 References: <20001028155830.A11580@bsdguru.com> Message-ID: <20001029061523.A54617@bsdguru.com> Terribly sorry about posting this twice. The first time, i recieved an email saying that the message could not be sent for some reason.. -ben From huntting@glarp.com Sun Oct 29 16:31:43 2000 From: huntting@glarp.com (huntting@glarp.com) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 09:31:43 -0700 Subject: pim6sm Message-ID: <200010291631.JAA07628@hunkular.glarp.com> Is there anyone out there doing multicast over ipv6 that would be willing to set up a tunnel? My IPv6 gateway (a FreeBSD box running zebra) is at 199.117.25.252, and currently does BGP with tunnels from Qwest and 3Com (using the private AS 65517) with no default route. Unfortunately neither Qwest nor 3Com can do IPv6 multicast at this time. thanx in advance, brad From ksbn@kt.co.kr Mon Oct 30 00:06:01 2000 From: ksbn@kt.co.kr (ksb) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:06:01 +0900 Subject: internal routing-protocols for IPv6 References: <39FC2B92.1102796C@tvnet.hu> Message-ID: <39FCBB69.1ED4BFBB@kt.co.kr> How are you? For IPv6 network designers, they should consider IGP and EGP. RIPv6 has some problems for using tunneling. Using tunneling, 1 hop of RIPv6 can be multiple hops on IPv4 networks. I don't think that IPv6 developers depend on cisco routers. There are many commertial routers for IPv6. (Ex: Hitachi GR2000, Errison Telebit, Juniper(will support) and so on) For large networks, OSPF(link state, Dijkstra algorithm) is better than RIP(distance vecter, Bellman-Ford algorithm). And I'm considering IS-IS. Thank you. Peter Debreczeni wrote: > Kristoff Bonne wrote: > > > > Salutation/greetings, (also to everybody else who replied too) > > > > >> Just a general question; for the moment, static routing works just > > >> fine, but what would be the best INTERNAL routing-protocol for a > > >> IPv6-network? > > >> (Looking into the possibility to have cisco-router or unix-boxes acting > > >> as routers). > > > > > - RIP-for-IPv6 (is this 'RIPv6' ???)? > > > Is it just as limited at RIP on IPv4? > > > => RIPng is RIPv2 with IPv6 support. Cheap but very limited... > > > > True, but I guess this is a first step. > > At least, it's better than static routing. ;-) > > RIP is a funny thing , but not a trully routing protocol ... :) > > > > > At this time, I only have a single box (a cisco-router) acting as > > 'gateway' to the 6bone; but I like to add redundancy to this; so I do need > > to get rid of static routes. > > > > > - OSPF. > > > OK, I've seen RFCs on this, but are there already implementations off > > > this? > > > => at least one easy to find (Zebra). > > As my 'central point' is a cisco-router, I would need it BOTH in cisco and > > on the unix-boxes. > > > > (I could use RIP to go to a unix-box and then use zebra to continue in > > OSPF; but let's not make things more difficult then necessairy. ;-) > > Why u need to use RIP? OSPF is a good internal use routing protocol, but > we used with zebra , and sometimes zebra freezed our ciscos OSPF. > I don`t remember what sw version, but if sb would like to know i`ll see > it. > > > > > > - EIGRP? > > > Does EIGRP exist for IPv6? As this is 'cisco-stuff', not supported on > > > unix-boxes, I guess. > > > => it is a patented protocol too. And as far as I know there is no support > > > for IPv6 even it should be easy to add. > > OK. Bad idea. > > Next! > > > > > - ISIS? > > > We used to do both OSI CLNS and IPv4 routing in this; so ... could IPv6 be > > > added? Are there implementations of this? > > > => there are some plans about IPv6 support in the new IS-IS but not yet > > > available. > > > > If I remember correctly from the time I used this), one of the great > > things about ISIS, is that you can use a single