From bob@thefinks.com Mon Dec 1 17:48:29 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 09:48:29 -0800 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by TOWARDEX - review closes 15 December 2003 Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031201094250.02b13d38@mail.addr.com> 6bone Folk, TOWARDEX has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this closes 15 December 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. This may be the last 6bone pTLA allocation made as the phaseout plan specifies no new pTLA allocations after the end of this year. Thus if anyone is expecting to request a pTLA, the request must be sent to me no later than 5 December to allow enough review and approval time prior to 31 December. Thanks, Bob === >Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:57:27 -0500 >From: Haesu >To: bob@thefinks.com >Cc: rad@towardex.com, tim@towardex.com, clifford@cnacs.occaid.org >Subject: pTLA request by TOWARDEX > >Hello Bob, > >I would like to request a pTLA for TOWARDEX. Please see the relevant >information below: > >Thank you, >-hc >Haesu C. >TowardEX Technologies, Inc. > >P.S.: I've tried to send you this to fink@es.net according to the 6bone >web site, but it bounced, so I am sending this to you at thefinks.com. >Thanks > >--- >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: > >TOWARDEX established 6bone connectivity since June of 2003. > > 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. > >ipv6-site: TOWARDEX >origin: AS30071 >descr: OCCAIDTowardEX IPv6 Backbone Network > Network Center - Weehawken, NJ >country: US >prefix: 2001:470:112::/48 >prefix: 3FFE:4010:A00E::/48 >application: http www.twdx.net >application: http www.occaid.org >application: ping www.occaid.org >application: ping 6to4relay.ngtran.twdx.net >tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 oct.towardex.com -> 6bone.enterzone.net >ENTERZONE BGP4+ >tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 oct.towardex.com -> nyc.ipv6.he.net HURRICANE BGP4+ >tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 isc.towardex.com -> fmt.ipv6.he.net HURRICANE BGP4+ >tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 oct.towardex.com -> 66.252.21.200 CIT BGP4+ >tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 isc.towardex.com -> 6bone.lava.net LAVANET BGP4+ >tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 sfo.towardex.com -> core1.dllstx1.syn2.net >VLINK BGP4+ >tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 isc.towardex.com -> 69.22.171.192 EMIC BGP4+ >contact: RAD-6BONE >contact: HDJ1-6BONE >contact: TWDX-6BONE >contact: ATD7-6BONE >remarks: The OCCAID/TowardEX IPv6 network has been operational since >June of 2003. >remarks: ip6.int and ip6.arpa zones for 3ffe:4010:a00e::/48 and >2001:470:112::/48 has been operational since October of 2003. >remarks: OCCAID/TowardEX runs a national IPv6 network, with access >POPs in Boston, New York, San Francisco, Houston, and more. >remarks: Tunnel and peering requests are welcome - send to >ip-admin@twdx.net >mnt-by: MAINT-TOWARDEX >changed: rad@towardex.com 20031016 >changed: rad@towardex.com 20031017 >changed: haesu@towardex.com 20031130 >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. > >We have BGP upstream connectivity with ENTERZONE, HURRICANE and LAVANET at two >different routers and locations of our network. > >Our routers (isc.towardex.com, oct.towardex.com, sfo.towardex.com) are >IPv6 pingable. > > c. Fully maintained DNS forward (AAAA) and reverse (ip6.int) > entries for the Applicant's router(s) and at least one host > system. > >$ host -t aaaa isc.towardex.com >isc.towardex.com has address 2001:470:1f00:758::205 >$ host -t aaaa oct.towardex.com >oct.towardex.com has address 2001:470:112:0:feed::1 >$ host -t aaaa sfo.towardex.com >sfo.towardex.com has address 2001:470:1f00:758::105 >$ host -t aaaa twdx.net >twdx.net has address 2001:470:112:c0ff:ee:0:e1ee:7 >$ host 2001:470:112:c0ff:ee:0:e1ee:7 >7.0.0.0.e.e.1.e.0.0.0.0.e.e.0.0.f.f.0.c.2.1.1.0.0.7.4.0.1.0.0.2.IP6.ARPA >domain name pointer 2001-470-112-c0ff-ee--e1ee-7.towardex.com > >primary DNS server ns1.twdx.net >secondary DNS server ns2.twdx.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. > >We have IPv6 www (www.twdx.net) as well as our IPv6 project site www >(www.occaid.org) > ># ping6 -c 1 www.twdx.net >PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2001:470:112:c0ff:ee:0:e1ee:7 --> >2001:470:112:c0ff:ee:0:e1ee:7 >16 bytes from 2001:470:112:c0ff:ee:0:e1ee:7, icmp_seq=0 hlim=64 time=0.098 ms > >--- twdx.net ping6 statistics --- >1 packets transmitted, 1 packets received, 0% packet loss >round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 0.098/0.098/0.098/0.000 ms ># ping6 -c 1 www.occaid.org >PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2001:470:1f00:758:c0ff:ee:0:1 --> >2001:470:1f00:758:c0ff:ee:0:1 >16 bytes from 2001:470:1f00:758:c0ff:ee:0:1, icmp_seq=0 hlim=64 time=0.110 ms > >--- www.occaid.org ping6 statistics --- >1 packets transmitted, 1 packets received, 0% packet loss >round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 0.110/0.110/0.110/0.000 ms > > > 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: RAD-6BONE >contact: HDJ1-6BONE >contact: ATD7-6BONE > > 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. > >person: IPv6 Technical Operations Team >address: Network Operations Center >address: TowardEX Technologies, Inc. >address: 1740 Massachusetts Avenue >address: Boxborough, MA 01719 >address: US >phone: +1-978-263-3399 170 >e-mail: ip-admin@twdx.net >nic-hdl: TWDX-6BONE >mnt-by: MAINT-TOWARDEX >changed: rad@towardex.com 20031129 >source: 6BONE > > 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. > >We have a working development backbone IPv6 network using prefix >3ffe:4010:a00e::/48 as >well as 2001:470:112::/48. We run a national North American training and >lab network >called OCCAID (www.occaid.org) with total of 227 members as of now >connected to POP routers >through both tunnel and native connectivity. Our network was started using >IPv4 initially, >and since June we have a complete IPv6 infrastructure deployed and >operational. > >Our goals are to test and deploy various IPv6 implementations through use >of different >vendor implementations and also to develop software products surrounding >the use of IPv6 >technology. > > 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 fully agree with all concurrent and future 6Bone operational rules and >policies. > > 8. 6Bone Operations Group > > The 6Bone Operations Group is the group in charge of monitoring and > policing adherence to the current rules. Membership in the 6Bone > Operations Group is mandatory for, and restricted to, sites connected > to the 6Bone. > > The 6Bone Operations Group is currently defined by those members of > the existing 6Bone mailing list who represent sites participating in > the 6Bone. Therefore it is incumbent on relevant site contacts to > join the 6Bone mailing list. Instructions on how to join the list are > maintained on the 6Bone web site at < http://www.6bone.net>. > >We've joined the 6Bone mailing list. From bob@thefinks.com Tue Dec 2 18:32:22 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:32:22 -0800 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> 6bone Folk, CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this closes 16 December 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. This may be the last 6bone pTLA allocation made as the phaseout plan specifies no new pTLA allocations after the end of this year. Thus if anyone is expecting to request a pTLA, the request must be sent to me no later than 5 December to allow enough review and approval time prior to 31 December. Thanks, Bob === >From: "Marc GOMEZ" >To: >Cc: <6bone@ctn1.net> >Subject: 6bone request form >Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 23:06:31 +0100 > >Dear Bob, > >I'd like to request a pTLA for CTN1, please find relevant info below. > > >From RFC 2772 > > >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: > >Our IPv6 site is operational since 09 August 2003. > > 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. > >http://whois.6bone.net/cgi-bin/whois?CTN1 > > > 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 ASN is 29402. >We have an IPv6 native Gigabit connexion to FNIX6. >NDSoftware (AS25358) provide us IPv6 transit through FNIX6. > > > 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 3 nameservers: > - ns1.ctn1.net > - ns2.ctn1.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. > >http://www.ctn1.com (all services are ready to use with 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. > >RP10-6BONE >MG22-6BONE >BV3-6BONE > > 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. > >6bone@ctn1.net > > 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. > >CTN1 operates an IPv6 Network and provides a lot of IPv6 services to many >projects. >We provide: Usenet Provider, Email provider and Hosting Provider with dual >IPv4 and IPv6. >All IPv6 services is free of charge. >We encourage all people to start a web site and Email server with IPv6. > > 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 agree to all current and future rules and policies. > >---- From pekkas@netcore.fi Tue Dec 2 20:13:54 2003 From: pekkas@netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:13:54 +0200 (EET) Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Bob Fink wrote: > CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this closes 16 December > 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. > > > > This may be the last 6bone pTLA allocation made as the phaseout plan > specifies no new pTLA allocations after the end of this year. Thus if > anyone is expecting to request a pTLA, the request must be sent to me no > later than 5 December to allow enough review and approval time prior to 31 > December. I do not believe this application fulfills the criteria for 2) or 3). In particular, CTN1 is clearly a web/server-hosting company; this is not backbone operations: 2. The pTLA Applicant MUST have the ability and intent to provide "production-quality" 6Bone backbone service. [...] and: 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. There was an answer to the latter, but it did not answer the real question, how would the user community be served by its becoming a *pTLA*. Sure, it's nice to give access to the users, but that can be done as an end-site as well, as is currently being done. I'd strongly object to granting this pTLA request. > === > >From: "Marc GOMEZ" > >To: > >Cc: <6bone@ctn1.net> > >Subject: 6bone request form > >Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 23:06:31 +0100 > > > >Dear Bob, > > > >I'd like to request a pTLA for CTN1, please find relevant info below. > > > > >From RFC 2772 > > > > > >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: > > > >Our IPv6 site is operational since 09 August 2003. > > > > 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. > > > >http://whois.6bone.net/cgi-bin/whois?CTN1 > > > > > > 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 ASN is 29402. > >We have an IPv6 native Gigabit connexion to FNIX6. > >NDSoftware (AS25358) provide us IPv6 transit through FNIX6. > > > > > > 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 3 nameservers: > > - ns1.ctn1.net > > - ns2.ctn1.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. > > > >http://www.ctn1.com (all services are ready to use with 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. > > > >RP10-6BONE > >MG22-6BONE > >BV3-6BONE > > > > 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. > > > >6bone@ctn1.net > > > > 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. > > > >CTN1 operates an IPv6 Network and provides a lot of IPv6 services to many > >projects. > >We provide: Usenet Provider, Email provider and Hosting Provider with dual > >IPv4 and IPv6. > >All IPv6 services is free of charge. > >We encourage all people to start a web site and Email server with IPv6. > > > > 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 agree to all current and future rules and policies. > > > >---- > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From jeroen@unfix.org Tue Dec 2 20:43:09 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:43:09 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <018701c3b914$e6ca7be0$210d640a@unfix.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Bob Fink wrote: Only a few comments: > CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this > closes 16 December > 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. > > 8<--------------------------------------------- Forbidden You don't have permission to access / on this server. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache/1.3.27 Server at www.ctn1.com Port 80 - --------------------------------------------->8 ctn1.net does exist and work apparently > > 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: > > > >Our IPv6 site is operational since 09 August 2003. The site object was last changed: changed: mg@ctn1.com 20031118 The person objects all have a changed date of 20031113 or 20031118 and didn't exist before that apparently. As for cnt1.net reg_created: 2003-08-06 09:30:00 expires: 2004-08-06 09:30:00 created: 2003-08-06 15:30:01 changed: 2003-11-03 21:48:20 The ASN was assigned 2003-08-29, thus matching these. ctn1.com is from 2003-04-25 according to whois. IPv4 addresses for the 'servers' where assigned 20030825. I wonder how operational they where, but alas... > > > > 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. > > > >http://whois.6bone.net/cgi-bin/whois?CTN1 > > > > > > 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 ASN is 29402. > >We have an IPv6 native Gigabit connexion to FNIX6. > >NDSoftware (AS25358) provide us IPv6 transit through FNIX6. Only one peer? > > c. Fully maintained DNS forward (AAAA) and reverse (ip6.int) These should be ip6.arpa really really soon. > > entries for the Applicant's router(s) and at > least one host > > system. > > > >We have 3 nameservers: > > - ns1.ctn1.net > > - ns2.ctn1.net 3 nameservers? Listed are two, and of those: $ host ns1.ctn1.net ns1.ctn1.net has address 195.140.140.1 $ host 195.140.140.1 Host 1.140.140.195.in-addr.arpa not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) $ host ns2.ctn1.net ns2.ctn1.net has address 195.140.141.1 $ host 195.140.141.1 Host 1.141.140.195.in-addr.arpa not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) And the guessable third: $ host ns3.ctn1.net ns3.ctn1.net has address 195.140.142.1 $ host 195.140.142.1 Host 1.142.140.195.in-addr.arpa not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) > > 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.ctn1.com (all services are ready to use with IPv6) $ host -t any www.ctn1.com www.ctn1.com has address 195.140.143.10 $ host -t any www.ctn1.net www.ctn1.net has address 195.140.143.10 www.ctn1.net has AAAA address 3ffe:4013:2105:1::5 traceroute to www.ctn1.net (3ffe:4013:2105:1::5) from 3ffe:8114:2000:240:290:27ff:fe24:c19f, 30 hops max, 16 byte packets 5 tun1.cr1.par1.fr.ip.ndsoftware.net (3ffe:4013:f:7::1) 42.028 ms 52.713 ms 41.165 ms 6 ctn1-29402.fnix6.net (3ffe:4013:10:1::4) 40.447 ms 41.087 ms 40.71 ms 7 ctn1-29402.fnix6.net (3ffe:4013:10:1::4) 3967.01 ms !H $ ping6 -c 10 3ffe:4013:2105:1::5 PING 3ffe:4013:2105:1::5(3ffe:4013:2105:1::5) 56 data bytes >From 3ffe:4013:10:1::4 icmp_seq=4 Destination unreachable: Address unreachable >From 3ffe:4013:10:1::4 icmp_seq=8 Destination unreachable: Address unreachable >From 3ffe:4013:10:1::4 icmp_seq=10 Destination unreachable: Address unreachable - --- 3ffe:4013:2105:1::5 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 0 received, +3 errors, 100% packet loss, time 9092ms Not reachable? The website only shows a 'hosting' company, no user endpoints or similar. I personally wonder for what they need more than the /48 they currently already have. If they have a requirement for more space they can request that from their sole upstream. http://www.ctn1.net/reseau.php shows that it isn't being used (yet) either. > > 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. > > > >RP10-6BONE > >MG22-6BONE > >BV3-6BONE > > > > 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. > > > >6bone@ctn1.net $ host -t mx ctn1.com ctn1.com mail is handled by 1 mail.ctn1.com. $ host -t mx ctn1.net ctn1.net mail is handled by 1 mail.ctn1.net. Only 1 IP, could be balanced, but even then... > > 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. > > > >CTN1 operates an IPv6 Network and provides a lot of IPv6 services to many > >projects. > >We provide: Usenet Provider, Email provider and Hosting Provider with dual IPv4 and IPv6. > >All IPv6 services is free of charge. > >We encourage all people to start a web site and Email server > with IPv6. This looks a lot like the NDSOFTWARE request to me, their 'services' have not become available either and even worse, they removed all the contact information from the 6bone registry, which only contains 1 person now. But the director of NDSOFTWARE can probably explain that part. The people that "worked" at NDSOFTWARE have all vanished except for Nico... Btw it is allowed, certainly in 6bone space to assign more than a single /48 to a 'downstream', maybe they could use address space from NDSOFTWARE? It also seems that that will be their sole 'gigabit' uplink. Personally, mainly also because of the last reason I don't see why they would require a pTLA. A couple of /48's would do just fine for a webhoster. And they can get enough space from their 'upstream'. Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP8z5XCmqKFIzPnwjEQJBQwCgpUbrEcdWkeXeY5DdfsJ8/YfGu+EAoLXg cCsochJVXEpjF2vKXk6WFU5/ =GdEy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net Wed Dec 3 03:09:42 2003 From: hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net (Gregg C Levine) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:09:42 -0500 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3b94a$e652a440$0100a8c0@who5> Hello from Gregg C Levine I agree, with Pekka Savola, here. If we are going to admit service providers as described in both items 2, and 3, then that company obviously does not. When I saw the original message earlier today, I saw something strange about it, but I could not finger it. Therefore, as I said, I agree here with Pekka Savola, that this one should not be granted. ------------------- Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------------------------------------ "The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi "Use the Force, Luke."  Obi-Wan Kenobi (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi ) (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda ) > -----Original Message----- > From: 6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu [mailto:6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu] On > Behalf Of Pekka Savola > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 3:14 PM > To: Bob Fink > Cc: 6BONE List; Marc GOMEZ > Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 > > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Bob Fink wrote: > > CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully > > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this closes 16 December > > 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. > > > > > > > > This may be the last 6bone pTLA allocation made as the phaseout plan > > specifies no new pTLA allocations after the end of this year. Thus if > > anyone is expecting to request a pTLA, the request must be sent to me no > > later than 5 December to allow enough review and approval time prior to 31 > > December. > > I do not believe this application fulfills the criteria for 2) or 3). > In particular, CTN1 is clearly a web/server-hosting company; this is > not backbone operations: > > 2. The pTLA Applicant MUST have the ability and intent to provide > "production-quality" 6Bone backbone service. [...] > > and: > > 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. > > There was an answer to the latter, but it did not answer the real > question, how would the user community be served by its becoming a > *pTLA*. Sure, it's nice to give access to the users, but that can be > done as an end-site as well, as is currently being done. > > I'd strongly object to granting this pTLA request. > > > === > > >From: "Marc GOMEZ" > > >To: > > >Cc: <6bone@ctn1.net> > > >Subject: 6bone request form > > >Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 23:06:31 +0100 > > > > > >Dear Bob, > > > > > >I'd like to request a pTLA for CTN1, please find relevant info below. > > > > > > >From RFC 2772 > > > > > > > > >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: > > > > > >Our IPv6 site is operational since 09 August 2003. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > >http://whois.6bone.net/cgi-bin/whois?CTN1 > > > > > > > > > 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 ASN is 29402. > > >We have an IPv6 native Gigabit connexion to FNIX6. > > >NDSoftware (AS25358) provide us IPv6 transit through FNIX6. > > > > > > > > > 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 3 nameservers: > > > - ns1.ctn1.net > > > - ns2.ctn1.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. > > > > > >http://www.ctn1.com (all services are ready to use with 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. > > > > > >RP10-6BONE > > >MG22-6BONE > > >BV3-6BONE > > > > > > 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. > > > > > >6bone@ctn1.net > > > > > > 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. > > > > > >CTN1 operates an IPv6 Network and provides a lot of IPv6 services to many > > >projects. > > >We provide: Usenet Provider, Email provider and Hosting Provider with dual > > >IPv4 and IPv6. > > >All IPv6 services is free of charge. > > >We encourage all people to start a web site and Email server with IPv6. > > > > > > 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 agree to all current and future rules and policies. > > > > > >---- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 6bone mailing list > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > > > -- > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From pim@ipng.nl Wed Dec 3 07:47:34 2003 From: pim@ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 08:47:34 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <018701c3b914$e6ca7be0$210d640a@unfix.org> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> <018701c3b914$e6ca7be0$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <20031203074734.GA18627@bfib.colo.bit.nl> Hi, Judging the amount of holes Jeroen was able to shoot in this setup, I do not support the pTLA request. Especially the fact that the AS number seems to be granted after the operational date and even the IP space from their IPv4 uplink was assigned after the date they claimed to have been fully operational on .. | Personally, mainly also because of the last reason I don't see why they | would require a pTLA. A couple of /48's would do just fine for a webhoster. | And they can get enough space from their 'upstream'. I second that. Unless of course CTN1 can provide the list with a detailed explanation on things. -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net Wed Dec 3 11:07:24 2003 From: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net (Nicolas DEFFAYET) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 12:07:24 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <018701c3b914$e6ca7be0$210d640a@unfix.org> References: <018701c3b914$e6ca7be0$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <1070449643.722.84.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> 6bone Folk, On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 21:43, Jeroen Massar wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Bob Fink wrote: I reply to this mail because i'm very surprised of the reply of Jeroen. > Only a few comments: > > > CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully > > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this > > closes 16 December > > 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. > > > > > > 8<--------------------------------------------- > Forbidden > You don't have permission to access / on this server. > > - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Apache/1.3.27 Server at www.ctn1.com Port 80 > - --------------------------------------------->8 > > ctn1.net does exist and work apparently I think that CTN1 will fix this problem shortly. > > > 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: > > > > > >Our IPv6 site is operational since 09 August 2003. > > The site object was last changed: > changed: mg@ctn1.com 20031118 > > The person objects all have a changed date of 20031113 or 20031118 > and didn't exist before that apparently. > > As for cnt1.net > > reg_created: 2003-08-06 09:30:00 > expires: 2004-08-06 09:30:00 > created: 2003-08-06 15:30:01 > changed: 2003-11-03 21:48:20 > > The ASN was assigned 2003-08-29, thus matching these. Can you explain me why the pTLA request TOWARDEX (http://mailman.isi.edu/pipermail/6bone/2003-December/008145.html) have the same thing and you don't reply to their pTLA request ? "TOWARDEX established 6bone connectivity since June of 2003." ipv6-site: TOWARDEX origin: AS30071 ASNumber: 30071 ASName: ASN-TBONE ASHandle: AS30071 Comment: RegDate: 2003-07-15 ^^ 07 = July Updated: 2003-07-15 Please deal all pTLA request identicaly. > ctn1.com is from 2003-04-25 according to whois. I see no thing about that in RFC2772. > IPv4 addresses for the 'servers' where assigned 20030825. > I wonder how operational they where, but alas... I see no thing about that in RFC2772. You have the right to use new IPv4 address. CTN1 have a native IPv6 connexion, so there isn't IPv4 address on the link. > > > 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. > > > > > >http://whois.6bone.net/cgi-bin/whois?CTN1 > > > > > > > > > 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 ASN is 29402. > > >We have an IPv6 native Gigabit connexion to FNIX6. > > >NDSoftware (AS25358) provide us IPv6 transit through FNIX6. > > Only one peer? Many peering partner require a pTLA or a sTLA for peer. > > > c. Fully maintained DNS forward (AAAA) and reverse (ip6.int) > > These should be ip6.arpa really really soon. soon != now > > > entries for the Applicant's router(s) and at > > least one host > > > system. > > > > > >We have 3 nameservers: > > > - ns1.ctn1.net > > > - ns2.ctn1.net > > 3 nameservers? Listed are two, and of those: > > $ host ns1.ctn1.net > ns1.ctn1.net has address 195.140.140.1 > $ host 195.140.140.1 > Host 1.140.140.195.in-addr.arpa not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) > > $ host ns2.ctn1.net > ns2.ctn1.net has address 195.140.141.1 > $ host 195.140.141.1 > Host 1.141.140.195.in-addr.arpa not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) > > And the guessable third: > > $ host ns3.ctn1.net > ns3.ctn1.net has address 195.140.142.1 > $ host 195.140.142.1 > Host 1.142.140.195.in-addr.arpa not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) It's not required to have IPv4 reverse for DNS server in RFC2772. > > > 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.ctn1.com (all services are ready to use with IPv6) > > $ host -t any www.ctn1.com > www.ctn1.com has address 195.140.143.10 > > $ host -t any www.ctn1.net > www.ctn1.net has address 195.140.143.10 > www.ctn1.net has AAAA address 3ffe:4013:2105:1::5 > > traceroute to www.ctn1.net (3ffe:4013:2105:1::5) from 3ffe:8114:2000:240:290:27ff:fe24:c19f, 30 hops max, 16 byte packets > > 5 tun1.cr1.par1.fr.ip.ndsoftware.net (3ffe:4013:f:7::1) 42.028 ms 52.713 ms 41.165 ms > 6 ctn1-29402.fnix6.net (3ffe:4013:10:1::4) 40.447 ms 41.087 ms 40.71 ms > 7 ctn1-29402.fnix6.net (3ffe:4013:10:1::4) 3967.01 ms !H > > $ ping6 -c 10 3ffe:4013:2105:1::5 > PING 3ffe:4013:2105:1::5(3ffe:4013:2105:1::5) 56 data bytes > >From 3ffe:4013:10:1::4 icmp_seq=4 Destination unreachable: Address unreachable > >From 3ffe:4013:10:1::4 icmp_seq=8 Destination unreachable: Address unreachable > >From 3ffe:4013:10:1::4 icmp_seq=10 Destination unreachable: Address unreachable > > - --- 3ffe:4013:2105:1::5 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 0 received, +3 errors, 100% packet loss, time 9092ms > > Not reachable? I think that CTN1 will fix this problem shortly. > The website only shows a 'hosting' company, no user endpoints or similar. > I personally wonder for what they need more than the /48 they currently > already have. If they have a requirement for more space they can request > that from their sole upstream. > > http://www.ctn1.net/reseau.php shows that it isn't being used (yet) either. I see no thing about traffic requirement in RFC2772. > > > 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. > > > > > >RP10-6BONE > > >MG22-6BONE > > >BV3-6BONE > > > > > > 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. > > > > > >6bone@ctn1.net > > $ host -t mx ctn1.com > ctn1.com mail is handled by 1 mail.ctn1.com. > $ host -t mx ctn1.net > ctn1.net mail is handled by 1 mail.ctn1.net. > > Only 1 IP, could be balanced, but even then... It's not required to have many MX records in RFC2772. > > > 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. > > > > > >CTN1 operates an IPv6 Network and provides a lot of IPv6 services to many > > >projects. > > >We provide: Usenet Provider, Email provider and Hosting Provider with dual IPv4 and IPv6. > > >All IPv6 services is free of charge. > > >We encourage all people to start a web site and Email server > > with IPv6. > > This looks a lot like the NDSOFTWARE request to me, their 'services' > have not become available either and even worse, they removed all the > contact information from the 6bone registry, which only contains 1 person > now. But the director of NDSOFTWARE can probably explain that part. > The people that "worked" at NDSOFTWARE have all vanished except for Nico... Please don't troll on my company. I respect your project Sixxs, don't forget that we provide our routes to your route-server for help your project, so please respect my company NDSoftware. > Btw it is allowed, certainly in 6bone space to assign more than a single > /48 to a 'downstream', maybe they could use address space from NDSOFTWARE? > It also seems that that will be their sole 'gigabit' uplink. It's not a uplink, it's a link to an Internet exchange point. You can have many upstream on the same physical link. > Personally, mainly also because of the last reason I don't see why they > would require a pTLA. A couple of /48's would do just fine for a webhoster. > And they can get enough space from their 'upstream'. Please check previous pTLA request, a lot of request didn't respect fully the RFC2772 (only one contact, unassigned/reserved ASN, no real project,...). There was a pTLA allocated with a unassigned/reserved ASN. =>> Please deal all pTLA request identicaly. <<= Best Regards, -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NDSoftware IP Network: http://www.ip.ndsoftware.net/ FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/ EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ From nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net Wed Dec 3 11:14:25 2003 From: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net (Nicolas DEFFAYET) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 12:14:25 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1070450064.794.92.