From bjorn.e.lindgren@telia.com Mon Jun 4 15:36:30 2001 From: bjorn.e.lindgren@telia.com (Bjorn Lindgren) Date: 04 Jun 2001 16:36:30 +0200 Subject: Multicast on 6BONE? Message-ID: <991665390.1434.0.camel@h18n1fls11o822.telia.com> Hi, I have some questions about multicast and 6BONE. Does multicast work on the current 6BONE?, does the core routers on 6BONE fully support multicast routing? (PIM-SM, PIM-DM, DVMRP, MBGP?). I'm doing some experiments with streaming MPEG-1/2/4 video over IPv6 multicast and are looking into doing tests with more realistic conditions than local LAN sandbox enviroment and wonder if this is possible on 6BONE? - bln From tony@lava.net Mon Jun 4 20:55:14 2001 From: tony@lava.net (Antonio Querubin) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:55:14 -1000 (HST) Subject: Multicast on 6BONE? In-Reply-To: <991665390.1434.0.camel@h18n1fls11o822.telia.com> Message-ID: On 4 Jun 2001, Bjorn Lindgren wrote: > I have some questions about multicast and 6BONE. > > Does multicast work on the current 6BONE?, does the core routers on > 6BONE fully support multicast routing? (PIM-SM, PIM-DM, DVMRP, MBGP?). > > I'm doing some experiments with streaming MPEG-1/2/4 video over IPv6 > multicast and are looking into doing tests with more realistic > conditions than local LAN sandbox enviroment and wonder if this is > possible on 6BONE? If you're announcing prefixes through zebra you can use it to announce prefixes over MBGP. I'm currently seeing only 3 prefixes in MBGP on our looking glass so there's not much activity there. This doesn't address the actual routing problem though between tunnels. We're using PIM and MSDP on ciscos for IPv4 but integrating that with IPv6 has a number of obstacles the biggest being that ciscos beta IPv6 firmware can't even fit/run in the typical amount of flash/RAM on most of their routers. From fink@es.net Tue Jun 5 01:18:18 2001 From: fink@es.net (Bob Fink) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 17:18:18 -0700 Subject: pTLA request for ITESM (www.itesm.mx) - review closes 9 June 2001 Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010604171250.0e289288@imap2.es.net> 6bone Folk, ITESM (www.itesm.mx) has requested a pTLA allocation. The open review period for this request will close 18 June 2001. Please send your comments to me or the list. Thanks, Bob === >Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:11:00 -0500 >To: fink@es.net >From: Alfredo Lopez >Subject: ITESM pTLA request form > >Bob: > >This is a pTLA request for ITESM (Technological Institute and of superior >studies of Monterrey http://www.itesm.mx) >Technological Institute and of Superior Studies of Monterrey is made up of >30 campus in Mexico, 1,302 receptor "seats" >of classes broadcasted by means of satellite transmissions with full >Latinamerica coverage > >- Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Ecuador , etc .. - > > >We would like to request one pTLA block, conformance to RFC 2772 > > >1. The pTLA Applicant must have a minimum of three (3) months > qualifying experience as a 6Bone end-site or pNLA transit. > >ITESM is in 6bone since 13th July 1999 as pNLA of DIGITAL-CA/US. In this >moment the ITESM >is a pNLA of CISCO/US-CA pTLA (3FFE:0c00::/24) , DIGITAL-CA/US pTLA >(3FFE:1200::/24) >and FIBERTEL/AR (3ffe:3800:FFF5::/48) > > > During the entire qualifying period the Applicant must be operationally > providing the following: > > 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. > > >You can consult our entries by ipv6-site ITESM >mntner ITESM-6BONE or person Alfredo Lopez and Ricardo Castaneda that are >fully maintained up >to date at http://www.viagenie.qc.ca/en/ipv6/registry/index.shtml > > 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. >These are our BGP4+ peer connections: > >Ipv6 in Ipv4 gwipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx -> ipv6-router.cisco.com CISCO BGP4+ >Ipv6 in ipv4 rznipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx -> ipv6-router.cisco.com CISCO BGP4+ >IPv6 in IPv4 gwipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx -> gwvpn.mty.itesm.mx ITESM BGP4+ >IPv6 in IPv4 gwipv6.itesm.mx -> gwuvipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx ITESM BGP4+ >IPv6 Pure (no tunnels) gwipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx -> rznipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx BGP4+ >IPv6 Pure (no tunnels) gwipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx -> gw6.nic.mx BGP4+ > >Each IPv6 Puer connections has an ipv6 prefix-list bgp-out to advertise >only the near neighbors. > c. Fully maintained DNS forward (AAAA) and reverse (ip6.int) > entries for the Applicant's router(s) and at least one host > system. > >Our dns machine is mainipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx AAAA 3ffe:c00:8027:2::9/64 >we have other hosts like >www.ipv6.itesm.mx AAAA 3ffe:c00:8027:2::10/64 >gwipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx AAAA 3ffe:c00:8027:2::1/64 >broker.ipv6.itesm.mx AAAA 3ffe:cc00:8027:2::50/64 >and many others each one with reverse (ip6.int) entries. This is an example: > >dig @3ffe:c00:8027:2::9 ptr >0.0.2.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.0.7.2.0.8.0.0.C.0.e.F.F.3.IP6.INT >;; QUESTION SECTION: >;0.0.2.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.0.7.2.0.8.0.0.C.0.e.F.F.3.IP6.INT. >IN PTR > >;; ANSWER SECTION: >0.0.2.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.0.7.2.0.8.0.0.C.0.e.F.F.3.IP6.INT. >86400 IN PTR labtyripv6.ipv6.itesm.mx. > >;; AUTHORITY SECTION: >7.2.0.8.0.0.C.0.e.F.F.3.IP6.INT. 86400 IN NS mainipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx. >This DNS use the named.root file from IPv6 staff - Viagenie Inc. >For example this query > [root@mainipv6 /root]# dig @3ffe:c00:8027:2::9 in . > >;; QUESTION SECTION: >;. IN A >;; AUTHORITY SECTION: >. 9269 IN SOA dnsrs.viagenie.com. >ipv6.viagenie.qc.ca. 2001032501 1800 900 604800 86400 > > > 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. > > > >Our site IS IPv6 accessible http://www.ipv6.itesm.mx >(http://[3ffe:c00:8027:2::200]), there is a description >of our services. > > >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. >The person attributes registeres are : >person: Alfredo Lopez >Person: Ricardo Castaneda > > 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. > > The common mailbox for support contact has the two person objects > mentioned before >and is copied to the ipv6 staff of the ITESM in Mexico conformed by 6 more >persons >(5 for each 6 campus in the ITESM) > >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. > > ITESM Network has a user community made up of more than 85,000 > students plus teachers, researchers >and personal working at the ITESM all over Latin America >(http://www.itesm.mx/campus). > > ITESM Network provides service to students, teachers and researchers > besides of several >educational and governmental institutes of Mexico ,therefore it is >considered the most important >educational and research center of Latinoamerica. > > ITESM Ipv6 Network deployment is a task effort of many educational > institutes and companies >of Mexico like ITESM Campus Monterrey (http://www.mty.itesm.mx), >NIC-Mexico (http://www.nic.mx) >Virtual University of Mexico (http://www.ruv.itesm.mx), Alestra >(http://www.alestra.com.mx) and >every single campus that constitutes the ITESM (30 campus). >This effort (working group) puts us as the biggest Internet Service >Provider of our country. > > ITESM has been the bedrock of the network development and > research because >in 1986 it was the first Educational Institute to be part of EDUCOM, >having one 2600bps >link to Texas University in San Antonio. > Within Internet2 effort (CUDI http://www.cudi.edu.mx), ITESM is the > main participant working with >workgroups such as Ipv6 , Multicast ipv4/ipv6 , Virtual Private Networks, >H.323 (streaming and >videoconference,video over demand), voice over ip, routing policies, >Quality of Service, MPLS, etc ... >urging the need of a full ipv4/ipv6 functional network notwithstanding if >we are serving ipv4 or >ipv6 networks. >Project ITESM-ALESTRA: IPv6 WAN interconnections (no tunnel) . If you >wanna know more about this >project please contact me > >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 understand the 6Bone operational rules and policie routing > practices and we strongly agree > with them all. In our site we are updating a database of all RFC´s > relationated with IPv6. > >We are looking forward to service ipv6 as it should be and we hope you can >help us Bob > >Regards from Mexico From horape@tinuviel.compendium.net.ar Tue Jun 5 04:36:40 2001 From: horape@tinuviel.compendium.net.ar (horape@tinuviel.compendium.net.ar) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 00:36:40 -0300 Subject: A new country on the 6bone: Colombia Message-ID: <20010605003640.A28072@tinuviel.compendium.net.ar> ¡Hola! Thanks to Carlos E. Fonseca Zorrilla, from CORUNIVERSITEC, there is now a new country conected to the 6bone. That's the fourth island from Uninet.EDU (after COMPENDIUM-AR, UNINET-EDU and SURRIEL) joining the 6bone. His island is not yet in the registry, but will be soon. Congratulations to him, HoraPe --- Horacio J. Peña horape@compendium.com.ar horape@uninet.edu bofh@puntoar.net.ar horape@hcdn.gov.ar From bmanning@ISI.EDU Tue Jun 5 06:11:55 2001 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:11:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: pTLA request for ITESM (www.itesm.mx) - review closes 9 June In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010604171250.0e289288@imap2.es.net> from "Bob Fink" at Jun 04, 2001 05:18:18 PM Message-ID: <200106050511.f555Bu012572@zed.isi.edu> given the work done by ITESM, I support this request. % % 6bone Folk, % % ITESM (www.itesm.mx) has requested a pTLA allocation. The open review % period for this request will close 18 June 2001. Please send your comments % to me or the list. % % % Thanks, % % Bob % % === % >Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:11:00 -0500 % >To: fink@es.net % >From: Alfredo Lopez % >Subject: ITESM pTLA request form % > % >Bob: % > % >This is a pTLA request for ITESM (Technological Institute and of superior % >studies of Monterrey http://www.itesm.mx) % >Technological Institute and of Superior Studies of Monterrey is made up of % >30 campus in Mexico, 1,302 receptor "seats" % >of classes broadcasted by means of satellite transmissions with full % >Latinamerica coverage > % >- Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Ecuador , etc .. - % > % > % >We would like to request one pTLA block, conformance to RFC 2772 % > % > % >1. The pTLA Applicant must have a minimum of three (3) months % > qualifying experience as a 6Bone end-site or pNLA transit. % > % >ITESM is in 6bone since 13th July 1999 as pNLA