routing-protocol to carry > > both OSI and IPv4 routing. > > > > So, it would be great to use a single routing-protocol to carry both IPv4 > > and IPv6 routing. > > > > Anycase, are there any implementations of ISIS on unix-boxes. (without the > > v6-extensions, that is!) > > > > > - internal BGP? > > > => *not* an IGP! > > Technically speaking not, but you could use it as a IGP (just assign a > > private AS-number to your 'customers'). > > > > Again the same remark: > > This would have the advantage to use a single routing-protocol for both > > v4 and v6 routing. > > > > > Supported by the unix-routers? > > > => yes, BGP4+ for IPv6 is supported by many softwares (nearly as much > > > supported as RIPng). > > Great! > > > > Cheerio! Kr. Bonne. > > -- > > KB905-RIPE (HOME) belgacom internet backbone > > (c=be,a=rtt,p=belgacomgroup,s=Bonne,g=Kristoff) International Connectivity > > kristoff@belbone.net fax: +32 2 2435122 -- Kim, Sahng-Beom / Korea Telecom TEL : +82-42-870-8322 FAX : +82-42-870-8279 E-mail : ksbn@kt.co.kr -- From dottedquad@tetrian.net Mon Oct 30 00:58:03 2000 From: dottedquad@tetrian.net (dottedquad@tetrian.net) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 19:58:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Getting a 6bone address Message-ID: I am interested in joining the 6bone. I am stuck on creating registry entries though. I am a residential user. I don't know the format for a person object. I see the mntner object format, but not one for the person object format. After I get those forms in I need to find a location on the 6bone to attach to right? Any information would be appreciated. -Thanks From yasu@sfc.wide.ad.jp Mon Oct 30 02:12:43 2000 From: yasu@sfc.wide.ad.jp (Yasuhiro Ohara) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:12:43 +0900 Subject: internal routing-protocols for IPv6 In-Reply-To: <39FC2B92.1102796C@tvnet.hu> References: <39FC2B92.1102796C@tvnet.hu> Message-ID: <20001030111243N.yasu@sfc.wide.ad.jp> dante> > > - OSPF. dante> > > OK, I've seen RFCs on this, but are there already implementations off dante> > > this? dante> > > => at least one easy to find (Zebra). dante> > As my 'central point' is a cisco-router, I would need it BOTH in cisco and dante> > on the unix-boxes. dante> > dante> > (I could use RIP to go to a unix-box and then use zebra to continue in dante> > OSPF; but let's not make things more difficult then necessairy. ;-) dante> dante> Why u need to use RIP? OSPF is a good internal use routing protocol, but dante> we used with zebra , and sometimes zebra freezed our ciscos OSPF. dante> I don`t remember what sw version, but if sb would like to know i`ll see dante> it. I've never heard about an implementation of OSPFv3(OSPF for IPv6) in Cisco. Are you talking about IPv4??? If I can test OSPFv3 with Cisco, I really want to. yasu@Zebra OSPFv3 developer From davidg@uk.uu.net Mon Oct 30 09:45:14 2000 From: davidg@uk.uu.net (David Gethings) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:45:14 +0000 (GMT) Subject: internal routing-protocols for IPv6 In-Reply-To: <20001030111243N.yasu@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Message-ID: If anyone is interested in Cisco's IPv6 Statement of Direction (which answers many questions on this thead) then go to http://www.cisco.com/ipv6/ It includes many useful things including the current beta IOS for several hardware models. Regards -- David Gethings UUNET, a Worldcom Company, Network Activation Engineer Internet House, 332 Science Park, Email: davidg@uk.uu.net Cambridge, CB4 0BZ, United Kingdom. Phone: +44 (0)1223 581515 http://www.uk.uu.net/ From dante@tvnet.hu Mon Oct 30 13:12:04 2000 From: dante@tvnet.hu (Peter Debreczeni) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:12:04 +0100 Subject: internal