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Pekka, On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 21:13, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Bob Fink wrote: > > CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully > > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this closes 16 December > > 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. > > > > > > > > This may be the last 6bone pTLA allocation made as the phaseout plan > > specifies no new pTLA allocations after the end of this year. Thus if > > anyone is expecting to request a pTLA, the request must be sent to me no > > later than 5 December to allow enough review and approval time prior to 31 > > December. > > I do not believe this application fulfills the criteria for 2) or 3). > In particular, CTN1 is clearly a web/server-hosting company; this is > not backbone operations: I'm sorry but when i read their website, they have collocation and IP services (http://www.ctn1.net/colloc.php). When you sell a rack and IP connectivity, you give a /48 to the customer that is a end-user. CTN1 is not a web/server-hosting company. I support the pTLA request CTN1. Best regards, -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NDSoftware IP Network: http://www.ip.ndsoftware.net/ FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/ EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ From danne@wiberg.nu Wed Dec 3 11:49:00 2003 From: danne@wiberg.nu (Daniel Wiberg) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 12:49:00 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <1070449643.722.84.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> References: <018701c3b914$e6ca7be0$210d640a@unfix.org> <1070449643.722.84.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Message-ID: <3FCDCDAC.7050504@wiberg.nu> Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: >Please check previous pTLA request, a lot of request didn't respect >fully the RFC2772 (only one contact, unassigned/reserved ASN, no real >project,...). >There was a pTLA allocated with a unassigned/reserved ASN. > > I don't think mistakes in the past justifies committing more mistakes, it is better to look forward and make it right next time. There may be reasons to support the request, but this is not one of them. //daniel wiberg -- www.wiberg.nu From old_mc_donald@hotmail.com Wed Dec 3 12:45:12 2003 From: old_mc_donald@hotmail.com (Gav) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 20:45:12 +0800 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 References: <018701c3b914$e6ca7be0$210d640a@unfix.org> <1070449643.722.84.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> <3FCDCDAC.7050504@wiberg.nu> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Wiberg" To: "'6BONE List'" <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 7:49 PM Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 | I don't think mistakes in the past justifies committing more mistakes, | it is better to look forward and make it right next time. | | There may be reasons to support the request, but this is not one of them. | | //daniel wiberg | As far as I can see, this isn't a past mistake, but a current one. TOWARDEX as NDF is referring to was published to the list by Bob on the 2nd of this Month. CTN1 was published the very next day. I can see (excluding this one) 7 replies to CTN1 request. There are no replies to TOWARDEX request. They are both similar to me anyway that both should receive the same treatment/focus/attention. As in the past however, it does seem that anything remotely NDSoftware related gets a lot more focus and attention than others, so far this last day or so proving it again. The above however does not detract from what may be questionable circumstances in which to base approval/denial of a request. CTN1 should really be making there own defense and not rely on NDF , errors and omisions as pointed out should be corrected without delay and then posted to here as having done so. Otherwise, personally, I am not in a position in which to support/deny. Gav... --- Checked for Viruses (Viri) , Gav... Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 27/11/2003 From jeroen@unfix.org Wed Dec 3 16:15:32 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:15:32 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003a01c3b9b8$ad529f60$210d640a@unfix.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Gav wrote: > TOWARDEX as NDF is referring to was published to the list by > Bob on the 2nd of this Month. CTN1 was published the very next day. > > I can see (excluding this one) 7 replies to CTN1 request. > There are no replies to TOWARDEX request. The reason that I do approve of the request by TOWARDEX is that I know, from following their mailinglist, that they have a community thing going across the complete US of A and are _already_ providing a lot of connectivity to US citizens *today*. They really would benefit from a pTLA and the fact that they are 'allowed' to peer then. They handle their own connectivity already and are in a reel need of their own IP space. Requesting a pTLA is for them the quickest and cheapest, it is for the community. They also have a quick responsive NOC and over there people who really know what they are doing. Also, you can easily check their website, the project is highly active and growing. They are also providing transit and services to other parties and are connected are more than one city, they are all around the US for that matter. Which is why I didn't make a comment about the TOWARDEX request. But as you ask, here is the positive feedback. I fully support their request for a pTLA. I don't support the CTN1 request as apparently, as you can see, it is again done by Mr DEFFAYET, the real requestor apparently doesn't have time to answer the questions and comments that have been made. But the biggest point is what I already, and Pekka before me, brought up: they are a hosting company. Next to the facts that they have just been kicked alive, by the same person who already got a controversial pTLA and who apparently is really working on his own, all the other people that 'worked' there and never said anything in response have all dissappeared. As recommended, "NDSOFTWARE" can prolly assign a big chunk from it's /32 to CTN1 and they are all happy. A seperate TLA is really not the way to solve their 'problem'. I am also wondering btw what the real arguments for requesting a TLA by them is, but only they will know. Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP84MIymqKFIzPnwjEQLHfgCfYp3kwPlJ7ySp7wtu3iOHsfzFxhkAn1hS jIVQ4D8URzN6nyb5WbPwascl =9979 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jeroen@unfix.org Wed Dec 3 16:43:53 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:43:53 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <1070449643.722.84.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Message-ID: <004b01c3b9bc$a3b31a80$210d640a@unfix.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Nicolas DEFFAYET [mailto:nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net] wrote: > 6bone Folk, > > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 21:43, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > > Bob Fink wrote: > > I reply to this mail because i'm very surprised of the reply > of Jeroen. > I wonder why you, personally, have an urge to 'defend' CNT1. Is it because of the coincidence that all the changed lines belong to you? > > Only a few comments: > > > > > CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully > > > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this > > > closes 16 December > > > 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. > > > > > > > > > > 8<--------------------------------------------- > > Forbidden > > You don't have permission to access / on this server. > > > > - > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------ > > > > Apache/1.3.27 Server at www.ctn1.com Port 80 > > - --------------------------------------------->8 > > > > ctn1.net does exist and work apparently > > I think that CTN1 will fix this problem shortly. Day later, not fixed and still no reply from "CTN1". > > > > 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: > > > > > > > >Our IPv6 site is operational since 09 August 2003. > > > > The site object was last changed: > > changed: mg@ctn1.com 20031118 > > > > The person objects all have a changed date of 20031113 or 20031118 > > and didn't exist before that apparently. > > > > As for cnt1.net > > > > reg_created: 2003-08-06 09:30:00 > > expires: 2004-08-06 09:30:00 > > created: 2003-08-06 15:30:01 > > changed: 2003-11-03 21:48:20 > > > > The ASN was assigned 2003-08-29, thus matching these. > > Can you explain me why the pTLA request TOWARDEX > (http://mailman.isi.edu/pipermail/6bone/2003-December/008145.h > tml) have > the same thing and you don't reply to their pTLA request ? That was not the subject. CTN1 is. But for your reference June is month 6.. it is month 12 (December) now. > "TOWARDEX established 6bone connectivity since June of 2003." > > ipv6-site: TOWARDEX > origin: AS30071 > > ASNumber: 30071 > ASName: ASN-TBONE > ASHandle: AS30071 > Comment: > RegDate: 2003-07-15 > ^^ 07 = July > Updated: 2003-07-15 > > Please deal all pTLA request identicaly. We are 'dealing' with this one the same as yours then, as it looks so confusingly similar. Same single person who replies too :) > > ctn1.com is from 2003-04-25 according to whois. > > I see no thing about that in RFC2772. That was from whois, but simply shows that they can't have the 3 months experience because you just set them up. > > IPv4 addresses for the 'servers' where assigned 20030825. > > I wonder how operational they where, but alas... > > I see no thing about that in RFC2772. > > You have the right to use new IPv4 address. > > CTN1 have a native IPv6 connexion, so there isn't IPv4 address on the > link. This was also to underbuilt the above statement. > > > > 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. > > > > > > > >http://whois.6bone.net/cgi-bin/whois?CTN1 > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 ASN is 29402. > > > >We have an IPv6 native Gigabit connexion to FNIX6. > > > >NDSoftware (AS25358) provide us IPv6 transit through FNIX6. > > > > Only one peer? > > Many peering partner require a pTLA or a sTLA for peer. They couldn't find more 'peers 'at FNIX6 ? > > > > c. Fully maintained DNS forward (AAAA) and > reverse (ip6.int) > > > > These should be ip6.arpa really really soon. > > soon != now Unfortunatly not :) > > > > entries for the Applicant's router(s) and at least one host > > > > system. > > > > > > > >We have 3 nameservers: > > > > - ns1.ctn1.net > > > > - ns2.ctn1.net > > > > 3 nameservers? Listed are two, and of those: > > > > $ host ns1.ctn1.net > > ns1.ctn1.net has address 195.140.140.1 > > $ host 195.140.140.1 > > Host 1.140.140.195.in-addr.arpa not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) > > > > $ host ns2.ctn1.net > > ns2.ctn1.net has address 195.140.141.1 > > $ host 195.140.141.1 > > Host 1.141.140.195.in-addr.arpa not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) > > > > And the guessable third: > > > > $ host ns3.ctn1.net > > ns3.ctn1.net has address 195.140.142.1 > > $ host 195.140.142.1 > > Host 1.142.140.195.in-addr.arpa not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) > > It's not required to have IPv4 reverse for DNS server in RFC2772. But it is required to maintain all your entries, which they are not. And clearly you don't have the intention of fixing it for 'them' thus will it ever be fixed? It looks somewhat similar to your setup btw, coincidence? > > > > 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.ctn1.com (all services are ready to use with IPv6) > > > > $ host -t any www.ctn1.com > > www.ctn1.com has address 195.140.143.10 > > > > $ host -t any www.ctn1.net > > www.ctn1.net has address 195.140.143.10 > > www.ctn1.net has AAAA address 3ffe:4013:2105:1::5 > > > > traceroute to www.ctn1.net (3ffe:4013:2105:1::5) from > 3ffe:8114:2000:240:290:27ff:fe24:c19f, 30 hops max, 16 byte packets > > > > 5 tun1.cr1.par1.fr.ip.ndsoftware.net (3ffe:4013:f:7::1) > 42.028 ms 52.713 ms 41.165 ms > > 6 ctn1-29402.fnix6.net (3ffe:4013:10:1::4) 40.447 ms > 41.087 ms 40.71 ms > > 7 ctn1-29402.fnix6.net (3ffe:4013:10:1::4) 3967.01 ms !H > > > > $ ping6 -c 10 3ffe:4013:2105:1::5 > > PING 3ffe:4013:2105:1::5(3ffe:4013:2105:1::5) 56 data bytes > > >From 3ffe:4013:10:1::4 icmp_seq=4 Destination unreachable: > Address unreachable > > >From 3ffe:4013:10:1::4 icmp_seq=8 Destination unreachable: > Address unreachable > > >From 3ffe:4013:10:1::4 icmp_seq=10 Destination > unreachable: Address unreachable > > > > - --- 3ffe:4013:2105:1::5 ping statistics --- > > 10 packets transmitted, 0 received, +3 errors, 100% packet > loss, time 9092ms > > > > Not reachable? > > I think that CTN1 will fix this problem shortly. You think, or do they hope that you will fix it for them? It should work, you are providing 'transit' and can't see what is going on here? Oddness. > > The website only shows a 'hosting' company, no user endpoints or similar. > > I personally wonder for what they need more than the /48 they currently > > already have. If they have a requirement for more space they can request > > that from their sole upstream. > > > > http://www.ctn1.net/reseau.php shows that it isn't being used (yet) either. > > I see no thing about traffic requirement in RFC2772. But it does indicate usage, and apparently their usage is zilch. Which doesn't give them enough users, so they are fine with that /48. Note also that 6bone is a TESTbed, not address space for commercial services. > > $ host -t mx ctn1.com > > ctn1.com mail is handled by 1 mail.ctn1.com. > > $ host -t mx ctn1.net > > ctn1.net mail is handled by 1 mail.ctn1.net. > > > > Only 1 IP, could be balanced, but even then... > > It's not required to have many MX records in RFC2772. But it would help to increase their reachability in case the sole MX they have becomes unreachable, just like their website and their IPv6 'connectivity'. > > > > 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. > > > > > > > >CTN1 operates an IPv6 Network and provides a lot of IPv6 services to many > > > >projects. > > > >We provide: Usenet Provider, Email provider and Hosting Provider with dual IPv4 and IPv6. The above btw is exactly what they are doing: webhosting. One /48 suffices for this, they can request more from their upstream: You. > > > >All IPv6 services is free of charge. > > > >We encourage all people to start a web site and Email server > > > with IPv6. > > > > This looks a lot like the NDSOFTWARE request to me, their 'services' > > have not become available either and even worse, they removed all the > > contact information from the 6bone registry, which only contains 1 person > > now. But the director of NDSOFTWARE can probably explain that part. > > The people that "worked" at NDSOFTWARE have all vanished except for Nico... > > Please don't troll on my company. Sorry, but I didn't know that it wasn't going like you tried to show us. But this is about CNT1 and the similarity in requests, is CNT1 suddenly also going to launch a "PNIX" or something? > I respect your project Sixxs, don't forget that we provide > our routes to your route-server for help your project, so please > respect my company NDSoftware. The only reason, as you might have heared from the talks at the RIPE meeting, for using the information is to be able to easily check up on the routes you are pushing into the internet, so that we can track the problems that those might generate. The same thing applies to all the other participants, which is the main goal of the GRH project which btw is a side project for SixXS (with capital X and S too). And like you I also swear and curse and get onto their necks, just like everybody else. You really are not special there. Note also, like you tried to do before when requesting your own personalTLA that SixXS doesn't have any TLA at all, it provides a service to the ISP's that have big networks and provide a service to endusers, them playing the transit party. But that has nothing to do with you, just like you responding for CTN1, as they are not you, isn't it? Or are we thinking aloud here? > > Btw it is allowed, certainly in 6bone space to assign more than a single > > /48 to a 'downstream', maybe they could use address space from NDSOFTWARE? Isn't that really enough for them? Share a bit of 'NDSOFTWARE' with them maybe you can team up and gain some employees 3 + 1 = 4. > > It also seems that that will be their sole 'gigabit' uplink. > > It's not a uplink, it's a link to an Internet exchange point. You can > have many upstream on the same physical link. But apparently they don't have that, they only have a /48 from your space that you personally assigned to them and you also created everything for them in the various registries. Doesn't it feel odd to you too? > > Personally, mainly also because of the last reason I don't see why they > > would require a pTLA. A couple of /48's would do just fine for a webhoster. > > And they can get enough space from their 'upstream'. > > > Please check previous pTLA request, a lot of request didn't respect > fully the RFC2772 (only one contact, unassigned/reserved ASN, no real > project,...). > There was a pTLA allocated with a unassigned/reserved ASN. This is about CNT1, and kinda also the same arguments which where stated against your, oh sorry big NDSOFTWARE Corporation, for which you, personally are the sole person who is 'active' and 'working' there. There where mistakes, like you going through the loopholes of the request which you are trying again, no response from CTN1 btw. It is also quite obvious from the state of your site that nothing has changed ever since. Thus I don't expect CTN1 to give anything to the 6bone either. As about those 'other' pTLA's that are wrong, yes they are and they should be retracted asap. FIBERTEL for instance isn't reachable at all, CNT1 apparently isn't either. CC to their 6bone@ctn1.com maybe the other people are not subscribed to the 6bone list either, note that that is also a requirement. I simply do not see the need for it, if they need more space, let them ask you, ehm NDSOFTWARE Corporation Inc, to provide some more space and work it out together, you will make a perfect team. Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP84SvimqKFIzPnwjEQJGSwCeP8YuwlTIj0j2av0fR0/zBcfCajwAnRyr tENqAEct+JZXO8pOZOo0Jcna =WJ+/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk Wed Dec 3 17:31:46 2003 From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:31:46 +0000 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <003a01c3b9b8$ad529f60$210d640a@unfix.org> References: <003a01c3b9b8$ad529f60$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <20031203173146.GI14148@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Given the fact that this may be the last pTLA (though I have a suspicion a few other people may try to get that honour in the few days to come!) I think we could be "liberal in what we accept" here. It seems unecessary to waste too many cycles on nit-picking this request. Some networks already don't accept 6bone prefix routes, so the utility of 6bone pTLAs is already beginning to wane (which is a good thing - it's been a great time and a lot of excellent work has been done, but it's time to move on :) Perhaps we should have an initiative to encourage existing pTLA owners to officially hand back their prefixes. Some have done so already. Tim On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 05:15:32PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Gav wrote: > > > TOWARDEX as NDF is referring to was published to the list by > > Bob on the 2nd of this Month. CTN1 was published the very next day. > > > > I can see (excluding this one) 7 replies to CTN1 request. > > There are no replies to TOWARDEX request. > > The reason that I do approve of the request by TOWARDEX is that > I know, from following their mailinglist, that they have a community > thing going across the complete US of A and are _already_ providing > a lot of connectivity to US citizens *today*. They really would > benefit from a pTLA and the fact that they are 'allowed' to peer then. > They handle their own connectivity already and are in a reel need > of their own IP space. Requesting a pTLA is for them the quickest > and cheapest, it is for the community. > > They also have a quick responsive NOC and over there people who > really know what they are doing. Also, you can easily check their > website, the project is highly active and growing. > > They are also providing transit and services to other parties and > are connected are more than one city, they are all around the US > for that matter. > > Which is why I didn't make a comment about the TOWARDEX request. > But as you ask, here is the positive feedback. I fully support > their request for a pTLA. I don't support the CTN1 request as > apparently, as you can see, it is again done by Mr DEFFAYET, the > real requestor apparently doesn't have time to answer the questions > and comments that have been made. But the biggest point is what > I already, and Pekka before me, brought up: they are a hosting company. > Next to the facts that they have just been kicked alive, by the > same person who already got a controversial pTLA and who apparently > is really working on his own, all the other people that 'worked' > there and never said anything in response have all dissappeared. > As recommended, "NDSOFTWARE" can prolly assign a big chunk from > it's /32 to CTN1 and they are all happy. A seperate TLA is really > not the way to solve their 'problem'. > > I am also wondering btw what the real arguments for requesting a > TLA by them is, but only they will know. > > Greets, > Jeroen > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. > Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ > > iQA/AwUBP84MIymqKFIzPnwjEQLHfgCfYp3kwPlJ7ySp7wtu3iOHsfzFxhkAn1hS > jIVQ4D8URzN6nyb5WbPwascl > =9979 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From jeroen@unfix.org Wed Dec 3 17:45:45 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:45:45 +0100 Subject: FW: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 Message-ID: <006201c3b9c5$48bb5bc0$210d640a@unfix.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi, I think this should be shared btw. This was exactly the same the last time a pTLA was requested by this same person. I hoped he had bettered his life after he got the "NDSOFTWARE" pTLA by going through a couple of the loopholes in the request process. But apparently that isn't the case. It should have ended then. Make up your own minds about what everybody thinks about this. I have provided my set of reasons why I don't think that CTN1 should be allocated a pTLA. I hope the rest of the people who will participate in the review will check their reasoning and see whatever they like, the other mails consisted of my opinion and apparently, seeing the below response that was enough. Greets, Jeroen - -----Original Message----- Return-Path: Delivered-To: jeroen@unfix.org Received: (qmail 20737 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2003 17:21:36 -0000 Received: from ns2.ndsoftware.net (HELO mail2.ndsoftware.net) (195.140.149.70) by md2.mediadesign.nl with SMTP; 3 Dec 2003 17:21:36 -0000 Received: from nat.gw1.aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.net ([195.140.149.50] helo=w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com) by mail2.ndsoftware.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1ARagx-0004F5-00 for ; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:35 +0100 Subject: RE: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 From: Nicolas DEFFAYET To: Jeroen Massar In-Reply-To: <004b01c3b9bc$a3b31a80$210d640a@unfix.org> References: <004b01c3b9bc$a3b31a80$210d640a@unfix.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: NDSoftware Message-Id: <1070472095.794.268.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:21:35 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jeroen, I don't reply to your mail because i don't want feed your troll. Thanks for you mail, you are very funny. - -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NDSoftware IP Network: http://www.ip.ndsoftware.net/ FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/ EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP84hRymqKFIzPnwjEQLTwwCfZahkBj9rB45yADsoAjolLiLaWm0AoL2T L9yQVjfPYZIrME92PLlqr46R =5gJg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net Wed Dec 3 19:23:41 2003 From: hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net (Gregg C Levine) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:23:41 -0500 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <20031203173146.GI14148@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Message-ID: <000601c3b9d2$f6ecf160$0100a8c0@who5> Hello from Gregg C Levine I however, am inclined to agree with everyone here, who's been saying that this one should be denied. Given the fact that there is a dearth of responsible names on that WHOIS record that was presented earlier, I am inclined to state that fact strongly. But to make up my mind more thoroughly, I would need more data behind CTNI, where is the database located for their request? For that matter where are the same entries for NDSoftware? I suspect, that Jeroen, and two others are very right here. In fact I'd be surprised, if the two entities are related at some level. ------------------- Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------------------------------------ "The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi "Use the Force, Luke."  Obi-Wan Kenobi (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi ) (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda ) > -----Original Message----- > From: 6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu [mailto:6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu] On > Behalf Of Tim Chown > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:32 PM > To: '6BONE List' > Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 > > > Given the fact that this may be the last pTLA (though I have a suspicion > a few other people may try to get that honour in the few days to come!) > I think we could be "liberal in what we accept" here. It seems unecessary > to waste too many cycles on nit-picking this request. > > Some networks already don't accept 6bone prefix routes, so the utility > of 6bone pTLAs is already beginning to wane (which is a good thing - it's > been a great time and a lot of excellent work has been done, but it's > time to move on :) > > Perhaps we should have an initiative to encourage existing pTLA owners > to officially hand back their prefixes. Some have done so already. > > Tim > > On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 05:15:32PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > > Gav wrote: > > > > > TOWARDEX as NDF is referring to was published to the list by > > > Bob on the 2nd of this Month. CTN1 was published the very next day. > > > > > > I can see (excluding this one) 7 replies to CTN1 request. > > > There are no replies to TOWARDEX request. > > > > The reason that I do approve of the request by TOWARDEX is that > > I know, from following their mailinglist, that they have a community > > thing going across the complete US of A and are _already_ providing > > a lot of connectivity to US citizens *today*. They really would > > benefit from a pTLA and the fact that they are 'allowed' to peer then. > > They handle their own connectivity already and are in a reel need > > of their own IP space. Requesting a pTLA is for them the quickest > > and cheapest, it is for the community. > > > > They also have a quick responsive NOC and over there people who > > really know what they are doing. Also, you can easily check their > > website, the project is highly active and growing. > > > > They are also providing transit and services to other parties and > > are connected are more than one city, they are all around the US > > for that matter. > > > > Which is why I didn't make a comment about the TOWARDEX request. > > But as you ask, here is the positive feedback. I fully support > > their request for a pTLA. I don't support the CTN1 request as > > apparently, as you can see, it is again done by Mr DEFFAYET, the > > real requestor apparently doesn't have time to answer the questions > > and comments that have been made. But the biggest point is what > > I already, and Pekka before me, brought up: they are a hosting company. > > Next to the facts that they have just been kicked alive, by the > > same person who already got a controversial pTLA and who apparently > > is really working on his own, all the other people that 'worked' > > there and never said anything in response have all dissappeared. > > As recommended, "NDSOFTWARE" can prolly assign a big chunk from > > it's /32 to CTN1 and they are all happy. A seperate TLA is really > > not the way to solve their 'problem'. > > > > I am also wondering btw what the real arguments for requesting a > > TLA by them is, but only they will know. > > > > Greets, > > Jeroen > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. > > Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ > > > > > iQA/AwUBP84MIymqKFIzPnwjEQLHfgCfYp3kwPlJ7ySp7wtu3iOHsfzFxhkAn1h > S > > jIVQ4D8URzN6nyb5WbPwascl > > =9979 > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 6bone mailing list > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From jeroen@unfix.org Wed Dec 3 19:39:27 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 20:39:27 +0100 Subject: Cleansing 6bone (Was: RE: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003) In-Reply-To: <20031203173146.GI14148@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Message-ID: <008701c3b9d5$2acdd150$210d640a@unfix.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim Chown wrote: > Given the fact that this may be the last pTLA (though I have > a suspicion a few other people may try to get that honour in the few days > to come!) I think we could be "liberal in what we accept" here. It > seems unecessary to waste too many cycles on nit-picking this request. Then let the last pTLA go to the party that really is going to use it and not some 'webhosting' club that thinks it's l337 or r4d or whatever they think it is. The request rules should have included a 200 minimum prospective client limit or something, just like the real TLA's. But then again, that depends on for what purpose one wants to use the testbed. If the powers that be decide that they can have it, so be it. > Some networks already don't accept 6bone prefix routes, so the utility > of 6bone pTLAs is already beginning to wane (which is a good > thing - it's been a great time and a lot of excellent work has been done, > but it's time to move on :) It's also a time to move on and start filtering private ASN's from the internet. As currently seen by GRH: 2001:cd8::/32 2001:610:25:5062::62 1103 3425 293 6435 6342 64600 4787 4780 2001:cd8::/32 2001:1548:1:10::4 12565 5609 4555 109 6342 64600 4787 4780 2001:cd8::/32 2001:610:ff:c::2 1888 1103 3425 293 6435 6342 64600 4787 4780 2001:cd8::/32 2001:470:112:0:feed::1 30071 13944 6435 6342 64600 4787 4780 2001:d10::/32 2001:610:25:5062::62 1103 3425 293 6435 6342 64600 4787 2001:d10::/32 2001:610:ff:c::2 1888 1103 3425 293 6435 6342 64600 4787 2001:d10::/32 2001:780:0:2::6 12337 8560 8763 5539 109 6342 64600 4787 Yes, even AS109 doesn't filter on private ASN's, but AS6342 should have taken care of that anyways. An idonesian prefix being transitted by a southern american, somehow I don't think that is very speedy... But it is their network ofcourse... > Perhaps we should have an initiative to encourage existing pTLA owners > to officially hand back their prefixes. Some have done so already. Check the http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/6bone/ pages as that has already begun quite some time ago, as you probably know. Unfortunatly there are also a number of 'networks' that don't know any more that they actually have a pTLA, there are also a couple that went belly up etc. Anyone heard anything from FIBERTEL btw? See 3ffe:2200::/24 for instance. And ofcourse an ATT EMEA contact would be nice too. See http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/lg/?show=evilbogons&find=::/0 for the big list(tm) ofcourse. Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP8477imqKFIzPnwjEQKDlQCfVaXaN7JQRI+/AsqYcWUHS8xLcrMAn2HD Nw/VZggzzSM33Df60U2XZl2A =3nXu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From haesu@towardex.com Wed Dec 3 20:21:10 2003 From: haesu@towardex.com (Haesu) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:21:10 -0500 Subject: Cleansing 6bone (Was: RE: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003) In-Reply-To: <008701c3b9d5$2acdd150$210d640a@unfix.org> References: <20031203173146.GI14148@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <008701c3b9d5$2acdd150$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <20031203202110.GA27179@scylla.towardex.com> > 2001:cd8::/32 2001:470:112:0:feed::1 30071 13944 6435 6342 64600 4787 4780 Ooops. We're now filtering private-ASNs received from transits: 30071 6939 3549 4780 4780 4780 4780 2001:470:112:0:feed::1 from 2001:470:112:0:feed::1 (65.126.230.129) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 30071:2000 30071:2400 Last update: Wed Dec 3 21:15:06 2003 Thank you for noticing :) -hc -- Haesu C. TowardEX Technologies, Inc. Consulting, colocation, web hosting, network design and implementation http://www.towardex.com | haesu@towardex.com Cell: (978)394-2867 | Office: (978)263-3399 Ext. 170 Fax: (978)263-0033 | POC: HAESU-ARIN > 2001:d10::/32 2001:610:25:5062::62 1103 3425 293 6435 6342 64600 4787 > 2001:d10::/32 2001:610:ff:c::2 1888 1103 3425 293 6435 6342 64600 4787 > 2001:d10::/32 2001:780:0:2::6 12337 8560 8763 5539 109 6342 64600 4787 > > Yes, even AS109 doesn't filter on private ASN's, but AS6342 should have > taken care of that anyways. An idonesian prefix being transitted by a > southern american, somehow I don't think that is very speedy... > But it is their network ofcourse... > > > Perhaps we should have an initiative to encourage existing pTLA owners > > to officially hand back their prefixes. Some have done so already. > > Check the http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/6bone/ pages as that has > already begun quite some time ago, as you probably know. > > Unfortunatly there are also a number of 'networks' that don't know any > more that they actually have a pTLA, there are also a couple that went > belly up etc. > > Anyone heard anything from FIBERTEL btw? See 3ffe:2200::/24 for instance. > And ofcourse an ATT EMEA contact would be nice too. > > See http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/lg/?show=evilbogons&find=::/0 > for the big list(tm) ofcourse. > > Greets, > Jeroen > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. > Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ > > iQA/AwUBP8477imqKFIzPnwjEQKDlQCfVaXaN7JQRI+/AsqYcWUHS8xLcrMAn2HD > Nw/VZggzzSM33Df60U2XZl2A > =3nXu > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From jeroen@unfix.org Wed Dec 3 22:35:14 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:35:14 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <000501c3b9dd$c9da3e20$180aa8c0@spiderman> Message-ID: <003701c3b9ed$b84f5360$210d640a@unfix.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Bob and others, I think you understand what I mean with this; this clearly shows what this 'person' is all about. I won't make any more comments as they have made it clear themselves what 'business' they are in: none. Last 'troll' coming up: Marc GOMEZ [mailto:mg@ctn1.com] wrote: > Good Evening Gentlemen, > I'm very surprise by theses different emails. I don’t know if you're a > problem with your boss, your life...but I don't appreciate > this situation: Thank you for showing the same manners that your friend DEFFAYET has. Sorry, but you really chose the wrong person. > In first: > CTN1 is a company founded in March 2003, with my money and not with a > business angel. Check law French web site: > http://www.infogreffe.fr. I have > put 1.000.000 EUR. I respect your job respect my company!!! I don't respect anyone trying to wave around with money that isn't his. Checking that nice site of yours, unfortunatly for you some people do understand french, it nicely states that your, nobody else, company got founded in march, but officially started in november. Thus you don't make the 3 months allocation at all. Next to that if you have as much money in your bank as you like to show around with, and have the intentions as you write below, then become a LIR and deliver business alternatives. 6bone is a *test*bed, not a place where persons who like to call other people names and throw around with 'I got a million euro's' kind of phrases get free IP space. > Ndsoftware is not owner of CTN1. I have makes a local (100 > meters) giga fiber connexion with fnix6 because I'm in a same hotel > carrier (easy and cool). > I'm using today 50/80 Mb/s with fnix6 (peering for news servers, > mirrors...). When you check my graph on http://www.ctn1.net, My home switch can do that with ease too. That is still no real traffic. News does cause traffic, but that is server<->server, not to endusers. That website of yours is *still* unreachable, ctn1.com does work and shows yet another webhosting company. Quite expensive for 1m euro's. > I had tested with fnix6 (others actors on exchange point) the quality and > the charge of this link during one week. The quality is top of the top. Which other 'actors'? You mean the 10000's of 'servers' of mr DEFFAYET? His 3com switch which is colocated at Telecity certainly can push that, but that is about it. > I'm open to constructive critic but for baby crying...speak at my hand You are a real business person, we understand that completely. > I purpose this for you and others members in visit at PARIS. > See my private location and my network infrastructure two fibers connexion > on Ipv6 with TRAFIC and one thousand servers with dual Ipv4/Ipv6. Your *private* location, aha. One thousand servers? I hope they are all vmware then, because those can't even fit in Telecity Paris. > I'm ready and the bonus it is I'll paid you the restaurant, French off > course. Sorry, but I like italian food, French is just not up to par. > My address: > Télécity France > 40-45 Avenue Victor HUGO > 95534 Aubervilliers > France > NOC CTN1 present and open 24x7 Telecity? I thought you just noted down that you where a 1 million euro's big coorporation, but without an own address? > Why I send this request for a ptla because it's very hard > request peering with telco/others actors when you have not your own Ptla. I'm > not LIR for the moment. Why can't you become a LIR with 1 million euro's? > Today, I have a trouble with my web site on Ipv6 (suck red > hat) and shortly repair my configuration. With 'my' indeed, a personal site, what about your other 10000 server's ? Can't you even configure your 'suck red hat' to do loadbalancing? > CTN1 purpose for free ipv6 transit and peering at all customers and actors > on Telecity France. That is what your friend Mr DEFFAYET called "FNIX6", the one with the website that states: http://www.fnix6.net/about/services.php 8<------------------------------- Services available: Switch port 10baseT, 100baseTX or 1000baseSX(1) FNIX6 members pages with various tools and graphs FNIX6 members mailing-list Route collector(2) 24x7 NOC provided by NDSoftware (1) Switch port 1000baseSX are currently not available (2) Route collector are currently not available - ------------------------------>8 No 1000baseSX, just like when he personally 'launched' FNIX6. > CTN1 purpose at large corporate a backbone on Ipv6 (Bank, > industry...). And in english please? > Yes CTN1 has a web hosting company but it's not only our job. > The web site is present only for sales hosting not consulting on Ipv6 and > interlan with corporate. Just like your friend DEFFAYET, "NDSOFTWARE" "FNIX6", "EURONOG".... Lots of empty companies indeed. > Have a nice night gentlemen, > God bless you and your family. > Best regards > Marc Gomez > CEO and co founder of CTN1 CTO too apparently because of your 'suck red hat'. But then again, it is 'suck red hat' on 10000's servers :) Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP85lISmqKFIzPnwjEQLA1ACfe4H4rkJOeOAzdrAYV/Ia+3RjdCgAn2iT TnoGSy+PaG8fRzhKORyjZB1D =wunW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From pasky@xs26.net Sat Dec 6 15:40:08 2003 From: pasky@xs26.net (Petr Baudis) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:40:08 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Re: link local for tunnel endpoints In-Reply-To: <000901c39bbf$a90c24b0$0200a8c0@dryad> References: <000901c39bbf$a90c24b0$0200a8c0@dryad> Message-ID: <20031206154008.GA2183@pasky.ji.cz> Dear diary, on Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 01:49:56PM CET, I got a letter, where Dan Reeder told me, that... > Hey guys > in light of the recent spirited discussions regarding ptp subnets, I was > wondering whether anyone has used or is using the link local addressing for > the endpoints. (I'm not too sure whether it is still called link local in > this case, as it is quite different from typical MAC-based addressing) > > here's an example of my tunnel: > > ip tunnel add sixbone mode sit remote 203.149.69.35 local 202.173.147.67 > ip link set sixbone up > ip tunnel change sixbone ttl 255 > ip link set mtu 1472 dev sixbone > route add -A inet6 ::/0 gw fe80::cb95:4523 dev sixbone > > fe80::cb95:4523 is just the remote ip converted to hex and set with a link > local prefix. > > Now because my local router and the remote router also have valid 2001:: > global addressing (on mine for the /64 on another interface, on the remote > for other purposes), so traceroutes back and forth are going through just > fine. I realise that every device needs a globally reachable ip set on it > somewhere, even on a loopback interface, to be reachable. > But are there any operational down sides or gotchas that would prove this > type of addressing to be unsafe or impractical for use? FYI, this is exactly what we at XS26 do (sorry for such a late reply), except for BGP peerings. All user tunnels are tunneled over link-local. It's as simple as: iptunnel add $TUNLIF mode sit local $MYIPv4 remote $XSIPv4 ttl 64 ifconfig $TUNLIF up route -A inet6 add 2000::/3 dev $TUNLIF Kind regards, -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis . To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three persons, two of them absent. . Stuff: http://pasky.ji.cz/ From pasky@xs26.net Sat Dec 6 20:35:36 2003 From: pasky@xs26.net (Petr Baudis) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 21:35:36 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <018701c3b914$e6ca7be0$210d640a@unfix.org> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> <018701c3b914$e6ca7be0$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <20031206203536.GC2183@pasky.ji.cz> --vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I personally fully agree with Jeroen. The numerous technical issues persist even after few days and although ctn1.com representative replied to Jeroen's mail, they did not bothered to fix even the trivial errors like the web server misconfiguration. They did not even bothered to reply to the challenges by Pekka Savola and Jeroen Massar on the list. Also, Jeroen describes numerous misconfigurations, which speak of technical incompetency of the CTN1 representatives (I would only add that ns3.ctn1.net. has lame delegation of ctn1.net.). The applicant shows multiple grave violations to guidelines presented in RFC2772. Their "IPv6 accessible system" www.ctn1.com. has not even an AAAA record. Their network is unreachable (at least the only known host in it, www.ctn6.net.). Apparently, their technical infrastructure is neither reliable nor fully maintained. Therefore, I believe that this request is inacceptable and should be denied. Let's not have something so laughable as the last 6bone assignment. Regards, --=20 =20 Petr "Pasky" Baudis =2E To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three persons, two of them absent. =2E Stuff: http://pasky.ji.cz/ --vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE/0j2X0AcyGYIvwF8RAjReAKCcbxfB39khQovgEmb1tQz48rqZrQCdEQlx ts/TB4dhI2/KVv3+xzswTo4= =n+rC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vtzGhvizbBRQ85DL-- From jeroen@unfix.org Tue Dec 9 16:42:19 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:42:19 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <000601c3b9d2$f6ecf160$0100a8c0@who5> Message-ID: <003601c3be73$69dfb190$210d640a@unfix.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > 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.ctn1.com (all services are ready to use with IPv6) > > Checking up the services, as when they made the above request it didn't work either, they should be: - fully maintained - reliable - IPv6 accessible $ host -t a www.ctn1.com www.ctn1.com A 195.140.143.10 $ host -t aaaa www.ctn1.com www.ctn1.com AAAA record currently not present Still not available, www.ctn1.net does have an IPv6 address though, but: traceroute to www.ctn1.net (3ffe:4013:2105:1::5) from 2001:838:1:1:210:dcff:fe20:7c7c, 30 hops max, 16 byte packets 1 fe0.breda.ipv6.concepts-ict.net (2001:838:1:1::1) 0.397 ms 0.386 ms 0.353 ms 2 se2.ams-ix.ipv6.concepts-ict.net (2001:838:0:10::1) 23.109 ms 24.657 ms 25.905 ms 3 ams-ix.sara.xs4all.net (2001:7f8:1::a500:3265:1) 26.034 ms 29.44 ms 27.749 ms 4 eth10-0-0.xr1.ams1.gblx.net (2001:7f8:1::a500:3549:1) 27.939 ms 27.234 ms 32.761 ms 5 tun1.cr1.par1.fr.ip.ndsoftware.net (3ffe:4013:f:7::1) 52.73 ms 49.814 ms 50.712 ms 6 ctn1-29402.fnix6.net (2001:7f8:25:1::72da:1) 58.054 ms 49.288 ms 51.891 ms 7 ctn1-29402.fnix6.net (2001:7f8:25:1::72da:1) 3143.89 ms !H 3995.06 ms !H * >From my traceroute manual: !H Received a reply telling that the destination host is unreachable. Thus I have to assume that the host is directly connected to the "IX" ? Otherwise we would have gotten a !N back telling that the network would not be reachable. As for ctn1.com: 8<----------------------------------------------------- Forbidden You don't have permission to access / on this server. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache/1.3.27 Server at www.ctn1.com Port 80 - ----------------------------------------------------->8 Also CTN1.net still shows "Your Web Hosting Company" I still don't think that there are is a staff of three available there who can fix these problems, if they could they would have done that already when they got aware of the problem, note that I cc'd there special 6bone@ctn1.net email address in the previous message, so they should have become aware of it almost a week later. They should have fixed it in the mean time too. If they cannot even fix a simple combination of DNS and 'peering' problems, then how could they be entrusted with anything else? If they would wanted to change my mind on all of this they could have at least fix the above simple problems and demonstrating with that that they actually will be wanting to use it for the purposes that the 6bone was meant for. Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP9X7aymqKFIzPnwjEQKYfwCgiPN86Oxo2KVDUC1U1PxAS6c4rnYAnRo/ agwV8i/MpB5iMLC9ZBEXeSDc =Uyal -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From baby_boo_u@hotmail.com Sat Dec 13 07:58:56 2003 From: baby_boo_u@hotmail.com (noor al huda) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:58:56 +0400 Subject: [6bone] my first message... Message-ID:

Hello members...

I am happy to join the 6bone mailiing list..This is my first time in being a part of such a huge mailing list like 6bone and i hope we could help eachother and learn more about everything and anything.

looking forward to hear from you soon..

yours, shadin.


Keep in touch


MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*. From joe@621.org Sat Dec 13 18:53:35 2003 From: joe@621.org (Joe Williams) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:53:35 -0800 Subject: [6bone] my first message... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FDB602F.8060500@621.org> welcome to the group. i hope you enjoy your stay and find it beneficial. -joe noor al huda wrote: >Hello members... > >I am happy to join the 6bone mailiing list..This is my first time in being a >part of such a huge mailing list like 6bone and i hope we could help eachother >and learn more about everything and anything. > >looking forward to hear from you soon.. > >yours, shadin. > > >Keep in touch > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 >months FREE*._______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list >6bone@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > -- ___________________________________________________ <> .:Part of the 621.org Network:. 6BONE Handle: JAW621-6BONE RIPE Handle: JAW621-RIPE From danny@cogent-web.com Sat Dec 13 17:09:08 2003 From: danny@cogent-web.com (Danny Horne) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:09:08 -0000 Subject: [6bone] my first message... References: <3FDB602F.8060500@621.org> Message-ID: <006d01c3c19b$d21b9320$0a01a8c0@cassiopeia> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Williams" To: <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 6:53 PM Subject: Re: [6bone] my first message... > welcome to the group. i hope you enjoy your stay and find it beneficial. > -joe > If my only experience of this list is anything to go by, you might see this post in 6 months. Can't remember when I signed up, must've been at least 3 months ago, got my confirmation through yesterday. From jeroen@unfix.org Sat Dec 13 18:27:30 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:27:30 +0100 Subject: [6bone] my first message... In-Reply-To: <006d01c3c19b$d21b9320$0a01a8c0@cassiopeia> Message-ID: <00c001c3c1a6$c59f28e0$210d640a@unfix.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Danny Horne wrote: > If my only experience of this list is anything to go by, you > might see this post in 6 months. Can't remember when I signed up, must've > been at least 3 months ago, got my confirmation through yesterday. It is not *that* bad. It usually is around 30 minutes though. Checking the headers, sent at 13 Dec 2003 @ 17:09:05 GMT and delivered at 13 Dec 2003 @ 17:59:50 GMT, okay that is almost a complete hour ;) Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP9taEimqKFIzPnwjEQKcJQCgihqChAczjuBNS8pLH/AffH4jigEAoKkV Kelyr2OKhjsdRDMP11iA+AYH =gbNg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From danny@cogent-web.com Sat Dec 13 18:42:44 2003 From: danny@cogent-web.com (Danny Horne) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 18:42:44 -0000 Subject: [6bone] my first message... References: <00c001c3c1a6$c59f28e0$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <00d101c3c1a8$e5a9c1c0$0a01a8c0@cassiopeia> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeroen Massar" To: "'Danny Horne'" ; <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 6:27 PM Subject: RE: [6bone] my first message... > It is not *that* bad. It usually is around 30 minutes though. > Trust me, it was that bad, I'd forgotten I'd even subscribed to the list From cinnion@ka8zrt.com Sat Dec 13 21:05:14 2003 From: cinnion@ka8zrt.com (Douglas Wade Needham) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 16:05:14 -0500 Subject: [6bone] my first message... In-Reply-To: <00d101c3c1a8$e5a9c1c0$0a01a8c0@cassiopeia> References: <00c001c3c1a6$c59f28e0$210d640a@unfix.org> <00d101c3c1a8$e5a9c1c0$0a01a8c0@cassiopeia> Message-ID: <20031213210514.GA7301@pell.home.ka8zrt.com> There does seem to have been a very high latency on the subscriptions. I sent my request in on 26 Nov and got the notification that it had been approved on 12 Dec. I think the admin may have been taking a vacation. - Doug Quoting Danny Horne (danny@cogent-web.com): > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeroen Massar" > To: "'Danny Horne'" ; <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 6:27 PM > Subject: RE: [6bone] my first message... > > > > It is not *that* bad. It usually is around 30 minutes though. > > > Trust me, it was that bad, I'd forgotten I'd even subscribed to the list > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone -- Douglas Wade Needham - KA8ZRT UN*X Consultant & UW/BSD kernel programmer Email: cinnion @ ka8zrt . com http://cinnion.ka8zrt.com Disclaimer: My opinions are my own. Since I don't want them, why should my employer, or anybody else for that matter! From daniel@unix.za.net Sat Dec 13 21:29:21 2003 From: daniel@unix.za.net (Daniel Schroder) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 23:29:21 +0200 Subject: [6bone] my first message... In-Reply-To: <00d101c3c1a8$e5a9c1c0$0a01a8c0@cassiopeia> References: <00c001c3c1a6$c59f28e0$210d640a@unfix.org> <00d101c3c1a8$e5a9c1c0$0a01a8c0@cassiopeia> Message-ID: <3FDB84B1.3000506@unix.za.net> Danny Horne wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jeroen Massar" >To: "'Danny Horne'" ; <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> >Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 6:27 PM >Subject: RE: [6bone] my first message... > > > > >>It is not *that* bad. It usually is around 30 minutes though. >> >> >> >Trust me, it was that bad, I'd forgotten I'd even subscribed to the list >_______________________________________________ >6bone mailing list >6bone@mailman.isi.edu >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > Just FYI, if you send mail to bouncer@test.smtp.org you should get an idea of how speedy your mail is and if it goes via Ipv6. Regards Daniel From cwl.hoogenboezem@infra.carrier6.net Mon Dec 15 00:59:55 2003 From: cwl.hoogenboezem@infra.carrier6.net (C.W.L. Hoogenboezem) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 01:59:55 +0100 Subject: [6bone] my first message... In-Reply-To: <20031213210514.GA7301@pell.home.ka8zrt.com> Message-ID: I experienced the exact same thing as some of you seemed to have, I signed up around the 24th of November and got my subscription confirmation today as well. All's well now though. :) -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: 6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu [mailto:6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu]Namens Douglas Wade Needham Verzonden: zaterdag 13 december 2003 22:05 Aan: Danny Horne CC: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu Onderwerp: Re: [6bone] my first message... There does seem to have been a very high latency on the subscriptions. I sent my request in on 26 Nov and got the notification that it had been approved on 12 Dec. I think the admin may have been taking a vacation. - Doug Quoting Danny Horne (danny@cogent-web.com): > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeroen Massar" > To: "'Danny Horne'" ; <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 6:27 PM > Subject: RE: [6bone] my first message... > > > > It is not *that* bad. It usually is around 30 minutes though. > > > Trust me, it was that bad, I'd forgotten I'd even subscribed to the list > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone -- Douglas Wade Needham - KA8ZRT UN*X Consultant & UW/BSD kernel programmer Email: cinnion @ ka8zrt . com http://cinnion.ka8zrt.com Disclaimer: My opinions are my own. Since I don't want them, why should my employer, or anybody else for that matter! _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list 6bone@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From baby_boo_u@hotmail.com Sun Dec 14 06:43:18 2003 From: baby_boo_u@hotmail.com (noor al huda) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:43:18 +0400 Subject: [6bone] RE: Contents of 6bone digest Vol 1 #441 Message-ID:

hello there...