of DIGITAL-CA/US. In this % >moment the ITESM % >is a pNLA of CISCO/US-CA pTLA (3FFE:0c00::/24) , DIGITAL-CA/US pTLA % >(3FFE:1200::/24) % >and FIBERTEL/AR (3ffe:3800:FFF5::/48) % > % > % > During the entire qualifying period the Applicant must be operationally % > providing the following: % > % > 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. % > % > % >You can consult our entries by ipv6-site ITESM % >mntner ITESM-6BONE or person Alfredo Lopez and Ricardo Castaneda that are % >fully maintained up % >to date at http://www.viagenie.qc.ca/en/ipv6/registry/index.shtml % > % > 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. % >These are our BGP4+ peer connections: % > % >Ipv6 in Ipv4 gwipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx -> ipv6-router.cisco.com CISCO BGP4+ % >Ipv6 in ipv4 rznipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx -> ipv6-router.cisco.com CISCO BGP4+ % >IPv6 in IPv4 gwipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx -> gwvpn.mty.itesm.mx ITESM BGP4+ % >IPv6 in IPv4 gwipv6.itesm.mx -> gwuvipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx ITESM BGP4+ % >IPv6 Pure (no tunnels) gwipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx -> rznipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx BGP4+ % >IPv6 Pure (no tunnels) gwipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx -> gw6.nic.mx BGP4+ % > % >Each IPv6 Puer connections has an ipv6 prefix-list bgp-out to advertise % >only the near neighbors. % > c. Fully maintained DNS forward (AAAA) and reverse (ip6.int) % > entries for the Applicant's router(s) and at least one host % > system. % > % >Our dns machine is mainipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx AAAA 3ffe:c00:8027:2::9/64 % >we have other hosts like % >www.ipv6.itesm.mx AAAA 3ffe:c00:8027:2::10/64 % >gwipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx AAAA 3ffe:c00:8027:2::1/64 % >broker.ipv6.itesm.mx AAAA 3ffe:cc00:8027:2::50/64 % >and many others each one with reverse (ip6.int) entries. This is an example: % > % >dig @3ffe:c00:8027:2::9 ptr % >0.0.2.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.0.7.2.0.8.0.0.C.0.e.F.F.3.IP6.INT % >;; QUESTION SECTION: % >;0.0.2.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.0.7.2.0.8.0.0.C.0.e.F.F.3.IP6.INT. % >IN PTR % > % >;; ANSWER SECTION: % >0.0.2.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.0.7.2.0.8.0.0.C.0.e.F.F.3.IP6.INT. % >86400 IN PTR labtyripv6.ipv6.itesm.mx. % > % >;; AUTHORITY SECTION: % >7.2.0.8.0.0.C.0.e.F.F.3.IP6.INT. 86400 IN NS mainipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx. % >This DNS use the named.root file from IPv6 staff - Viagenie Inc. % >For example this query % > [root@mainipv6 /root]# dig @3ffe:c00:8027:2::9 in . % > % >;; QUESTION SECTION: % >;. IN A % >;; AUTHORITY SECTION: % >. 9269 IN SOA dnsrs.viagenie.com. % >ipv6.viagenie.qc.ca. 2001032501 1800 900 604800 86400 % > % > % > 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. % > % > % > % >Our site IS IPv6 accessible http://www.ipv6.itesm.mx % >(http://[3ffe:c00:8027:2::200]), there is a description % >of our services. % > % > % >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. % >The person attributes registeres are : % >person: Alfredo Lopez % >Person: Ricardo Castaneda % > % > 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. % > % > The common mailbox for support contact has the two person objects % > mentioned before % >and is copied to the ipv6 staff of the ITESM in Mexico conformed by 6 more % >persons % >(5 for each 6 campus in the ITESM) % > % >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. % > % > ITESM Network has a user community made up of more than 85,000 % > students plus teachers, researchers % >and personal working at the ITESM all over Latin America % >(http://www.itesm.mx/campus). % > % > ITESM Network provides service to students, teachers and researchers % > besides of several % >educational and governmental institutes of Mexico ,therefore it is % >considered the most important % >educational and research center of Latinoamerica. % > % > ITESM Ipv6 Network deployment is a task effort of many educational % > institutes and companies % >of Mexico like ITESM Campus Monterrey (http://www.mty.itesm.mx), % >NIC-Mexico (http://www.nic.mx) % >Virtual University of Mexico (http://www.ruv.itesm.mx), Alestra % >(http://www.alestra.com.mx) and % >every single campus that constitutes the ITESM (30 campus). % >This effort (working group) puts us as the biggest Internet Service % >Provider of our country. % > % > ITESM has been the bedrock of the network development and % > research because % >in 1986 it was the first Educational Institute to be part of EDUCOM, % >having one 2600bps % >link to Texas University in San Antonio. % > Within Internet2 effort (CUDI http://www.cudi.edu.mx), ITESM is the % > main participant working with % >workgroups such as Ipv6 , Multicast ipv4/ipv6 , Virtual Private Networks, % >H.323 (streaming and % >videoconference,video over demand), voice over ip, routing policies, % >Quality of Service, MPLS, etc ... % >urging the need of a full ipv4/ipv6 functional network notwithstanding if % >we are serving ipv4 or % >ipv6 networks. % >Project ITESM-ALESTRA: IPv6 WAN interconnections (no tunnel) . If you % >wanna know more about this % >project please contact me % > % >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 understand the 6Bone operational rules and policie routing % > practices and we strongly agree % > with them all. In our site we are updating a database of all RFC´s % > relationated with IPv6. % > % >We are looking forward to service ipv6 as it should be and we hope you can % >help us Bob % > % >Regards from Mexico % % -- --bill From federico@nttmcl.com Tue Jun 5 18:41:13 2001 From: federico@nttmcl.com (Federico Andrade) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:41:13 -0700 Subject: pTLA request for ITESM (www.itesm.mx) - review closes 9 June In-Reply-To: <200106050511.f555Bu012572@zed.isi.edu> References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010604171250.0e289288@imap2.es.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010605101027.00af8008@alicia.nttmcl.com> Hi friends, The Monterrey Institute of Technology (ITESM) has been working hard to promote the use of technological tools for education and research in Mexico and LatinAmerica. Congratulations and keep the good work. I support the request also. Federico@NTTMCL. At 10:11 PM 6/4/2001 -0700, Bill Manning wrote: > given the work done by ITESM, I support this request. >% >% 6bone Folk, >% >% ITESM (www.itesm.mx) has requested a pTLA allocation. The open review >% period for this request will close 18 June 2001. Please send your comments >% to me or the list. >% >% Thanks, >% >% Bob >% >% === >% >Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:11:00 -0500 >% >To: fink@es.net >% >From: Alfredo Lopez >% >Subject: ITESM pTLA request form >% > >% >Bob: >% > >% >This is a pTLA request for ITESM (Technological Institute and of superior >% >studies of Monterrey http://www.itesm.mx) >% >Technological Institute and of Superior Studies of Monterrey is made up of >% >30 campus in Mexico, 1,302 receptor "seats" >% >of classes broadcasted by means of satellite transmissions with full >% >Latinamerica coverage > >% >- Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Ecuador , etc .. - >% > >% > >% >We would like to request one pTLA block, conformance to RFC 2772 >% > >% > >% >1. The pTLA Applicant must have a minimum of three (3) months >% > qualifying experience as a 6Bone end-site or pNLA transit. >% > >% >ITESM is in 6bone since 13th July 1999 as pNLA of DIGITAL-CA/US. In this >% >moment the ITESM >% >is a pNLA of CISCO/US-CA pTLA (3FFE:0c00::/24) , DIGITAL-CA/US pTLA >% >(3FFE:1200::/24) >% >and FIBERTEL/AR (3ffe:3800:FFF5::/48) >% > >% > >% > During the entire qualifying period the Applicant must be >operationally >% > providing the following: >% > >% > 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. >% > >% > >% >You can consult our entries by ipv6-site ITESM >% >mntner ITESM-6BONE or person Alfredo Lopez and Ricardo Castaneda that are >% >fully maintained up >% >to date at http://www.viagenie.qc.ca/en/ipv6/registry/index.shtml >% > >% > 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. >% >These are our BGP4+ peer connections: >% > >% >Ipv6 in Ipv4 gwipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx -> ipv6-router.cisco.com CISCO BGP4+ >% >Ipv6 in ipv4 rznipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx -> ipv6-router.cisco.com CISCO BGP4+ >% >IPv6 in IPv4 gwipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx -> gwvpn.mty.itesm.mx ITESM BGP4+ >% >IPv6 in IPv4 gwipv6.itesm.mx -> gwuvipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx ITESM BGP4+ >% >IPv6 Pure (no tunnels) gwipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx -> rznipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx BGP4+ >% >IPv6 Pure (no tunnels) gwipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx -> gw6.nic.mx BGP4+ >% > >% >Each IPv6 Puer connections has an ipv6 prefix-list bgp-out to advertise >% >only the near neighbors. >% > c. Fully maintained DNS forward (AAAA) and reverse (ip6.int) >% > entries for the Applicant's router(s) and at least one host >% > system. >% > >% >Our dns machine is mainipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx AAAA 3ffe:c00:8027:2::9/64 >% >we have other hosts like >% >www.ipv6.itesm.mx AAAA 3ffe:c00:8027:2::10/64 >% >gwipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx AAAA 3ffe:c00:8027:2::1/64 >% >broker.ipv6.itesm.mx AAAA 3ffe:cc00:8027:2::50/64 >% >and many others each one with reverse (ip6.int) entries. This is an >example: >% > >% >dig @3ffe:c00:8027:2::9 ptr >% >0.0.2.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.0.7.2.0.8.0.0.C.0.e.F.F.3.IP6.INT >% >;; QUESTION SECTION: >% >;0.0.2.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.0.7.2.0.8.0.0.C.0.e.F.F.3.IP6.INT. >% >IN PTR >% > >% >;; ANSWER SECTION: >% >0.0.2.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.0.7.2.0.8.0.0.C.0.e.F.F.3.IP6.INT. >% >86400 IN PTR labtyripv6.ipv6.itesm.mx. >% > >% >;; AUTHORITY SECTION: >% >7.2.0.8.0.0.C.0.e.F.F.3.IP6.INT. 86400 IN NS mainipv6.ipv6.itesm.mx. >% >This DNS use the named.root file from IPv6 staff - Viagenie Inc. >% >For example this query >% > [root@mainipv6 /root]# dig @3ffe:c00:8027:2::9 in . >% > >% >;; QUESTION SECTION: >% >;. IN A >% >;; AUTHORITY SECTION: >% >. 