routing-protocols for IPv6 References: Message-ID: <39FD73A4.BFA5B225@tvnet.hu> Yasuhiro, here is an answer :) thx David. David Gethings wrote: > > If anyone is interested in Cisco's IPv6 Statement of Direction (which > answers many questions on this thead) then go to > http://www.cisco.com/ipv6/ > > It includes many useful things including the current beta IOS for several > hardware models. > > Regards > > -- > David Gethings UUNET, a Worldcom Company, > Network Activation Engineer Internet House, 332 Science Park, > Email: davidg@uk.uu.net Cambridge, CB4 0BZ, United Kingdom. > Phone: +44 (0)1223 581515 http://www.uk.uu.net/ From dante@tvnet.hu Mon Oct 30 13:16:41 2000 From: dante@tvnet.hu (Peter Debreczeni) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:16:41 +0100 Subject: internal routing-protocols for IPv6 References: <39FC2B92.1102796C@tvnet.hu> <39FCBB69.1ED4BFBB@kt.co.kr> Message-ID: <39FD74B9.F0643270@tvnet.hu> ksb wrote: > > How are you? fine thx, and u? why? > > For IPv6 network designers, they should consider IGP and EGP. > RIPv6 has some problems for using tunneling. > Using tunneling, 1 hop of RIPv6 can be multiple hops on IPv4 networks. > > I don't think that IPv6 developers depend on cisco routers. > There are many commertial routers for IPv6. > (Ex: Hitachi GR2000, Errison Telebit, Juniper(will support) and so on) > > For large networks, OSPF(link state, Dijkstra algorithm) is better than > RIP(distance vecter, Bellman-Ford algorithm). > And I'm considering IS-IS. > > Thank you. i still told this > > Peter Debreczeni wrote: > > > Kristoff Bonne wrote: > > > > > > Salutation/greetings, (also to everybody else who replied too) > > > > > > >> Just a general question; for the moment, static routing works just > > > >> fine, but what would be the best INTERNAL routing-protocol for a > > > >> IPv6-network? > > > >> (Looking into the possibility to have cisco-router or unix-boxes acting > > > >> as routers). > > > > > > > - RIP-for-IPv6 (is this 'RIPv6' ???)? > > > > Is it just as limited at RIP on IPv4? > > > > => RIPng is RIPv2 with IPv6 support. Cheap but very limited... > > > > > > True, but I guess this is a first step. > > > At least, it's better than static routing. ;-) > > > > RIP is a funny thing , but not a trully routing protocol ... :) > > > > > > > > At this time, I only have a single box (a cisco-router) acting as > > > 'gateway' to the 6bone; but I like to add redundancy to this; so I do need > > > to get rid of static routes. > > > > > > > - OSPF. > > > > OK, I've seen RFCs on this, but are there already implementations off > > > > this? > > > > => at least one easy to find (Zebra). > > > As my 'central point' is a cisco-router, I would need it BOTH in cisco and > > > on the unix-boxes. > > > > > > (I could use RIP to go to a unix-box and then use zebra to continue in > > > OSPF; but let's not make things more difficult then necessairy. ;-) > > > > Why u need to use RIP? OSPF is a good internal use routing protocol, but > > we used with zebra , and sometimes zebra freezed our ciscos OSPF. > > I don`t remember what sw version, but if sb would like to know i`ll see > > it. > > > > > > > > > - EIGRP? > > > > Does EIGRP exist for IPv6? As this is 'cisco-stuff', not supported on > > > > unix-boxes, I guess. > > > > => it is a patented protocol too. And as far as I know there is no support > > > > for IPv6 even it should be easy to add. > > > OK. Bad idea. > > > Next! > > > > > > > - ISIS? > > > > We used to do both OSI CLNS and IPv4 routing in this; so ... could IPv6 be > > > > added? Are there implementations of this? > > > > => there are some plans about IPv6 support in the new IS-IS but not yet > > > > available. > > > > > > If I remember correctly from the time I used this), one of the great > > > things