well members..thanx for replying ot me..it was so nice of u to do so...well this is my first time in using it..and i was waiting for the confirmation for three weeks and i just got it two days ago...

oh well maybe because allot of people subscriping to the list,,so i guess thats the main reason to do so.

and i was wondering if you guys have any idea about IPv6 or IPng ( IP next generation ). Thanx


Keep in touch

>From: 6bone-request@mailman.isi.edu >Reply-To: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu >To: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu >Subject: 6bone digest, Vol 1 #441 - 5 msgs >Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:05:07 -0800 (PST) > >Send 6bone mailing list submissions to > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > 6bone-request@mailman.isi.edu > >You can reach the person managing the list at > 6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of 6bone digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. my first message... (noor al huda) > 2. Re: my first message... (Joe Williams) > 3. Re: my first message... (Danny Horne) > 4. RE: my first message... (Jeroen Massar) > 5. Re: my first message... (Danny Horne) > >--__--__-- > >Message: 1 >From: "noor al huda" >To: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu >Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:58:56 +0400 >Subject: [6bone] my first message... > >

Hello members...

>

I am happy to join the 6bone mailiing list..This is my first time in being a part of such a huge mailing list like 6bone and i hope we could help eachother and learn more about everything and anything.

>

looking forward to hear from you soon..

>

yours, shadin.


>
Keep in touch


MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*. > >--__--__-- > >Message: 2 >Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:53:35 -0800 >From: Joe Williams >To: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu >Subject: Re: [6bone] my first message... > >welcome to the group. i hope you enjoy your stay and find it beneficial. >-joe > > >noor al huda wrote: > > >Hello members... > > > >I am happy to join the 6bone mailiing list..This is my first time in being a > >part of such a huge mailing list like 6bone and i hope we could help eachother > >and learn more about everything and anything. > > > >looking forward to hear from you soon.. > > > >yours, shadin. > > > > > >Keep in touch > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 > >months FREE*._______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list > >6bone@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > > > > >-- >___________________________________________________ ><> .:Part of the 621.org Network:. >6BONE Handle: JAW621-6BONE >RIPE Handle: JAW621-RIPE > > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 3 >From: "Danny Horne" >To: <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> >Subject: Re: [6bone] my first message... >Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:09:08 -0000 > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Joe Williams" >To: <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> >Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 6:53 PM >Subject: Re: [6bone] my first message... > > > > welcome to the group. i hope you enjoy your stay and find it beneficial. > > -joe > > >If my only experience of this list is anything to go by, you might see this >post in 6 months. Can't remember when I signed up, must've b een at least 3 >months ago, got my confirmation through yesterday. > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 4 >From: "Jeroen Massar" >To: "'Danny Horne'" , <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> >Subject: RE: [6bone] my first message... >Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:27:30 +0100 >Organization: Unfix > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Danny Horne wrote: > > > If my only experience of this list is anything to go by, you > > might see this post in 6 months. Can't remember when I signed up, must've > > been at least 3 months ago, got my confirmation through yesterday. > >It is not *that* bad. It usually is around 30 minutes though. > >Checking the headers, sent at 13 Dec 2003 @ 17:09:05 GMT and delivered >at 13 Dec 2003 @ 17:59:50 GMT, okay that is almost a complete hour ;) > >Greets, > Jeroen > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. >Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ > >iQA/AwUBP9taEimqKFIzPnwjEQKcJQCgihqChAczjuBNS8pLH/AffH4jigEAoKkV >Kelyr2OKhjsdRDMP11iA+AYH >=gbNg >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 5 >From: "Danny Horne" >To: <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> >Subject: Re: [6bone] my first message... >Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 18:42:44 -0000 > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jeroen Massar" >To: "'Danny Horne'" ; <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> >Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 6:27 PM >Subject: RE: [6bone] my first message... > > > > It is not *that* bad. It usually is around 30 minutes though. > > >Trust me, it was that bad, I'd forgotten I'd even subscribed to the list > > >--__--__-- > >_______________________________________________ >6bone mailing list >6bone@mailman.isi.edu >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > &g t;End of 6bone Digest


MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*. From mamthabc@yahoo.co.in Mon Dec 15 04:57:57 2003 From: mamthabc@yahoo.co.in (=?iso-8859-1?q?Mamatha=20Balachandra?=) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 04:57:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [6bone] doubt about protocol independent Ping. Message-ID: <20031215045757.42754.qmail@web8006.mail.in.yahoo.com> --0-2145000197-1071464277=:40553 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Sir, I am doing my Project related to IPv6. According to Protocol independt program mentioned in Steven's book, if I mention the IPV6 address it is giving "Segmentation fault". What should I do for it? Please sugest me regarding that. Or is there any other books or websites for IPv6 programming? thanking U Mamtha Yahoo! India Mobile: Ringtones, Wallpapers, Picture Messages and more.Download now. --0-2145000197-1071464277=:40553 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Dear Sir,
 
I am doing my Project related to IPv6.
 
According to Protocol independt program mentioned in Steven's book, if I mention the IPV6 address it is giving "Segmentation fault".
 
What should I do for it? Please sugest me regarding that. Or is there any other books or websites for IPv6 programming?
 
 
thanking U
 
Mamtha
 
 