9269 IN SOA dnsrs.viagenie.com. >% >ipv6.viagenie.qc.ca. 2001032501 1800 900 604800 86400 >% > >% > >% > 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. >% > >% > >% > >% >Our site IS IPv6 accessible http://www.ipv6.itesm.mx >% >(http://[3ffe:c00:8027:2::200]), there is a description >% >of our services. >% > >% > >% >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. >% >The person attributes registeres are : >% >person: Alfredo Lopez >% >Person: Ricardo Castaneda >% > >% > 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. >% > >% > The common mailbox for support contact has the two person objects >% > mentioned before >% >and is copied to the ipv6 staff of the ITESM in Mexico conformed by 6 more >% >persons >% >(5 for each 6 campus in the ITESM) >% > >% >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. >% > >% > ITESM Network has a user community made up of more than 85,000 >% > students plus teachers, researchers >% >and personal working at the ITESM all over Latin America >% >(http://www.itesm.mx/campus). >% > >% > ITESM Network provides service to students, teachers and researchers >% > besides of several >% >educational and governmental institutes of Mexico ,therefore it is >% >considered the most important >% >educational and research center of Latinoamerica. >% > >% > ITESM Ipv6 Network deployment is a task effort of many educational >% > institutes and companies >% >of Mexico like ITESM Campus Monterrey (http://www.mty.itesm.mx), >% >NIC-Mexico (http://www.nic.mx) >% >Virtual University of Mexico (http://www.ruv.itesm.mx), Alestra >% >(http://www.alestra.com.mx) and >% >every single campus that constitutes the ITESM (30 campus). >% >This effort (working group) puts us as the biggest Internet Service >% >Provider of our country. >% > >% > ITESM has been the bedrock of the network development and >% > research because >% >in 1986 it was the first Educational Institute to be part of EDUCOM, >% >having one 2600bps >% >link to Texas University in San Antonio. >% > Within Internet2 effort (CUDI http://www.cudi.edu.mx), ITESM is the >% > main participant working with >% >workgroups such as Ipv6 , Multicast ipv4/ipv6 , Virtual Private Networks, >% >H.323 (streaming and >% >videoconference,video over demand), voice over ip, routing policies, >% >Quality of Service, MPLS, etc ... >% >urging the need of a full ipv4/ipv6 functional network notwithstanding if >% >we are serving ipv4 or >% >ipv6 networks. >% >Project ITESM-ALESTRA: IPv6 WAN interconnections (no tunnel) . If you >% >wanna know more about this >% >project please contact me >% > >% >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 understand the 6Bone operational rules and policie routing >% > practices and we strongly agree >% > with them all. In our site we are updating a database of all RFC´s >% > relationated with IPv6. >% > >% >We are looking forward to service ipv6 as it should be and we hope you can >% >help us Bob >% > >% >Regards from Mexico >% >% > > >-- >--bill Federico Andrade IPv6 Network Engineer/Administrator NTT - Multimedia Communication Laboratories, Inc. 250 Cambridge Av. Suite 300. Palo Alto, CA. 94306 tel://650.833.3655 fax://650.326.1878 From nsayer@quack.kfu.com Wed Jun 6 00:43:07 2001 From: nsayer@quack.kfu.com (Nick Sayer) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:43:07 -0700 Subject: Tunnel problems Message-ID: <3B1D6E8B.70209@quack.kfu.com> Hi. I run KFU and have had a tunnel to DIGITAL-CA for quite a while now. About a month ago, it stopped working. I've traded some mail with the admin of DIGITAL-CA, but I wonder if what I'm seeing could explain any of this. I can see packets from the net arrive through the tunnel. If someone using 6to4 ping6s me, it actually works, since the packets come down through the tunnel, then go back out via 6to4. But if I send packets out through the tunnel, they never get there. traceroute6 doesn't show them making the first hop. traceroute (ipv4) with (or without) -P 41 shows that there's nothing wrong with the ipv4 path between me and the tunnel endpoint. The only other nodes on the Internet I have access to are 6to4, but I did manage to perform one test which puzzled me. I did a traceroute6 -n quack.kfu.com. Here's what I got: traceroute6 to quack.kfu.com (3ffe:1200:301b:0:2d0:b7ff:febe:e2a8) from 2002:xxxx:xxxx:0:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx, 30 hops max, 12 byte packets 1 2002:xxxx:xxxx:0:yyyy:yyyy:yyyy:yyyy 0.333 ms 0.234 ms 0.217 ms 2 2002:zzzz:zzzz::1 9.925 ms * 9.335 ms 3 3ffe:3600::9 177.727 ms * 178.057 ms 4 3ffe:1200:301b:0:2d0:b7ff:febe:e2a8 59.383 ms 26.588 ms 26.058 ms (I'm obscuring the 6to4 addresses because I don't think it matters where on 6to4 this takes place. I've done it from a couple places and got the same answer. I even tried traceroute6 -g www.6bone.net quack.kfu.com and got the same last-hop). 3ffe:3600::9 is, according to the registry, in Taiwan! Nevertheless, when I do this, a tcpdump happening back on the LAN at KFU shows the packets arriving in their encapsulation from the right IPv4 address. Is traceroute6 somehow missing some of the hops between Taiwan and DIGITAL-CA? Or does this have to do with the fact that the reply route is different from the source route since the source is using 6to4? From nils@burk.hax.se Wed Jun 6 02:03:27 2001 From: nils@burk.hax.se (nils@burk.hax.se) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 03:03:27 +0200 Subject: pTLA request for ITESM (www.itesm.mx) - review closes 9 June 2001 In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010604171250.0e289288@imap2.es.net>; from fink@es.net on Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 05:18:18PM -0700 References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010604171250.0e289288@imap2.es.net> Message-ID: <20010606030326.A20291@Burk.hax.SE> On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 05:18:18PM -0700, Bob Fink wrote: > 6bone Folk, > > ITESM (www.itesm.mx) has requested a pTLA allocation. The open review > period for this request will close 18 June 2001. Please send your comments > to me or the list. Are anyone allowed to comment/object/support theese requests? Regards, Nils Höglund From mhw@wittsend.com Wed Jun 6 04:19:29 2001 From: mhw@wittsend.com (Michael H. Warfield) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 23:19:29 -0400 Subject: pTLA request for ITESM (www.itesm.mx) - review closes 9 June 2001 In-Reply-To: <20010606030326.A20291@Burk.hax.SE>; from nils@burk.hax.se on Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 03:03:27AM +0200 References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010604171250.0e289288@imap2.es.net> <20010606030326.A20291@Burk.hax.SE> Message-ID: <20010605231929.A847@alcove.wittsend.com> On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 03:03:27AM +0200, nils@burk.hax.se wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 05:18:18PM -0700, Bob Fink wrote: > > 6bone Folk, > > ITESM (www.itesm.mx) has requested a pTLA allocation. The open review > > period for this request will close 18 June 2001. Please send your comments > > to me or the list. > Are anyone allowed to comment/object/support theese requests? Isn't that a silly question? Of course anyone would be allowed to comment/object/support. Nothing prohibits you. The question really is, will it have any influence or will anyone listen. Nothing is stopping anyone from commenting. > Regards, > Nils Höglund Mike -- Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | mhw@WittsEnd.com (The Mad Wizard) | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it! From fink@es.net Wed Jun 6 15:10:14 2001 From: fink@es.net (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 07:10:14 -0700 Subject: pTLA request for ITESM (www.itesm.mx) - review closes 9 June 2001 In-Reply-To: <20010606030326.A20291@Burk.hax.SE> References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010604171250.0e289288@imap2.es.net> <5.0.2.1.0.20010604171250.0e289288@imap2.es.net> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010606070941.024ddc40@imap2.es.net> Nils, At 03:03 AM 6/6/2001 +0200, nils@burk.hax.se wrote: >On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 05:18:18PM -0700, Bob Fink wrote: > > 6bone Folk, > > > > ITESM (www.itesm.mx) has requested a pTLA allocation. The open review > > period for this request will close 18 June 2001. Please send your comments > > to me or the list. > >Are anyone allowed to comment/object/support theese requests? Of course. Just send me the comment(s). Bob From fink@es.net Wed Jun 6 15:12:58 2001 From: fink@es.net (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 07:12:58 -0700 Subject: pTLA request for ITESM (www.itesm.mx) - review closes 9 June 2001 In-Reply-To: <20010605231929.A847@alcove.wittsend.com> References: <20010606030326.A20291@Burk.hax.SE> <5.0.2.1.0.20010604171250.0e289288@imap2.es.net> <20010606030326.A20291@Burk.hax.SE> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010606071148.02712ea0@imap2.es.net> At 11:19 PM 6/5/2001 -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote: >On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 03:03:27AM +0200, nils@burk.hax.se wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 05:18:18PM -0700, Bob Fink wrote: > > > 6bone Folk, > > > > ITESM (www.itesm.mx) has requested a pTLA allocation. The open review > > > period for this request will close 18 June 2001. Please send your > comments > > > to me or the list. > > > Are anyone allowed to comment/object/support theese requests? > > Isn't that a silly question? Well, sometimes folks are not clear about this for good reason, so... not silly. > Of course anyone would be allowed to comment/object/support. >Nothing prohibits you. The question really is, will it have any >influence or will anyone listen. Nothing is stopping anyone from >commenting. Believe me, it DOES influence the process as I've done all of these pTLA requests since the start. Thanks, Bob From sgunderson@bigfoot.com Wed Jun 6 15:25:19 2001 From: sgunderson@bigfoot.com (Steinar H. Gunderson) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:25:19 +0200 Subject: pTLA request for ITESM (www.itesm.mx) - review closes 9 June 2001 In-Reply-To: <20010605231929.A847@alcove.wittsend.com>; from mhw@wittsend.com on Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 11:19:29PM -0400 References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010604171250.0e289288@imap2.es.net> <20010606030326.A20291@Burk.hax.SE> <20010605231929.A847@alcove.wittsend.com> Message-ID: <20010606162519.A12147@uio.no> On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 11:19:29PM -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote: >> > ITESM (www.itesm.mx) has requested a pTLA allocation. The open review >> > period for this request will close 18 June 2001. Please send your comments >> > to me or the list. > Of course anyone would be allowed to comment/object/support. >Nothing prohibits you. The question really is, will it have any >influence or will anyone listen. Nothing is stopping anyone from >commenting. Well, it actually talks about "the open review period", plus says "send your comments to me or the list"... Shouldn't that make it clear that commenting is 1) allowed, 2) desired (if there is any useful input), _and_ 3) influential? /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/sneeze/ From fink@es.net Wed Jun 6 15:45:38 2001 From: fink@es.net (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 07:45:38 -0700 Subject: pTLA request for ITESM (www.itesm.mx) - review closes 9 June 2001 In-Reply-To: <20010606162519.A12147@uio.no> References: <20010605231929.A847@alcove.wittsend.com> <5.0.2.1.0.20010604171250.0e289288@imap2.es.net> <20010606030326.A20291@Burk.hax.SE> <20010605231929.A847@alcove.wittsend.