about ISIS, is that you can use a single routing-protocol to carry > > > both OSI and IPv4 routing. > > > > > > So, it would be great to use a single routing-protocol to carry both IPv4 > > > and IPv6 routing. > > > > > > Anycase, are there any implementations of ISIS on unix-boxes. (without the > > > v6-extensions, that is!) > > > > > > > - internal BGP? > > > > => *not* an IGP! > > > Technically speaking not, but you could use it as a IGP (just assign a > > > private AS-number to your 'customers'). > > > > > > Again the same remark: > > > This would have the advantage to use a single routing-protocol for both > > > v4 and v6 routing. > > > > > > > Supported by the unix-routers? > > > > => yes, BGP4+ for IPv6 is supported by many softwares (nearly as much > > > > supported as RIPng). > > > Great! > > > > > > Cheerio! Kr. Bonne. > > > -- > > > KB905-RIPE (HOME) belgacom internet backbone > > > (c=be,a=rtt,p=belgacomgroup,s=Bonne,g=Kristoff) International Connectivity > > > kristoff@belbone.net fax: +32 2 2435122 > > -- > Kim, Sahng-Beom / Korea Telecom > TEL : +82-42-870-8322 > FAX : +82-42-870-8279 > E-mail : ksbn@kt.co.kr > -- From fink@es.net Mon Oct 30 17:41:12 2000 From: fink@es.net (Bob Fink) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:41:12 -0800 Subject: EURONET-BE 6bone pTLA request - closes 17 Nov Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.0.20001030093926.00a6e0a8@imap2.es.net> EURONET-BE has requested a pTLA. The closing date for the comment period will be 17 November due to my travel schedule. PLease send comments to me or the list. Thanks, Bob === >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:30:25 +0100 (MET) >From: Francois Baligant >X-Sender: >To: >Subject: pTLA request for EURONET-BE > > > Hi, here is Francois Baligant from Wanadoo/Euronet Belgium. > > We would like to request a test pTLA on the 6bone. > > Here is how we comply to draft-ietf-ngtrans-harden-04 > > > 1. The pTLA Applicant must have a minimum of three (3) months > > qualifying experience as a 6Bone end-site or pNLA transit. > > During the entire qualifying period the Applicant must be > > operationally providing the following: > > We have sub-TLA 3ffe:2501:200::/48 since July 1999 from > NLNET and 3FFE:80C0:221::/48 from Stealth USA. > > > a. Fully maintained, up to date, 6Bone Registry entries for their > > ipv6-site inet6num, mntner, and person objects, including each > > tunnel that the Applicant has. > > see EURONET-BE object > > > b. Fully maintained, and reliable, BGP4+ peering and connectivity > > between the Applicant's boundary router and the appropriate > > connection point into the 6Bone. This router must be IPv6 > > pingable. This criteria is judged by members of the 6Bone > > Operations Group at the time of the Applicant's pTLA request. > > Our router (cisco 4500 running IPv6 IOS) is m6.ipv6.euronet.be. > (3ffe:2501:200:1fff::1) > >tunnel: NLNET STATIC >tunnel: BELNET-BE BGP4+ >tunnel: STEALTH BGP4+ >tunnel: AMS-IX-INTOUCH BGP4+ >tunnel: DE-TRMD-20000317 BGP4+ >tunnel: TVD BGP4+ > > We requested several times from NLNET to start using BGP on our > tunnel to BGP4 without success. It looks they are too busy > renumbering for some time now. However our tunnel to > Stealth for 3FFE:80C0:221::/48 use BGP4+ > > > c. Fully maintained DNS forward (AAAA) and reverse (ip6.int) > > entries for the Applicant's router(s) and at least one host > > system. > > We have 2 IPv6 zone (ipv6.euronet.be and ipv6.wanadoo.be) > will A/AAAA records for all our IPv6 capable devices. > >m6.ipv6.euronet.be canonical name = gate.ipv6.euronet.be >gate.ipv6.euronet.be IPv6 address = 3ffe:2501:200:1fff::1 > >www.ipv6.euronet.be IPv6 address = 3ffe:2501:200:2::2 >ircnet.wanadoo.be IPv6 address = 3ffe:2501:200:1fff::16 > > > d. A fully maintained, and