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010606074511.02534008@imap2.es.net> At 04:25 PM 6/6/2001 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: >On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 11:19:29PM -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote: > >> > ITESM (www.itesm.mx) has requested a pTLA allocation. The open review > >> > period for this request will close 18 June 2001. Please send your > comments > >> > to me or the list. > > Of course anyone would be allowed to comment/object/support. > >Nothing prohibits you. The question really is, will it have any > >influence or will anyone listen. Nothing is stopping anyone from > >commenting. > >Well, it actually talks about "the open review period", plus says "send >your comments to me or the list"... Shouldn't that make it clear that >commenting is 1) allowed, 2) desired (if there is any useful input), >_and_ 3) influential? I'll take a look and add something to make it clearer. Thanks, Bob From pekkas@netcore.fi Wed Jun 6 20:18:09 2001 From: pekkas@netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 22:18:09 +0300 (EEST) Subject: pTLA request comments [was: ...] In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010606071148.02712ea0@imap2.es.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Bob Fink wrote: > > Of course anyone would be allowed to comment/object/support. > >Nothing prohibits you. The question really is, will it have any > >influence or will anyone listen. Nothing is stopping anyone from > >commenting. > > Believe me, it DOES influence the process as I've done all of these pTLA > requests since the start. Just out of curiousity (by commenting, I mean all comment/object/support/etc.), - has a request ever been denied based on comments? - has a request ever passed that would otherwise have been denied were it not for comments? Ie, has this shown in practise? -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords From fink@es.net Wed Jun 6 23:23:34 2001 From: fink@es.net (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 15:23:34 -0700 Subject: pTLA request comments [was: ...] In-Reply-To: References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010606071148.02712ea0@imap2.es.net> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010606151710.01eaea70@imap2.es.net> Pekka, At 10:18 PM 6/6/2001 +0300, Pekka Savola wrote: >On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Bob Fink wrote: > > > Of course anyone would be allowed to comment/object/support. > > >Nothing prohibits you. The question really is, will it have any > > >influence or will anyone listen. Nothing is stopping anyone from > > >commenting. > > > > Believe me, it DOES influence the process as I've done all of these pTLA > > requests since the start. > >Just out of curiousity (by commenting, I mean all >comment/object/support/etc.), > > - has a request ever been denied based on comments? > - has a request ever passed that would otherwise have been denied were >it not for comments? > >Ie, has this shown in practise? One was denied, if I remember correctly, very early in the 6bone process 5 years ago. Several applicants had to do some more work to get their pTLA, based on comments. I have been inclined to deny even accepting applications from a few, but was persuaded by comments, though it was by private email. Others I have gently persuaded to withdraw their application as they didn't pass the criteria, IMO. All in all it has been a useful and open process. By this I mean if someone does disagree with my pre-filtering, I will put it on the mailer and see what responses I/we get. I never unilaterally decide these things. Bob From fink@es.net Thu Jun 7 02:43:12 2001 From: fink@es.net (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 18:43:12 -0700 Subject: pTLA 3FFE:FFF0::/28 for test & example use per draft-blanchet-ipngwg-testadd-00.txt, closes 20Jun01 Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010606182835.00af9bd8@imap2.es.net> 6bone folk, You can see from the email exchange below, and the draft at: "Abstract To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion, an IPv6 prefix is reserved for use in private testing or as examples in other RFCs, documentation, and the like. Since site local addresses have special meaning in IPv6, these cannot be used in many example situations and are confusing. Instead, an IPv6 prefix is reserved in the range of the test address space." that Marc Blanchet has proposed a 6bone pTLA prefix be assigned for private testing or examples in RFCs. I propose assigning the 6bone pTLA 3FFE:FFF0::/28 for this purpose. It is at the very top of the 28-bit 6bone prefix range, and is only a tiny part (1/2048th) of that prefix space. IMO, the likelihood of the 6bone testing address space of 3FFE::/16 going away in the foreseeable future is no more likely than the complete deprecation and disappearance of the current aggregatable global unicast address space, in which case all this would be irrelevant. Anyway, if you have any comments on this please reply to me or the list by 20 June. Thanks, Bob === >Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 17:48:07 -0400 >To: Alain Durand , Bill Manning , > fink@es.net >From: Marc Blanchet >Subject: Re: wrt: draft-blanchet-ipngwg-testadd-00.txt >Cc: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com > >there was suggestion to not use 3ffe::/16 space so that it can be later >(humm, do not know how many years...) reclaimed and reused as part of the >001b/3 current addressing architecture. So may be something out of >2000::/3 is the right thing, I don't know, and actually, I don't care. My >point was to reserve a space, any space, for documentation/examples/... >purposes. > >Marc. > >At/À 12:08 2001-06-06 -0700, Alain Durand you wrote/vous écriviez: >>At 11:50 AM 6/6/2001 -0700, Bill Manning wrote: >> >>> Strong Objections to this tactic. If you want a 6bone prefix, >>> you should follow the process. Hijacking is bad form. I'm >>> sure Bob would be amenable to making the delegation, but >>> asking is appropriate. >> >>This is the reason why I had Cced Bob to this thread. >> >>Bob: >>- do you think it would be appropriate to use a 6bone ptla for that purpose? >>- what should be the formal process to follow? >>- would you have any preferences? 3ffe:ff00::/24, 3ffe:5550::/28, >>anything else? >> >> - Alain. >> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------- >>IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List >>IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng >>FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng >>Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com >>-------------------------------------------------------------------- > From Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca Thu Jun 7 08:00:23 2001 From: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca (Marc Blanchet) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 03:00:23 -0400 Subject: pTLA 3FFE:FFF0::/28 for test & example use per draft-blanchet-ipngwg-testadd-00.txt, closes 20Jun01 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20010606182835.00af9bd8@imap2.es.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20010607025515.049fde88@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> - the initial proposal was 3ffe:ff00::/24 so that one can illustrate multiple prefixes (/28) in different situations like examples of exchange points with multiple pTLA prefixes being exchanged. - I would prefer a /24 or so, but I'm fine with any reserved space. any reserved space is better than none. Marc. PS. BTW, I'm currently updating the draft to remove all references to test-private networks and will add a note that the defined prefix must not be used for testing, instead site-local must be used. At/À 18:43 2001-06-06 -0700, Bob Fink you wrote/vous écriviez: >6bone folk, > >You can see from the email exchange below, and the draft at: > > > >"Abstract To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion, an IPv6 >prefix is reserved for use in private testing or as examples in other >RFCs, documentation, and the like. Since site local addresses have special >meaning in IPv6, these cannot be used in many example situations and are >confusing. Instead, an IPv6 prefix is reserved in the range of the test >address space." > > >that Marc Blanchet has proposed a 6bone pTLA prefix be assigned for >private testing or examples in RFCs. > >I propose assigning the 6bone pTLA 3FFE:FFF0::/28 for this purpose. It is >at the very top of the 28-bit 6bone prefix range, and is only a tiny part >(1/2048th) of that prefix space. > >IMO, the likelihood of the 6bone testing address space of 3FFE::/16 going >away in the foreseeable future is no more likely than the complete >deprecation and disappearance of the current aggregatable global unicast >address space, in which case all this would be irrelevant. > >Anyway, if you have any comments on this please reply to me or the list by >20 June. > > >Thanks, > >Bob > >=== >>Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 17:48:07 -0400 >>To: Alain Durand , Bill Manning , >> fink@es.net >>From: Marc Blanchet >>Subject: Re: wrt: draft-blanchet-ipngwg-testadd-00.txt >>Cc: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com >> >>there was suggestion to not use 3ffe::/16 space so that it can be later >>(humm, do not know how many years...) reclaimed and reused as part of the >>001b/3 current addressing architecture. So may be something out of >>2000::/3 is the right thing, I don't know, and actually, I don't care. My >>point was to reserve a space, any space, for documentation/examples/... >>purposes. >> >>Marc. >> >>At/À 12:08 2001-06-06 -0700, Alain Durand you wrote/vous écriviez: >>>At 11:50 AM 6/6/2001 -0700, Bill Manning wrote: >>> >>>> Strong Objections to this tactic. If you want a 6bone prefix, >>>> you should follow the process. Hijacking is bad form. I'm >>>> sure Bob would be amenable to making the delegation, but >>>> asking is appropriate. >>> >>>This is the reason why I had Cced Bob to this thread. >>> >>>Bob: >>>- do you think it would be appropriate to use a 6bone ptla for that purpose? >>>- what should be the formal process to follow? >>>- would you have any preferences? 3ffe:ff00::/24, 3ffe:5550::/28, >>>anything else? >>> >>> - Alain. >>> >>>-------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List >>>IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng >>>FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng >>>Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com >>>-------------------------------------------------------------------- From kre@munnari.OZ.AU Thu Jun 7 09:44:48 2001 From: kre@munnari.OZ.AU (Robert Elz) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:44:48 +0700 Subject: pTLA 3FFE:FFF0::/28 for test & example use per draft-blanchet-ipngwg-testadd-00.txt, closes 20Jun01 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20010606182835.00af9bd8@imap2.es.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20010606182835.00af9bd8@imap2.es.net> Message-ID: <2628.991903488@brandenburg.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 18:43:12 -0700 From: Bob Fink Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010606182835.00af9bd8@imap2.es.net> | that Marc Blanchet has proposed a 6bone pTLA prefix be assigned for private | testing or examples in RFCs. Yes. | I propose assigning the 6bone pTLA 3FFE:FFF0::/28 for this purpose. No, please don't do that - that's just as bad as the example that Marc selected and used in the draft. What's needed is an address block that is patently invalid, not one that comes from a valid range, but just happens to be unassigned. That is, it should have an appearance more like net 127 in the v4 space (which of course, is only "patently invalid" with hindsight, but in v4 there was no other real choice), that is, rather than the rfc1918 set of nets, which you can only detect are "different" by very close attention to the RFCs. Make the address block for this purpose be one that can trivially, and safely, be filtered by everyone, forever, and easily. That is, one that never is, or will be, valid for use for IPv6 forwarding. The whole point of the kind of "dummy" address that Marc is proposing (and it is a good idea, we should do it) is that it must never be thought by anyone to be an actual address that can be used. I'd suspect that something in the FE::/8 range would be the right choice (the 0000:: range is the other possibility, but those addresses don't look enough like "normal" IPv6 addresses to really meet the purpose). kre From horape@tinuviel.compendium.net.ar Fri Jun 8 12:09:53 2001 From: horape@tinuviel.compendium.net.ar (horape@tinuviel.compendium.net.ar) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 08:09:53 -0300 Subject: Problems with the registry. Message-ID: <20010608080953.A15319@tinuviel.compendium.net.ar> ¡Hola! I've written to registry@viagenie.qc.ca, but received no answer so I ask publically for somebody who can help us. When trying to register the new Columbian island we get: *ERROR*: unknown country code: "CO" *ERROR*: contact for addition to the valid country list *ERROR*: if you believe that CO is a valid ISO 3166 country code as the answer (CO is, of course, the ISO 3166 country code for Colombia) Is somebody here able to correct that? Thanks, HoraPe --- Horacio J. Peña horape@compendium.com.ar horape@uninet.edu bofh@puntoar.net.ar horape@hcdn.gov.ar From david@IPRG.nokia.com Fri Jun 8 18:55:31 2001 From: david@IPRG.nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 10:55:31 -0700 Subject: Problems with the registry. In-Reply-To: <20010608080953.A15319@tinuviel.compendium.net.ar> References: <20010608080953.A15319@tinuviel.compendium.net.ar> Message-ID: <20010608105531.A15317@iprg.nokia.com> Horacio, On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 08:09:53AM -0300, horape@tinuviel.compendium.net.ar wrote: > > I've written to registry@viagenie.qc.ca, but received no answer so I ask > publically for somebody who can help us. > > When trying to register the new Columbian island we get: > > *ERROR*: unknown country code: "CO" > *ERROR*: contact for addition to the valid country list > *ERROR*: if you believe that CO is a valid ISO 3166 country code > > as the answer (CO is, of course, the ISO 3166 country code for Colombia) > > Is somebody here able to correct that? The original error message that was send by the database software contained the email address of the person to contact about this problem and it also mentioned that the country code possibly had to be added manually by the database maintainer. Looking at your email message, it looks like the email address was stripped out by the viagenie database webinterface. I will contact them and I am sure that they will fix that as soon as possible. I have added 'CO' to the list of possible country codes so you should be fine now. Don't hesitate to contact me privately if you have more questions. Thanks, David K. --- From fink@es.net Sat Jun 9 18:55:14 2001 From: fink@es.net (Bob Fink) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 10:55:14 -0700 Subject: 6bone pTLA 3FFE:8220::/28 allocated to DREN Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010609105134.00aaa8d0@imap2.es.net> DREN has been allocated pTLA 3FFE:8220::/28 having finished its 2-week review period. Note that it will take a short while for their pTLA inet6num entry to appear in the 6bone registry as they have to create it themselves. However, their registration is listed on: Thanks, Bob From fink@es.net Sat Jun 9 19:28:39 2001 From: fink@es.net (Bob Fink) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 11:28:39 -0700 Subject: 6bone pTLA 3FFE:8230::/28 allocated to INTEC Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010609112724.027f6248@imap2.es.net> INTEC has been allocated pTLA 3FFE:8230::/28 having finished its 2-week review period. Note that it will take a short while for their pTLA inet6num entry to appear in the 6bone registry as they have to create it themselves. However, their registration is listed on: Thanks, Bob From ina@mimos.my Tue Jun 12 10:30:00 2001 From: ina@mimos.my (Raja Azlina Raja Mahmood) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:30:00 +0800 (MYT) Subject: IPv6 tunnel broker from Malaysia Message-ID: Hi All, We had just implemented our tunnel broker and would like to invite you to try it out(tbroker.manis.net.my). Appreciate if you could inform us your OS(version ??) and the status. We value your feedback. Unfortunately, the OSes covered are limited to Linux, WinNT/2OOO and *BSD. If there's a request, we'll try to incorporate other OS as well. We are trying to provide /48 subnet but not sure how it is done. Appreciate if others can share their experience in doing so. Thanks. regards, ~azlina ---------------------------------------------------- Visit us at: www.manis.net.my ---------------------------------------------------- From jcomeau@dialtoneinternet.net Tue Jun 12 17:42:17 2001 From: jcomeau@dialtoneinternet.net (John Comeau) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:42:17 -0400 Subject: 6to4 clarification needed Message-ID: <3B264669.54C3013C@dialtoneinternet.net> I've read all I could find on the web regarding 6to4, and am somewhat confused. Since the IPV4 address of the target router is embedded in the IPV6 address, shouldn't my IPV6 stack be smart enough to follow ipv4 routing for all 6to4 traffic? So, my relay router would only need to be used for inbound traffic and for non-6to4 IPV6 outbound traffic? I was thinking of hacking the sit.c source to make it treat 6to4 traffic in this manner. Or has someone already done this for linux? Is the freebsd stf device what I'm looking for? Of course I could, as some 6to4 descriptions say, route all my IPV6 traffic to the relay router, but isn't that somehow defeating the beauty of the 6to4 mechanism, being able to use all my available links to route the traffic? Not to mention, if another host on my network starts using 6to4, it doesn't make much sense having to talk to him via the 6bone when he's reachable on my LAN. -- John Comeau - Chief Technology Officer Dialtone Internet - Extremely Fast Web Systems phone://954-581-0097x113 fax://954-581-7629 mailto://jcomeau@dialtoneinternet.net http://www.dialtoneinternet.net From pekkas@netcore.fi Tue Jun 12 22:17:46 2001 From: pekkas@netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:17:46 +0300 (EEST) Subject: 6to4 clarification needed In-Reply-To: <3B264669.54C3013C@dialtoneinternet.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, John Comeau wrote: > I've read all I could find on the web regarding 6to4, and am somewhat > confused. Since the IPV4 address of the target router is embedded in the IPV6 > address, shouldn't my IPV6 stack be smart enough to follow ipv4 routing for > all 6to4 traffic? So, my relay router would only need to be used for inbound > traffic and for non-6to4 IPV6 outbound traffic? > > I was thinking of hacking the sit.c source to make it treat 6to4 traffic in > this manner. Or has someone already done this for linux? Is the freebsd stf > device what I'm looking for? This is exactly what's happening; if the destination address is a 6to4 address, a tunnel is created automatically (in sit.c in Linux 2.4). FreeBSD stf does the same thing. > Of course I could, as some 6to4 descriptions say, route all my IPV6 traffic to > the relay router, but isn't that somehow defeating the beauty of the 6to4 > mechanism, being able to use all my available links to route the traffic? Not > to mention, if another host on my network starts using 6to4, it doesn't make > much sense having to talk to him via the 6bone when he's reachable on my LAN. The tunneling is done before routing table is considered, so adding 2000::/3 to point to your relay router will not route _6to4_ traffic there. You can observe the behaviour by running tcpdump when pinging 6to4 addresses. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords From alh-ietf@tndh.net Tue Jun 12 22:50:57 2001 From: alh-ietf@tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:50:57 -0700 Subject: 6to4 clarification needed In-Reply-To: <3B264669.54C3013C@dialtoneinternet.net> Message-ID: John, Part of your confusion appears to be separating the destinations with IPv4-derived prefixes from those with other global prefixes (frequently called native). Sorting through the terminology, the 6to4-relay is a router that ties the environment using native prefixes to the IPv4 network so that 6to4-routers at sites can access the native environment. When 6to4-routers tunnel with each other they extract the IPv4 address, but when the destination prefix has no IPv4 component they simply 'default' to the 6to4-relay. Another part appears to be deciding when a host would act as its own 6to4-router vs. having the IPv4 router also provide that function. The simple answer is this is a local decision, but if the router is providing the service it should do so in both directions. It appears from your description that you have a fully routed public IPv4 network; so all hosts could (and in my opinion should) act as their own 6to4-router. If my interpretation is true, they would talk over local tunnels rather than through the 6bone. The implementation where the difference is easy to describe is when the IPv4 environment is broken by NAT. In those cases the NAT should act as the 6to4-router since it is the one that knows the current public IPv4 address. If it is a dumb NAT, one of the hosts behind it could be configured to act as the IPv6 router for the segment by providing it with knowledge of the public IPv4 address, while configuring the NAT to pass protocol 41 traffic to it (of course manual configuration and dynamically allocated IPv4 addresses create an interesting operational concern). Either way there is one device acting as the IPv6 router, sending RAs to the segment so the other hosts believe they are on an IPv6 network. While it would be possible to configure each host behind a NAT to act as its own router for the outbound traffic, the inbound would have to go through the one the NAT knows about, so the result is operational awkward and more difficult to debug than necessary. It would work without any hack to existing code necessary, but would require significant configuration maintenance. Hope this helps, Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-6bone@ISI.EDU [mailto:owner-6bone@ISI.EDU]On Behalf Of John Comeau Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 9:42 AM To: 6bone@ISI.EDU Subject: 6to4 clarification needed I've read all I could find on the web regarding 6to4, and am somewhat confused. Since the IPV4 address of the target router is embedded in the IPV6 address, shouldn't my IPV6 stack be smart enough to follow ipv4 routing for all 6to4 traffic? So, my relay router would only need to be used for inbound traffic and for non-6to4 IPV6 outbound traffic? I was thinking of hacking the sit.c source to make it treat 6to4 traffic in this manner. Or has someone already done this for linux? Is the freebsd stf device what I'm looking for? Of course I could, as some 6to4 descriptions say, route all my IPV6 traffic to the relay router, but isn't that somehow defeating the beauty of the 6to4 mechanism, being able to use all my available links to route the traffic? Not to mention, if another host on my network starts using 6to4, it doesn't make much sense having to talk to him via the 6bone when he's reachable on my LAN. -- John Comeau - Chief Technology Officer Dialtone Internet - Extremely Fast Web Systems phone://954-581-0097x113 fax://954-581-7629 mailto://jcomeau@dialtoneinternet.net http://www.dialtoneinternet.net From Amit.Schnitzer@orange.co.il Wed Jun 13 14:16:21 2001 From: Amit.Schnitzer@orange.co.il (Amit Schnitzer) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:16:21 +0200 Subject: 6bone related Questions Message-ID: <968264FD6D32D4118EFC00805FC799B701190AA4@orange.co.il> Hi everyone, I recently posted a question regarding the 6bone project, but got no response. I am posting the same question again because I am not sure it got to its destination the last time. Here goes... I'm trying to figure out how to connect my organization to the 6bone project. My problem is that I am located in Israel and as far as I understand no organization from Israel has yet filed a request to register as a pTLA. Does anybody know of such organization ? can you think of an alternative pTLA that we can connect to (who's the preferred from our point of view ?)? In addition, I am trying to figure out all the implications that might rise as a result of connecting to the 6bone project: Financial implications - equipment, manpower, registration fees and etc. Time implications - registration period, project participation period and etc. What should I do once I am connected to the 6bone ? Are there special daily tasks or "to-do list" or should I sit back and relax until I'll get my pTLA assignment ? I'll be happy If you have any information regarding the above. Thanks in advance Amit Schnitzer Network and Security team Partner Communications Company Ltd. Tel: 03-9055765 Mobile: 054-815765 From mh@kompetenz-center.de Wed Jun 13 15:30:51 2001 From: mh@kompetenz-center.de (Marc Herbrechter) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 16:30:51 +0200 Subject: kernel: ndisc_send_redirect: not a neighbour Message-ID: <002901c0f415$72825ad0$176901d9@zebroc> Moinsen, I have a problem with my IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel. I use linux-2.2.19 with the openwall patch and when I start the tunnel, I get the following messages again and again. After about 10 days my server crashes. I think this has to do with the messages. Can anyone help me out with this? I searched on Google but found nothing of interest. --snip-- Jun 13 16:19:03 churchill kernel: ndisc_send_redirect: not a neighbour Jun 13 16:19:33 churchill last message repeated 35 times --snip-- Best regards, Marc Herbrechter From fink@es.net Wed Jun 13 16:08:49 2001 From: fink@es.net (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:08:49 -0700 Subject: 6bone related Questions In-Reply-To: <968264FD6D32D4118EFC00805FC799B701190AA4@orange.co.il> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010613075723.02a6e770@imap2.es.net> Amit, At 03:16 PM 6/13/2001 +0200, Amit Schnitzer wrote: >Hi everyone, > >I recently posted a question regarding the 6bone project, but got no >response. >I am posting the same question again because I am not sure it got to its >destination the last time. >Here goes... > >I'm trying to figure out how to connect my organization to the 6bone >project. >My problem is that I am located in Israel and as far as I understand no >organization from Israel has yet filed a request to register as a pTLA. That's correct. >Does anybody know of such organization ? can you think of an alternative >pTLA that we can connect to (who's the preferred from our point of view ?)? As always when doing configured tunnels, you need to pick a few from the 6bone pTLA list and try traceroutes to them to see if they are reasonable for you. Have you read this section on the 6bone hookup page? Also, you can come up using 6to4. See . Also, you can talk to Ron Broersma: person: Ron Broersma address: SPAWAR Systems Center, San Diego phone: +1 619 553 2293 e-mail: ron@spawar.navy.mil nic-hdl: RLB1-6BONE notify: ron@spawar.navy.mil changed: ron@spawar.navy.mil 20010221 source: 6BONE He used 6to4 to get DREN up and qualified for its pTLA this way. >In addition, I am trying to figure out all the implications that might rise >as a result of connecting to the 6bone project: >Financial implications - equipment, manpower, registration fees and etc. Very little is needed until it becomes production for you (presumably that will be a while from now). Some pTLAs spend more than others to be on the 6bone, but I think it is proportional to their network size/scope and how production they want to make it. >Time implications - registration period, project participation period and >etc. That's covered in the requesting a pTLA page: >What should I do once I am connected to the 6bone ? Are there special daily >tasks or "to-do list" or should I sit back and relax until I'll get my pTLA >assignment ? Again, the pTLA request page, and read RFC2772: If you have more questions, please ask me. Thanks, Bob From psb@ast.cam.ac.uk Wed Jun 13 16:18:18 2001 From: psb@ast.cam.ac.uk (Peter Bunclark) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 16:18:18 +0100 (BST) Subject: 6bone related Questions In-Reply-To: <968264FD6D32D4118EFC00805FC799B701190AA4@orange.co.il> Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Amit Schnitzer wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I recently posted a question regarding the 6bone project, but got no > response. > I am posting the same question again because I am not sure it got to its > destination the last time. > Here goes... > > I'm trying to figure out how to connect my organization to the 6bone > project. > My problem is that I am located in Israel and as far as I understand no > organization from Israel has yet filed a request to register as a pTLA. > Does anybody know of such organization ? can you think of an alternative > pTLA that we can connect to (who's the preferred from our point of view ?)? > In addition, I am trying to figure out all the implications that might rise > as a result of connecting to the 6bone project: > Financial implications - equipment, manpower, registration fees and etc. > Time implications - registration period, project participation period and > etc. > What should I do once I am connected to the 6bone ? Are there special daily > tasks or "to-do list" or should I sit back and relax until I'll get my pTLA > assignment ? > > I'll be happy If you have any information regarding the above. > Thanks in advance > > > Amit Schnitzer > Network and Security team > Partner Communications Company Ltd. > Tel: 03-9055765 > Mobile: 054-815765 > > A traceroute from the UK to ns1.orange.co.il goes through ix-4-0.bb8.NewYork.Teleglobe.net immediately before the hop to Israel - so I guess searching for someone in New York for a tunnel might be a good approach? Pete. From nsayer@quack.kfu.com Fri Jun 15 00:36:31 2001 From: nsayer@quack.kfu.com (Nick Sayer) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:36:31 -0700 Subject: 6to4 clarification needed References: Message-ID: <3B294A7F.2070607@quack.kfu.com> Tony Hain wrote: [...] > > Another part appears to be deciding when a host would act as its own > 6to4-router vs. having the IPv4 router also provide that function. The > simple answer is this is a local decision, but if the router is providing > the service it should do so in both directions. It appears from your > description that you have a fully routed public IPv4 network; so all hosts > could (and in my opinion should) act as their own 6to4-router. [...] The difficulty with that is that if a host is its own 6to4 router, then its own IP address will be in its prefix. Which is fine if it's just a host on its own. But if you have a network full of hosts, then it is better to have a single machine act as a router and prefix supplier. Then all your hosts will network within a single IPv6 network rather than each one being in its own network and communicating with 6to4 to other machines on the same piece of cable. From alh-ietf@tndh.net Fri Jun 15 02:08:46 2001 From: alh-ietf@tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 18:08:46 -0700 Subject: 6to4 clarification needed In-Reply-To: <3B294A7F.2070607@quack.kfu.com> Message-ID: Nick Sayer wrote: > ... rather than each one being in its own network and > communicating with 6to4 to other machines on the same piece > of cable. Yes this is correct, but you are trying to