reliable, IPv6-accessible system > > providing, at a mimimum, one or more web pages, describing the > > Applicant's IPv6 services. This server must be IPv6 pingable. > > Since August 1999, we run the popular and well-linked > around the world http://www.ipv6.euronet.be (IPv4+IPv6 > accessible) with configuration information, some MRTG, > complete ping/traceroute/BGP4+ looking-glass, IRC6 > information. > > And since September 2000 we also runs ircnet.wanadoo.be > an IPv4 and IPv6 capable IRC server linked to IRCnet > accepting clients from the 6bone. > > Also, email @ipv6.euronet.be are handled by an IPv6 capable > sendmail. ftp.ipv6.euronet.be is available too. > > > 2. The pTLA Applicant MUST have the ability and intent to provide > > "production-quality" 6Bone backbone service. Applicants must > > provide a statement and information in support of this claim. > > This MUST include the following: > > > a. A support staff of two persons minimum, three preferable, with > > person attributes registered for each in the ipv6-site object > > for the pTLA applicant. > > Francois Baligant (FB1-6BONE) > Xavier Mertens (XM1-6BONE) > > > b. A common mailbox for support contact purposes that all support > > staff have acess to, pointed to with a notify attribute in the > > ipv6-site object for the pTLA Applicant. > >remarks: For tunnel/peering requests, contact > >notify: 6bone-notify@euronet.be > > > 3. The pTLA Applicant MUST have a potential "user community" that > > would be served by its becoming a pTLA, e.g., the Applicant is a > > major provider of Internet service in a region, country, or > > focus of interest. Applicant must provide a statement and > > information in support this claim. > >EuroNet Internet (100% part of the France Telecom Group) is a major ISP on >the Belgian market. We provide Internet services to customers (private, >soho and business) through a whole services offer (dialup, leased line, >cable, ADSL, housing, hosting, consultancy). We develop the Wanadoo >product line on the Belgian market via connectivity services and a portal >(www.wanadoo.be). > >It is our intent to help our customers (from any kind) migrate to >IPv6 using: > > - dedicated IPv6 NAS for PPP6 (dialup, already up & running) > - tunnel from our IPv6 core router to customers sites > (several already established) > - Tunnel Broker for dynamic IP customers > (almost done, waiting for pTLA to put in production) > > > 4. The pTLA Applicant MUST commit to abide by the current 6Bone > > operational rules and policies as they exist at time of its > > application, and agree to abide by future 6Bone backbone > > operational rules and policies as they evolve by consensus of the > > 6Bone backbone and user community. > > We commit to abide to the current and futre 6Bone operational > rules and policies. > > Feel free to contact me if you feel something is missing. > > regards, > Francois > >Francois Baligant * * Wanadoo Belgium NV/SA >Network Operation Center * * a subsidiary of France Telecom > * Lozenberg 22 - B-1932 Zaventem >FB1-6BONE * tel: +32 2 717 17 17 >francois@be.wanadoo.com fax: +32 2 717 17 77 From kristoff.bonne@skypro.be Mon Oct 30 12:12:23 2000 From: kristoff.bonne@skypro.be (Kristoff Bonne) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:12:23 +0100 (CET) Subject: internal routing-protocols for IPv6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Greetings, On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, David Gethings wrote: >> Just a general question; for the moment, static routing works just >> fine, but what would be the best INTERNAL routing-protocol for a >> IPv6-network? >> (Looking into the possibility to have cisco-router or unix-boxes acting as >> routers). (...) > Cisco have a statement of direction regarding IPv6. You can find it, and > other useful things, at http://www.cisco.com/ipv6/ > This should answer all you Cisco related questions. Thanks, Well, I printed this document when I started to take a look at IPv6; but I guess it got lost in-between the two-hunderd-and-odd pages of RFCs. ;-) Cheerio! Kr. Bonne. -- KB905-RIPE (HOME) belgacom internet backbone (c=be,a=rtt,p=belgacomgroup,s=Bonne,g=Kristoff) International Connectivity kristoff@belbone.net fax: +32 2 2435122 From kristoff.bonne@skypro.be Mon Oct 30 14:45:28 2000 From: kristoff.bonne@skypro.be (Kristoff Bonne) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 15:45:28 +0100 (CET) Subject: pim6sm In-Reply-To: <200010291631.JAA07628@hunkular.glarp.com> Message-ID: Greetings, On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 huntting@glarp.com wrote: > Is there anyone out there doing multicast over ipv6 that would be > willing to set up a tunnel? > My IPv6 gateway (a FreeBSD box running zebra) is at 199.117.25.252, > and currently does BGP with tunnels from Qwest and 3Com (using the > private AS 65517) with no default route. Unfortunately neither > Qwest nor 3Com can do IPv6 multicast at this time. ??? Isn't IP-multicasting a default feature of IPv6? Do you need to configure something special to enable IP-multicasting for IPv6? Cheerio! Kr. Bonne. -- KB905-RIPE (HOME) belgacom internet backbone (c=be,a=rtt,p=belgacomgroup,s=Bonne,g=Kristoff) International Connectivity kristoff@belbone.net fax: +32 2 2435122 From kristoff.bonne@skypro.be Mon Oct 30 14:45:33 2000 From: kristoff.bonne@skypro.be (Kristoff Bonne) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 15:45:33 +0100 (CET) Subject: internal routing-protocols for IPv6 In-Reply-To: <39FCBB69.1ED4BFBB@kt.co.kr> Message-ID: Greetings, On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, ksb wrote: > For IPv6 network designers, they should consider IGP and EGP. True, hence my question. ;-) > I don't think that IPv6 developers depend on cisco routers. > There are many commertial routers for IPv6. > (Ex: Hitachi GR2000, Errison Telebit, Juniper(will support) and so on) Sometimes, I don't get to choose. We have half a rack of old 'excess' cisco-routers just laying around; you can use without having to fill in 20 papers to 'justify' the cost to the management. ;-) > For large networks, OSPF(link state, Dijkstra algorithm) is better than > RIP(distance vecter, Bellman-Ford algorithm). True, but -as OSPF is not yet supported for v6 on cisco-, there only is RIP is an option (for the time being). > And I'm considering IS-IS. If implementations would exist (for cisco and unix); so would I. ;-) Cheerio! Kr. Bonne. -- KB905-RIPE (HOME) belgacom internet backbone (c=be,a=rtt,p=belgacomgroup,s=Bonne,g=Kristoff) International Connectivity kristoff@belbone.net fax: +32 2 2435122 From kristoff.bonne@skypro.be Mon Oct 30 14:16:06 2000 From: kristoff.bonne@skypro.be (Kristoff Bonne) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 15:16:06 +0100 (CET) Subject: internal routing-protocols for IPv6 In-Reply-To: <200010281708.TAA30058@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> Message-ID: Greetings, >> => RIPng is RIPv2 with IPv6 support. Cheap but very limited... > True, but I guess this is a first step. > At least, it's better than static routing. ;-) >> => it is why RIPng is heavily used as an IGP today (for instance I use >> it here). As far as you know the limits it is a good choice. (...) >> => iBGP is a weak part of BGP, for instance the full mesh constraint is >> a real pain (and confederation/reflectors nighmares). To start, I was thinking of the following topology: - two 'backbone-node' where we pull in the tunnels from the 6bone. (two nodes, for redundancy) - From those 'backbone-nodes', tunnels towards the 