optimize protocol overhead in a place it rarely matters, while I was suggesting that the operational simplicity of having all hosts use their own IPv4 address would allow them to traverse an arbitrary IPv4 network topology. Tony From fink@es.net Mon Jun 18 16:04:17 2001 From: fink@es.net (Bob Fink) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 08:04:17 -0700 Subject: 6bone pTLA 3FFE:8240::/28 allocated to ITESM Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010618080031.00b0f4e8@imap2.es.net> ITESM in Mexico has been allocated pTLA 3FFE:8240::/28 having finished its 2-week review period. Note that it will take a short while for their pTLA inet6num entry to appear in the 6bone registry as they have to create it themselves. However, their registration is listed on: Thanks, Bob From fink@es.net Tue Jun 19 07:38:01 2001 From: fink@es.net (Bob Fink) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 23:38:01 -0700 Subject: pTLA request for NTT-SMC - review closes 2 July 2001 Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010618232855.04de3df8@imap2.es.net> 6bone Folk, NTT-SMC has requested a pTLA allocation. The open review period for this request will close 2 July 2001. Please send your comments to me or the list. As has been noted by various comments to this list, your comments on these pTLA requests do matter, so please don't hesitate to voice your support or concerns. Thanks, Bob === Dear Bob, This is Yoshiyuki KINUGAWA of NTT SMARTCONNECT Corp., (following organization of NTT-TE Kansai) which is one of the Internet Data Center in Japan. I am writing in connection to pTLA address allocation. Our request for pTLA is as below and we are looking forward to your reply. ================================ [request form of pTLA] ================================ 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: We have about two years experience as a 6Bone end-site. 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. inet6num: 3FFE:1800:2020::/48 netname: NTT-SMC descr: SLA delegation for the NTT-ECL country: JP admin-c: NO2-6BONE admin-c: NO7-6BONE tech-c: NO2-6BONE tech-c: NO7-6BONE remarks: This object is automatically converted from the RIPE181 registry mnt-by: NTT-SMC-MNT changed: nin@slab.ntt.co.jp 19990825 changed: auto-dbm@whois.6bone.net 20010117 changed: sasaki@nttv6.net 20010529 changed: sasaki@nttv6.net 20010614 changed: sasaki@nttv6.net 20010614 source: 6BONE ipv6-site: NTT-SMC origin: AS4697 descr: SLA delegation for the NTT-ECL country: JP prefix: 3FFE:1800:2020::/48 application: ping pf-gw.v6.mcnet.ad.jp application: ping ns.v6.mcnet.ad.jp application: http www.v6.mcnet.ad.jp contact: NO7-6BONE remarks: NATIVE pf-gw.v6.mcnet.ad.jp -> cygnus.nttv6.net NTT-ECL BGP4+ remarks: NATIVE pf-gw.v6.mcnet.ad.jp -> PF-gw.ipv6.nttwestlabs.net NTT-WEST BGP4+ remarks: This object is automatically converted from the RIPE181 registry notify: ntt-registry@nttslb.slab.ntt.co.jp mnt-by: NTT-SMC-MNT changed: tkonishi@nttv6.net 19990827 changed: auto-dbm@whois.6bone.net 20010117 changed: sasaki@nttv6.net 20010529 changed: sasaki@nttv6.net 20010614 changed: sasaki@nttv6.net 20010614 changed: sasaki@nttv6.net 20010614 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. Our network is connected to NTT-ECL and NTT-WEST with native link using BGP4+. Our ipv6 router is configured as pf-gw.v6.mcnet.ad.jp (3FFE:1803:0:1::7671:1), and it works only IPv6 protocle (not IPv4 pingable). c. Fully maintained DNS forward (AAAA) and reverse (ip6.int) entries for the Applicant's router(s) and at least one host system. We maintain the nameserver forward (AAAA) and reverse (ip6.int) entries on ns.v6.mcnet.ad.jp. # host -t aaaa ns.v6.mcnet.ad.jp. ns.v6.mcnet.ad.jp. Using domain server: Name: ns.v6.mcnet.ad.jp. Address: 3ffe:1800:2020::53#53 Aliases: ns.v6.mcnet.ad.jp. has AAAA address 3ffe:1800:2020::53 # host -n 3ffe:1800:2020::53 ns.v6.mcnet.ad.jp. Using domain server: Name: ns.v6.mcnet.ad.jp. Address: 3ffe:1800:2020::53#53 Aliases: 3.5.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.2.0.0.8.1.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. domainname pointer ns.v6.mcnet.ad.jp. # host -t aaaa pf-gw.v6.mcnet.ad.jp. ns.v6.mcnet.ad.jp. Using domain server: Name: ns.v6.mcnet.ad.jp. Address: 3ffe:1800:2020::53#53 Aliases: pf-gw.v6.mcnet.ad.jp. has AAAA address 3ffe:1800:2020::1 # host -n 3ffe:1800:2020::1 ns.v6.mcnet.ad.jp. Using domain server: Name: ns.v6.mcnet.ad.jp. Address: 3ffe:1800:2020::53#53 Aliases: 1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.2.0.0.8.1.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. domainname pointer pf-gw.v6.mcnet.ad.jp. 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. http://www.v6.mcnet.ad.jp/ You can access it on only IPv6. 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. contact: YK123-AP contact: TU10-AP 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. notify: v6@mcnet.ad.jp 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. NTT SMARTCONNECT Corp. operates an Internet Data Center based on a broadband Internet connection with major ISPs. We would like to provide IPv6 connectibity to our customers' servers by tunnel or native. 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. Yes, We commit and agree the 6bone rules and policies. Sincerely, --- NTT SmartConnect Corp. Operation &Technical Support Yoshiyuki Kinugawa (yosiyuki@mcnet.ad.jp) -end From sean.lin@alliedtelesyn.co.nz, mtl23@student.canterbury.ac.nz Wed Jun 20 02:52:35 2001 From: sean.lin@alliedtelesyn.co.nz, mtl23@student.canterbury.ac.nz (Sean Lin) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:52:35 +1200 (NZT) Subject: ipv6 network measurement Message-ID: <3B30AA40.26461.19904BB0@localhost> This is probably the wrong discussion group to ask this question but anyway....Does anyone know if there is an ipv6 version for ttcp, netperf or netpipe? regards, Sean ------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Lin 27 Nazareth Avenue Software Engineer PO Box 8011 Allied Telesyn Research Christchurch phone +64 3 339 3000 New Zealand fax +64 3 339 3002 email: sean.lin@alliedtelesyn.co.nz web: http://www.alliedtelesyn.co.nz/ ------------------------------------------------------------- From chuck+6bone@snew.com Wed Jun 20 06:28:42 2001 From: chuck+6bone@snew.com (Chuck Yerkes) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 22:28:42 -0700 Subject: ipv6 network measurement In-Reply-To: <3B30AA40.26461.19904BB0@localhost>; from sean.lin@alliedtelesyn.co.nz on Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 01:52:35PM +1200 References: <3B30AA40.26461.19904BB0@localhost> Message-ID: <20010619222842.A30803@snew.com> Quoting Sean Lin (sean.lin@alliedtelesyn.co.nz): > This is probably the wrong discussion group to ask this question but > anyway....Does anyone know if there is an ipv6 version for ttcp, netperf or > netpipe? It likely is, but ARE there better lists? I'm envisioning OS focussed lists like: linux@lists.WHATEVER BSD@lists.WHATEVER solaris@ aix@ Yeah, the vendors (groups, whatever) should have it, but an umbrella group also makes the same sense. and perhaps misc@ For general discussion coders@ For coding talk. I'm not really delighted with (likely growing) "I'm running Suse 7.1 and trying to configure foo..." perhaps only because I DON'T run linux and it seems that their should be a better place. From 6bone@ISI.EDU Wed Jun 20 07:44:47 2001 From: 6bone@ISI.EDU (Jasper Jongmans) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 08:44:47 +0200 Subject: ipv6 network measurement In-Reply-To: <3B30AA40.26461.19904BB0@localhost>; from sean.lin@alliedtelesyn.co.nz on Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 03:52:35 +0200 References: <3B30AA40.26461.19904BB0@localhost> Message-ID: <20010620084447.A351@muisje.aprogas.cx> On 2001/06/20 03:52:35 Sean Lin wrote: > This is probably the wrong discussion group to ask this question but > anyway....Does anyone know if there is an ipv6 version for ttcp, netperf > or netpipe? Try . There you can find IPv6 patches for netperf. -- Jasper Jongmans j.jongmans@aprogas.cx Website http://130.89.222.57/~aprogas/ PGP key ftp://130.89.222.57/keys/pgp_dss.asc From andre@grueneberg.de Wed Jun 20 08:35:44 2001 From: andre@grueneberg.de (Andre Grueneberg) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 09:35:44 +0200 Subject: ipv6 network measurement In-Reply-To: <3B30AA40.26461.19904BB0@localhost> Message-ID: <20010620093544.A662@leela.home.grueneberg.de> Sean Lin wrote: > This is probably the wrong discussion group to ask this question but > anyway....Does anyone know if there is an ipv6 version for ttcp, netperf or > netpipe? There's a patch for netperf on the KAME ftp server. Andre -- One fifth of the people are against everything all the time. From andreas@corp.home.net Wed Jun 20 16:23:18 2001 From: andreas@corp.home.net (Andreas Ott) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 08:23:18 -0700 Subject: ipv6 network measurement In-Reply-To: <3B30AA40.26461.19904BB0@localhost>; from sean.lin@alliedtelesyn.co.nz on Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 01:52:35PM +1200 References: <3B30AA40.26461.19904BB0@localhost> Message-ID: <20010620082318.A21000@bear.eos.home.net> Hi, On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 01:52:35PM +1200, Sean Lin wrote: > This is probably the wrong discussion group to ask this question but > anyway....Does anyone know if there is an ipv6 version for ttcp, netperf or > netpipe? >From the file ..../src/netperf-2.1pl3/makefile : # -DDO_IPV6 - Include tests which use a sockets interface to IPV6. # The control connection remains IPV4 My netperf source comes from http://www.netperf.org/ . I have not yet tried using this 'feature'. -andreas -- Andreas Ott andreas@excitehome.net Network Architect @Home Network http://www.excitehome.net/ Excite@Home 450 Broadway Street Redwood City, CA 94063-3132 USA phone +1 (650) 556-5460 fax +1 (650) 569-5856 pager +1 (650) 524-8073 From tito@fe.up.pt Fri Jun 22 19:56:53 2001 From: tito@fe.up.pt (Tito Carlos S. Vieira) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 19:56:53 +0100 Subject: Routing Header question Message-ID: <3B3394F4.299D0E7D@fe.up.pt> Hello, I'm studing the IPv6 protocol and after reading the "Internet Protocol Verson 6 Specification" (RFC2460) i have some dificult to understand the information of routing header (extension header). In page 11 refer " ... The Routing header is used by an IPv6 source to list one or more intermediate nodes to be "visited" on the way to a packet's destination. This function is very similar to IPv4's Loose Source and Record Route option.... " and in page 14 refer "... A Routing header is not examined or processed until it reaches the node identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header. ..." I understand routing header as a method to save part of, or entire path, to destination of a packet and all intermediate routers look the information of vector of "addresses " (when extension header exist) in routing header, and based on this information forward the packect to the next address in the vector of addresses of routing header. I suppose this need to examine and process routing header in all intermediate nodes but in page 14 i can see that ideia are incorrect and routing header is only examined in the Destination Address.Can anyone help me to understand very well the goal of Routing Header? Maybe this is one basic question but i'm begginer :) Thank you before Tito From kre@munnari.OZ.AU Sat Jun 23 11:17:42 2001 From: kre@munnari.OZ.AU (Robert Elz) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 17:17:42 +0700 Subject: Routing Header question In-Reply-To: <3B3394F4.299D0E7D@fe.up.pt> References: <3B3394F4.299D0E7D@fe.up.pt> Message-ID: <2274.993291462@brandenburg.