'internal' networks. I would like to use both cisco-routers and unix-routers for this. So, I guess I have two options: RIPng and BGP. (I'll try both to see what turns out to be best). >> If I remember correctly from the time I used this), one of the great >> things about ISIS, is that you can use a single routing-protocol to >> carry both OSI and IPv4 routing. > => this is the Ships-In-the-Night argument. Euh ... what is a 'Ships-In-the-Night argument' ??? (what does this mean?) >>>> - internal BGP? >>> => *not* an IGP! >> Technically speaking not, but you could use it as a IGP (just assign a >> private AS-number to your 'customers'). > => iBGP is a weak part of BGP, for instance the full mesh constraint is > a real pain (and confederation/reflectors nighmares). Well, I would use my backbone-AS on the 'backbone-nodes', but private ASnumber on the 'internal networks'. In that case, there is no need for a full-BGP-mesh. Cheerio! Kr. Bonne. -- KB905-RIPE (HOME) belgacom internet backbone (c=be,a=rtt,p=belgacomgroup,s=Bonne,g=Kristoff) International Connectivity kristoff@belbone.net fax: +32 2 2435122 From yasu@sfc.wide.ad.jp Mon Oct 30 20:25:53 2000 From: yasu@sfc.wide.ad.jp (Yasuhiro Ohara) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 05:25:53 +0900 Subject: internal routing-protocols for IPv6 In-Reply-To: <39FD73A4.BFA5B225@tvnet.hu> References: <39FD73A4.BFA5B225@tvnet.hu> Message-ID: <20001031052553Y.yasu@sfc.wide.ad.jp> dante> Yasuhiro, here is an answer :) dante> thx David. dante> dante> dante> David Gethings wrote: dante> > dante> > If anyone is interested in Cisco's IPv6 Statement of Direction (which dante> > answers many questions on this thead) then go to dante> > http://www.cisco.com/ipv6/ dante> > dante> > It includes many useful things including the current beta IOS for several dante> > hardware models. I couldn't get the information of OSPFv3 from that URL... I could find the word only in the index of a french book.... yasu From grn@ispras.ru Tue Oct 31 15:36:09 2000 From: grn@ispras.ru (Grigory Kljuchnikov) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:36:09 +0300 (MSK) Subject: Quiestion about reconfiguration our 6bone stuff Message-ID: Hello, Some time ago we have join to 6bone and have following information in 6Bone/Whois database: ipv6-site ISPRAS origin AS3216 RIPE-ASNBLOCK4 descr Institute for System Programming RAS, Moscow, Russia country RU - RUSSIAN FEDERATION prefix 3FFE:2100:1:17::/64 Aggregatable Global Unicast Address TLA-ID: 0x1ffe, Sub-TLA: 0x420 6Bone 6BONE:JANET:JANET-PTP: application ping hex.ispras.ru tunnels type IPv6 in IPv4 source 194.67.37.209 hex.ispras.ru dest 193.63.94.6 ulcc.ipv6.ja.net dest site JANET dest prefix 3FFE:2100::/24 protocol STATIC contact VF1-6BONE changed vovus@ispras.ru 15th June 1999 This was done by our postgraduate student Vladimir Faiden. He had some work with IPSEC. But now he works in some project that has not any relations with IPv6 and 6Bone and don't maintain our 6Bone tunnel. Moreover he don't remember how he has made the tunnel in detail. We have a IPv6 project and we'd like to restore 6Bone tunnel with another our host to test our implementions in IPv6 environment. Besides we want to deploy IPv6 environment inside our LAN. I've read some documents at www.6bone.net, but they don't explain how to reconfigure established connection. Now what we want: 1. We want to have a IPv6 router to 6Bone and some prefix that permit to use site-local addresses inside our LAN and provide them to other sites (I suppose it's one NLA ID if it's possible) 2. We have a FreeBSD 4.1.1 box for this purpose that is named motor.ispras.ru (194.67.37.210). I've configure it with IPv6 and gif tunnel interfaces. What we need to do? Many thanks! Best regards, Grigory Klyuchnikov ------------------------------------------------------------ Institute for System Programming Russian Academy of Sciences, 109004, Moscow, Russia, B.Kommunistitcheskay, 25, phone(work): +7-095-9125659 fax: +7-095-9121524 e-mail: From Ben Lovett Tue Oct 31 22:55:18 2000 From: Ben Lovett (Ben Lovett) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:55:18 -0800 Subject: Problems getting FreeNet6's tunnel working In-Reply-To: <20001029104822.A37055@lucifer.bart.nl>; from jruigrok@via-net-works.nl on Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 10:48:22AM +0100 References: <20001028135501.A5658@bsdguru.com> <20001029104822.A37055@lucifer.bart.nl> Message-ID: <20001031145518.A15098@bsdguru.com> --5vNYLRcllDrimb99 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven (jruigrok@via-net-works.nl) wrote: > Can you give me ifconfig -a, gifconfig -a and netstat -rn -f inet6 ? > > I think one problem is that for the gif interface the prefixlength needs > to be set to 128 instead of the 127 as was present in the script IIRC. > > Expect some commits soon to CURRENT and subsequently STABLE so that > rc.conf can provide auto link set-up what the script now does. Sure thing. I've attached the output due to the wrapping i have set in vi.. It just doesn't look good when pasted ;) -Ben --5vNYLRcllDrimb99 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ifconfig.out" xl0: flags=8802 mtu 1500 ether 00:50:da:c7:c9:f8 media: autoselect (none) status: no carrier supported media: autoselect 100baseTX 100baseTX 10baseT/UTP 10baseT/UTP 100baseTX fxp0: flags=8843 mtu 1500 inet 192.168.0.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255 inet6 fe80::290:27ff:fe8f:572a%fxp0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2 ether 00:90:27:8f:57:2a media: autoselect (100baseTX) status: active supported media: autoselect 100baseTX 100baseTX 10baseT/UTP 10baseT/UTP lp0: flags=8810 mtu 1500 gif0: flags=8011 mtu 1280 inet6 fe80::250:daff:fec7:c9f8%gif0 --> :: prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x4 inet6 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::2c7 --> 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::2c6 prefixlen 127 gif1: flags=8010 mtu 1280 lo0: flags=8049 mtu 16384 inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x6 inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 ppp0: flags=8010 mtu 1500 sl0: flags=c010 mtu 552 stf0: flags=0<> mtu 1280 faith0: flags=8000 mtu 1500 tun0: flags=8051 mtu 1500 inet6 fe80::250:daff:fec7:c9f8%tun0 --> :: prefixlen 64 scopeid 0xb inet 207.113.133.11 --> 207.113.132.77 netmask 0xffffff00 Opened by PID 306 --5vNYLRcllDrimb99 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="netstat.out" Routing tables Internet6: Destination Gateway Flags Netif Expire default 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::2c7 UGSc gif0 ::1 ::1 UH lo0 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::2c6 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::2c7 UH gif0 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::2c7 ::1 UH lo0 fe80::%fxp0/64 link#2 UC fxp0 fe80::%gif0/64 link#4 UC gif0 fe80::250:daff:fec7:c9f8%gif0 ::1 UH lo0 fe80::%lo0/64 fe80::1%lo0 Uc lo0 fe80::%tun0/64 link#11 UC tun0 fe80::250:daff:fec7:c9f8%tun0 ::1 UH lo0 ff01::/32 ::1 U lo0 ff02::%fxp0/32 link#2 UC fxp0 ff02::%gif0/32 link#4 UC gif0 ff02::%lo0/32 fe80::1%lo0 UC lo0 ff02::%tun0/32 link#11 UC tun0 --5vNYLRcllDrimb99 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="gifconfig.out" gif0: flags=8011 mtu 1280 inet6 fe80::250:daff:fec7:c9f8%gif0 --> :: prefixlen 64 inet6 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::2c7 --> 3ffe:b00:c18:1fff::2c6 prefixlen 127 physical address inet 207.113.133.11 --> 206.123.31.102 gif1: flags=8010 mtu 1280 physical address --> --5vNYLRcllDrimb99--