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 19:56:53 +0100 From: "Tito Carlos S. Vieira" Message-ID: <3B3394F4.299D0E7D@fe.up.pt> | I understand routing header as a method to save part of, or entire path, | to destination of a packet and all intermediate routers look the | information of vector of "addresses " (when extension header exist) in | routing header, and based on this information forward the packect to the | next address in the vector of addresses of routing header. I suppose | this need to examine and process routing header in all intermediate | nodes but in page 14 i can see that ideia are incorrect and routing | header is only examined in the Destination Address.Can anyone help me to | understand very well the goal of Routing Header? It isn't "save the path" that is intended, though that's a side effect, it is to cause the packet to take a particular path. The idea is that if you want to send a packet from A to D, and at the same time (for any reason appropriate) want the packet to be routed via B and C, you construct a packet with source addr A, dest addr B, and then include a routing header containing C and D. When the packet arrives at B (any routers between A and B just see a packet destined to B) B sees the routing header, sees it is not exhausted, and exchanges its address from the destination header with the current routing header slot and advances the pointer - so now there's a packet from A to C, with the routing header containing B and D (with the pointer at D). B transmits that to C, again intermediate routers just forward the packet to C. WHen it arrives there, the routing header is noticed again, it isn't exhausted, so C swaps its address with that of the next slot (D) in the destination, and advances the pointer. Now there's a packet from A to D, with B and C in the routing header, and the pointer indicating no more routes left. C sends that packet to D. When it arrives there, D sees the routing header, but now it is empty, so nothing left to do (other than save it for later reference if needed) and the next header in the chain is interpreted (which may result in delivery of the packet to TCP or something). The saved routing header tells the path used - mostly so a reply can be sent back the reverse path. kre From jcomeau@dialtoneinternet.net Mon Jun 25 21:09:53 2001 From: jcomeau@dialtoneinternet.net (John Comeau) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 16:09:53 -0400 Subject: 6to4 clarification needed References: <3B264669.54C3013C@dialtoneinternet.net> Message-ID: <3B379A91.90CF4242@dialtoneinternet.net> Thanks for all the responses. The one that was most pertinent to me was from Pekka Savola, who informed me that I needed to upgrade to the 2.4 kernel to have a 'sit' device that knows about 6to4. See the complete story at http://ipv6.dialtoneinternet.net. I would appreciate direct emails (not to the list) regarding my connectivity from other corners of the 6bone. John Comeau wrote: > > I've read all I could find on the web regarding 6to4, and am somewhat > confused. Since the IPV4 address of the target router is embedded in the IPV6 > address, shouldn't my IPV6 stack be smart enough to follow ipv4 routing for > all 6to4 traffic? So, my relay router would only need to be used for inbound > traffic and for non-6to4 IPV6 outbound traffic? > > I was thinking of hacking the sit.c source to make it treat 6to4 traffic in > this manner. Or has someone already done this for linux? Is the freebsd stf > device what I'm looking for? > > Of course I could, as some 6to4 descriptions say, route all my IPV6 traffic to > the relay router, but isn't that somehow defeating the beauty of the 6to4 > mechanism, being able to use all my available links to route the traffic? Not > to mention, if another host on my network starts using 6to4, it doesn't make > much sense having to talk to him via the 6bone when he's reachable on my LAN. > -- > John Comeau - Chief Technology Officer > Dialtone Internet - Extremely Fast Web Systems > phone://954-581-0097x113 fax://954-581-7629 > mailto://jcomeau@dialtoneinternet.net http://www.dialtoneinternet.net -- John Comeau - Chief Technology Officer Dialtone Internet - Extremely Fast Web Systems phone://954-581-0097x113 fax://954-581-7629 mailto://jcomeau@dialtoneinternet.net http://www.dialtoneinternet.net From benchoff@vt.edu Wed Jun 27 19:44:50 2001 From: benchoff@vt.edu (Phil Benchoff) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 14:44:50 -0400 Subject: Subnet ingress access lists Message-ID: <20010627144450.A29142@groupw.cns.vt.edu> We use ingress and egress filters on our IPv4 connections to upstream providers. We also use ingress filters on all of the campus subnets. A typical IPv4 ingress access list for a subnet looks like this: Permit global IP4 prefix assigned to this subnet to any Permit host addresses of the other interfaces on multi-homed hosts to any (any interface may be the source of a packet, not just the one on this subnet) Permit unspecified address to broadcast port bootps (because we forward DHCP) Deny all others This appears to be a bit more complicated with IPv6. The following is what I have come up with so far: Permit global unicast prefix assigned to this subnet to any Permit global unicast prefixes of multi-homed hosts other interfaces (/128s) to any. Permit site-local for this subnet to site-local Permit site-local for this subnet to site's global unicast Permit site-local for this subnet to site-local multicast (ff05::/16) Permit site-local interfaces on multi-homed hosts to site's global unicast Permit site-local interfaces on multi-homed hosts to site-local Permit link-local prefix to link-local unicast of router Permit link-local prefix to link-local multicast Permit unspecified to link-local multicast (ff02::/16) (required for duplicate address detection) (required so no other hosts use router's link-local address) (should really only need router interface solicited-node multicast) I suspect a lot of this will be covered by an "ipv6 verify unicast reverse-path" command with enhancements similar to the one for IPv4. 12.2(2)T does not support the log keyword, so I haven't experimented much to see what is really required in the access list. Has anyone else given it any thought? Phil From horape@tinuviel.compendium.net.ar Wed Jun 27 20:31:30 2001 From: horape@tinuviel.compendium.net.ar (horape@tinuviel.compendium.net.ar) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 16:31:30 -0300 Subject: Routing policy question. Message-ID: <20010627163130.A19953@tinuviel.compendium.net.ar> ¡Hola! RFC 2772 says that you can only to your upstreams your fully aggregated prefix, but it doesn't tells what to advertise to your downstreams. (From 4. :) All 6bone pTLAs MUST NOT advertise prefixes longer than a given pTLA delegation (currently /24 or /28) to other 6bone pTLAs unless special peering arrangements are implemented. ("to other 6bone pTLAs" does imply that this is not a requeriment when talking to a downstream?) Thanks, HoraPe --- Horacio J. Peña horape@compendium.com.ar horape@uninet.edu bofh@puntoar.net.ar horape@hcdn.gov.ar From tony@lava.net Wed Jun 27 22:31:05 2001 From: tony@lava.net (Antonio Querubin) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:31:05 -1000 (HST) Subject: Subnet ingress access lists In-Reply-To: <20010627144450.A29142@groupw.cns.vt.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Phil Benchoff wrote: > A typical IPv4 ingress access list for a subnet looks like this: > > Permit global IP4 prefix assigned to this subnet to any > Permit host addresses of the other interfaces on multi-homed hosts to any > (any interface may be the source of a packet, not just the one > on this subnet) > Permit unspecified address to broadcast port bootps > (because we forward DHCP) > Deny all others > > This appears to be a bit more complicated with IPv6. The following > is what I have come up with so far: > > Permit global unicast prefix assigned to this subnet to any > Permit global unicast prefixes of multi-homed hosts other interfaces (/128s) to any. > Permit site-local for this subnet to site-local > Permit site-local for this subnet to site's global unicast > Permit site-local for this subnet to site-local multicast (ff05::/16) > Permit site-local interfaces on multi-homed hosts to site's global unicast > Permit site-local interfaces on multi-homed hosts to site-local > Permit link-local prefix to link-local unicast of router > Permit link-local prefix to link-local multicast > Permit unspecified to link-local multicast (ff02::/16) > (required for duplicate address detection) > (required so no other hosts use router's link-local address) > (should really only need router interface solicited-node multicast) The last one should probably be to the site-local multicast/anycast or specific server IP addresses if you want to be more discriminating. > I suspect a lot of this will be covered by an "ipv6 verify unicast > reverse-path" command with enhancements similar to the one for IPv4. > 12.2(2)T does not support the log keyword, so I haven't experimented > much to see what is really required in the access list. Has anyone else > given it any thought? It's a good list though my head hurts thinking about it :) From sean.lin@alliedtelesyn.co.nz Thu Jun 28 00:05:57 2001 From: sean.lin@alliedtelesyn.co.nz (Sean Lin) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:05:57 +1200 (NZT) Subject: ipv6 netperf Message-ID: <3B3B0F31.18841.422BD0DA@localhost> Has anyone managed to get netperf 2.1pl3 running on ipv6 to work? Sean ------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Lin 27 Nazareth Avenue Software Engineer PO Box 8011 Allied Telesyn Research Christchurch phone +64 3 339 3000 New Zealand fax +64 3 339 3002 email: sean.lin@alliedtelesyn.co.nz web: http://www.alliedtelesyn.co.nz/ -------------------------------------------------------------