Yahoo! India Mobile: Ringtones, Wallpapers, Picture Messages and more. Download now. --0-2145000197-1071464277=:40553-- From itojun@itojun.org Mon Dec 15 06:03:49 2003 From: itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:03:49 +0900 (JST) Subject: [6bone] doubt about protocol independent Ping. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Dec 2003 04:57:57 +0000 (GMT)" <20031215045757.42754.qmail@web8006.mail.in.yahoo.com> References: <20031215045757.42754.qmail@web8006.mail.in.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20031215060349.3B6DB93@coconut.itojun.org> > Dear Sir, > I am doing my Project related to IPv6. > According to Protocol independt program mentioned in Steven's book, if I mention > the IPV6 address it is giving "Segmentation fault". > What should I do for it? Please sugest me regarding that. Or is there any other > books or websites for IPv6 programming? Stevens' book (TCP/IP network programming) has very old description of protocol independent programming, so do not refer it. rather, please refer the following: http://www.kame.net/newsletter/19980604/ http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/usenix2000/freenix/metzprotocol/ if you could disclose the operating system you are using, you would be able to get more help. itojun From pim@ipng.nl Mon Dec 15 07:48:07 2003 From: pim@ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:48:07 +0100 Subject: [6bone] doubt about protocol independent Ping. In-Reply-To: <20031215060349.3B6DB93@coconut.itojun.org> References: <20031215045757.42754.qmail@web8006.mail.in.yahoo.com> <20031215060349.3B6DB93@coconut.itojun.org> Message-ID: <20031215074807.GA22054@bfib.colo.bit.nl> Hi Itojun, | Stevens' book (TCP/IP network programming) has very old description of | protocol independent programming, so do not refer it. rather, please | refer the following: | http://www.kame.net/newsletter/19980604/ | http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/usenix2000/freenix/metzprotocol/ As a sidenote, can you explain what exactly is wrong or inconvenient with struct addrinfo ? I read the Book[tm] and have developped coding style to match Stevens' thoughts. I could be easily persuaded to change my code, but do not see any benefit of the sockaddr_storage yet. There's already a struct sockaddr in struct addrinfo, along with an ai_family and ai_addrlen .. so what bonus do I get from sockaddr_storage ? groet, Pim -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From itojun@itojun.org Mon Dec 15 07:55:43 2003 From: itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:55:43 +0900 (JST) Subject: [6bone] doubt about protocol independent Ping. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:48:07 +0100" <20031215074807.GA22054@bfib.colo.bit.nl> References: <20031215074807.GA22054@bfib.colo.bit.nl> Message-ID: <20031215075543.ECC2CA8@coconut.itojun.org> > | Stevens' book (TCP/IP network programming) has very old description of > | protocol independent programming, so do not refer it. rather, please > | refer the following: > | http://www.kame.net/newsletter/19980604/ > | http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/usenix2000/freenix/metzprotocol/ > > As a sidenote, can you explain what exactly is wrong or inconvenient > with struct addrinfo ? I read the Book[tm] and have developped coding > style to match Stevens' thoughts. I could be easily persuaded to change > my code, but do not see any benefit of the sockaddr_storage yet. There's > already a struct sockaddr in struct addrinfo, along with an ai_family and > ai_addrlen .. so what bonus do I get from sockaddr_storage ? i have no problem with struct addrinfo (i LOVE it, and i wrote a book which describes getaddrinfo/getnameinfo and those functions ONLY). the Stevens book just does not match the currently-deployed implementation (RFC2553/3493), as the book was published before the standard is published. also the book contains other errors (different from implementation), specifically in raw IPv6 socket description. so i tried to warn about it. itojun From itojun@itojun.org Mon Dec 15 07:58:41 2003 From: itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:58:41 +0900 (JST) Subject: [6bone] doubt about protocol independent Ping. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:48:07 +0100" <20031215074807.GA22054@bfib.colo.bit.nl> References: <20031215074807.GA22054@bfib.colo.bit.nl> Message-ID: <20031215075841.13FA1A0@coconut.itojun.org> > Hi Itojun, > > | Stevens' book (TCP/IP network programming) has very old description of > | protocol independent programming, so do not refer it. rather, please > | refer the following: > | http://www.kame.net/newsletter/19980604/ > | http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/usenix2000/freenix/metzprotocol/ > > As a sidenote, can you explain what exactly is wrong or inconvenient > with struct addrinfo ? I read the Book[tm] and have developped coding > style to match Stevens' thoughts. I could be easily persuaded to change > my code, but do not see any benefit of the sockaddr_storage yet. There's > already a struct sockaddr in struct addrinfo, along with an ai_family and > ai_addrlen .. so what bonus do I get from sockaddr_storage ? sockaddr_storage is useful when you need to reserve a chunk of memory to be used for getpeername/getsockname. it is ensured to be bigger than any type of sockaddrs, so if you write a program like struct sockaddr_storage ss; socklen_t slen; slen = sizeof(ss); error = getpeername(s, (struct sockaddr *)&ss, &slen); it will work on any platform, regardless from what kind of sockaddr the system might have. if you write something like char ss[32]; socklen_t slen; slen = sizeof(ss); error = getpeername(s, (struct sockaddr *)&ss, &slen); you will experience buffer overflow if the system supports sockaddr bigger than 32 bytes. itojun From pim@ipng.nl Mon Dec 15 09:11:06 2003 From: pim@ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:11:06 +0100 Subject: [6bone] doubt about protocol independent Ping. In-Reply-To: <20031215075841.13FA1A0@coconut.itojun.org> References: <20031215074807.GA22054@bfib.colo.bit.nl> <20031215075841.13FA1A0@coconut.itojun.org> Message-ID: <20031215091106.GB22362@bfib.colo.bit.nl> Hi, | struct sockaddr_storage ss; | socklen_t slen; | | slen = sizeof(ss); | error = getpeername(s, (struct sockaddr *)&ss, &slen); Understood. I would have used 'the largest known sockaddr', which in my case is sockaddr_un. Lookint at sockaddr_storage a bit, I think it resembles what most people already were using in the form of a union of sockaddr_* structs. I see your point and understand the benefit. Thanks for the quick pointer! groet, Pim -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From dean@ipnet6.org Mon Dec 15 09:33:38 2003 From: dean@ipnet6.org (Dean Strik) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:33:38 +0100 Subject: [6bone] doubt about protocol independent Ping. In-Reply-To: <20031215075543.ECC2CA8@coconut.itojun.org> References: <20031215074807.GA22054@bfib.colo.bit.nl> <20031215075543.ECC2CA8@coconut.itojun.org> Message-ID: <20031215093338.GA75462@dragon.stack.nl> Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: > i have no problem with struct addrinfo (i LOVE it, and i wrote a book > which describes getaddrinfo/getnameinfo and those functions ONLY). > the Stevens book just does not match the currently-deployed > implementation (RFC2553/3493), as the book was published before the > standard is published. also the book contains other errors (different > from implementation), specifically in raw IPv6 socket description. > so i tried to warn about it. That's too bad.. well, I guess the new 3rd Edition is updated then on these points(?). -- Dean C. Strik Eindhoven University of Technology dean@stack.nl | dean@ipnet6.org | http://www.ipnet6.org/ "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli From bob@thefinks.com Mon Dec 15 15:47:18 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 07:47:18 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 6bone pTLA 3FFE:401D::/32 allocated to TOWARDEX Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031215074125.028f16e0@mail.addr.com> TOWARDEX has been allocated pTLA 3FFE:401D::/32 having finished its 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: [To create a reverse DNS registration in e.f.f.3.ip6.int for pTLAs, please send the prefix allocated above, and a list of at least two authoritative nameservers, to hostmaster@ep.net.] [Note: The effort to startup e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa is well underway with the draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ymbk-6bone-arpa-delegation-01.txt now approved by the IETF/IESG as a BCP RFC. We are in the process of getting IANA to do the actual delegation to the 6bone ip6.arpa servers. There will be an announcement of progress soon.] In conformance with the 6bone phaseout plan, no new pTLA allocations are to be made after the end of the year. Thus no more applications for pTLAs are being accepted. Thanks, Bob From matrix@miracle1.net Tue Dec 16 02:39:12 2003 From: matrix@miracle1.net (J. Miracle) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:39:12 -0500 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <000001c3b94a$e652a440$0100a8c0@who5> References: <000001c3b94a$e652a440$0100a8c0@who5> Message-ID: <20031215213912.000023d5.matrix@miracle1.net> I share views with Jeroen and Pim van Pelt. I do not feel that CTN1 has met all of the requirements to request a pTLA. They don't seem to have an immediate need for one, especially with only one BGP uplink. Why not just get IPv6 space from your uplink / transit provider? Thanks, J. Miracle VLINK Internet Systems On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:09:42 -0500 "Gregg C Levine" wrote: [Message-ID: 000001c3b94a$e652a440$0100a8c0@who5] GCL> Hello from Gregg C Levine GCL> I agree, with Pekka Savola, here. If we are going to admit service GCL> providers as described in both items 2, and 3, then that company GCL> obviously does not. When I saw the original message earlier today, I GCL> saw something strange about it, but I could not finger it. Therefore, GCL> as I said, I agree here with Pekka Savola, that this one should not be GCL> granted. GCL> ------------------- GCL> Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net GCL> ------------------------------------------------------------ GCL> "The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi GCL> "Use the Force, Luke."  Obi-Wan Kenobi GCL> (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi ) GCL> (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda ) GCL> GCL> GCL> GCL> > -----Original Message----- GCL> > From: 6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu GCL> [mailto:6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu] On GCL> > Behalf Of Pekka Savola GCL> > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 3:14 PM GCL> > To: Bob Fink GCL> > Cc: 6BONE List; Marc GOMEZ GCL> > Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 GCL> December 2003 GCL> > GCL> > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Bob Fink wrote: GCL> > > CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request GCL> fully GCL> > > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this closes 16 GCL> December GCL> > > 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. GCL> > > GCL> > > GCL> > > GCL> > > This may be the last 6bone pTLA allocation made as the phaseout GCL> plan GCL> > > specifies no new pTLA allocations after the end of this year. Thus GCL> if GCL> > > anyone is expecting to request a pTLA, the request must be sent to GCL> me no GCL> > > later than 5 December to allow enough review and approval time GCL> prior to 31 GCL> > > December. GCL> > GCL> > I do not believe this application fulfills the criteria for 2) or GCL> 3). GCL> > In particular, CTN1 is clearly a web/server-hosting company; this is GCL> > not backbone operations: GCL> > GCL> > 2. The pTLA Applicant MUST have the ability and intent to provide GCL> > "production-quality" 6Bone backbone service. [...] GCL> > GCL> > and: GCL> > GCL> > 3. The pTLA Applicant MUST have a potential "user community" GCL> that GCL> > would be served by its becoming a pTLA, e.g., the Applicant GCL> is a GCL> > major provider of Internet service in a region, country, or GCL> focus GCL> > of interest. Applicant must provide a statement and GCL> information in GCL> > support this claim. GCL> > GCL> > There was an answer to the latter, but it did not answer the real GCL> > question, how would the user community be served by its becoming a GCL> > *pTLA*. Sure, it's nice to give access to the users, but that can GCL> be GCL> > done as an end-site as well, as is currently being done. GCL> > GCL> > I'd strongly object to granting this pTLA request. GCL> > GCL> > > === GCL> > > >From: "Marc GOMEZ" GCL> > > >To: GCL> > > >Cc: <6bone@ctn1.net> GCL> > > >Subject: 6bone request form GCL> > > >Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 23:06:31 +0100 GCL> > > > GCL> > > >Dear Bob, GCL> > > > GCL> > > >I'd like to request a pTLA for CTN1, please find relevant info GCL> below. GCL> > > > GCL> > > > >From RFC 2772 GCL> > > > GCL> > > > GCL> > > >7. Guidelines for 6Bone pTLA sites GCL> > > > GCL> > > > GCL> > > > The following rules apply to qualify for a 6Bone pTLA GCL> allocation. It GCL> > > > should be recognized that holders of 6Bone pTLA allocations GCL> are GCL> > > > expected to provide production quality backbone network GCL> services for GCL> > > > the 6Bone. GCL> > > > GCL> > > > GCL> > > > 1. The pTLA Applicant must have a minimum of three (3) months GCL> > > > qualifying experience as a 6Bone end-site or pNLA GCL> transit. During GCL> > > > the entire qualifying period the Applicant must be GCL> operationally GCL> > > > providing the following: GCL> > > > GCL> > > >Our IPv6 site is operational since 09 August 2003. GCL> > > > GCL> > > > a. Fully maintained, up to date, 6Bone Registry entries GCL> for their GCL> > > > ipv6-site inet6num, mntner, and person objects, GCL> including each GCL> > > > tunnel that the Applicant has. GCL> > > > GCL> > > >http://whois.6bone.net/cgi-bin/whois?CTN1 GCL> > > > GCL> > > > GCL> > > > b. Fully maintained, and reliable, BGP4+ peering and GCL> connectivity GCL> > > > between the Applicant's boundary router and the GCL> appropriate GCL> > > > connection point into the 6Bone. This router must be GCL> IPv6 GCL> > > > pingable. This criteria is judged by members of the GCL> 6Bone GCL> > > > Operations Group at the time of the Applicant's pTLA GCL> request. GCL> > > > GCL> > > >Our ASN is 29402. GCL> > > >We have an IPv6 native Gigabit connexion to FNIX6. GCL> > > >NDSoftware (AS25358) provide us IPv6 transit through FNIX6. GCL> > > > GCL> > > > GCL> > > > c. Fully maintained DNS forward (AAAA) and reverse GCL> (ip6.int) GCL> > > > entries for the Applicant's router(s) and at least one GCL> host GCL> > > > system. GCL> > > > GCL> > > >We have 3 nameservers: GCL> > > > - ns1.ctn1.net GCL> > > > - ns2.ctn1.net GCL> > > > GCL> > > > d. A fully maintained, and reliable, IPv6-accessible GCL> system GCL> > > > providing, at a mimimum, one or more web pages, GCL> describing the GCL> > > > Applicant's IPv6 services. This server must be IPv6 GCL> pingable. GCL> > > > GCL> > > >http://www.ctn1.com (all services are ready to use with IPv6) GCL> > > > GCL> > > > 2. The pTLA Applicant MUST have the ability and intent to GCL> provide GCL> > > > "production-quality" 6Bone backbone service. Applicants GCL> must GCL> > > > provide a statement and information in support of this GCL> claim. GCL> > > > This MUST include the following: GCL> > > > GCL> > > > GCL> > > > a. A support staff of two persons minimum, three GCL> preferable, with GCL> > > > person attributes registered for each in the ipv6-site GCL> object GCL> > > > for the pTLA applicant. GCL> > > > GCL> > > >RP10-6BONE GCL> > > >MG22-6BONE GCL> > > >BV3-6BONE GCL> > > > GCL> > > > b. A common mailbox for support contact purposes that all GCL> support GCL> > > > staff have acess to, pointed to with a notify GCL> attribute in the GCL> > > > ipv6-site object for the pTLA Applicant. GCL> > > > GCL> > > >6bone@ctn1.net GCL> > > > GCL> > > > 3. The pTLA Applicant MUST have a potential "user community" GCL> that GCL> > > > would be served by its becoming a pTLA, e.g., the GCL> Applicant is a GCL> > > > major provider of Internet service in a region, country, GCL> or focus GCL> > > > of interest. Applicant must provide a statement and GCL> information in GCL> > > > support this claim. GCL> > > > GCL> > > >CTN1 operates an IPv6 Network and provides a lot of IPv6 services GCL> to many GCL> > > >projects. GCL> > > >We provide: Usenet Provider, Email provider and Hosting Provider GCL> with dual GCL> > > >IPv4 and IPv6. GCL> > > >All IPv6 services is free of charge. GCL> > > >We encourage all people to start a web site and Email server with GCL> IPv6. GCL> > > > GCL> > > > 4. The pTLA Applicant MUST commit to abide by the current GCL> 6Bone GCL> > > > operational rules and policies as they exist at time of GCL> its GCL> > > > application, and agree to abide by future 6Bone backbone GCL> > > > operational rules and policies as they evolve by GCL> consensus of the GCL> > > > 6Bone backbone and user community. GCL> > > > GCL> > > > GCL> > > >We agree to all current and future rules and policies. GCL> > > > GCL> > > >---- GCL> > > GCL> > > _______________________________________________ GCL> > > 6bone mailing list GCL> > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu GCL> > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone GCL> > > GCL> > GCL> > -- GCL> > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the GCL> > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." GCL> > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings GCL> > GCL> > _______________________________________________ GCL> > 6bone mailing list GCL> > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu GCL> > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone GCL> GCL> _______________________________________________ GCL> 6bone mailing list GCL> 6bone@mailman.isi.edu GCL> http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From frank.troy@si-intl.com Tue Dec 16 12:18:45 2003 From: frank.troy@si-intl.com (Troy, Frank) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 07:18:45 -0500 Subject: [6bone] Address Allocation Question Message-ID: <53325189A027E54A8ED72051B276D8BD414AEA@va03ex01.si.siroot.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----=_NextPart_ST_07_18_46_Tuesday_December_16_2003_1631 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey Folks, =20 I am currently going through a study to quantify the IPv6 addressing needs of a very large (global) network. I need to justify the space so it can be presented to ARIN without protest. Where can I find some lessons learned or good sources of information on this topic? =20 =20 Thanks =20 =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Frank P. Troy SI International 703-234-6969 frank.troy@si-intl.com =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =20 ----=_NextPart_ST_07_18_46_Tuesday_December_16_2003_1631 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hey Folks,

 

I am currently going through a study to quantify the IPv= 6 addressing needs of a very large (global) network.  I need to justify the space s= o it can be presented to ARIN without protest.  Where can I find some lesso= ns learned or good sources of information on this topic?  <= /p>

 

Thanks 

 

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

 Frank P. Troy

 SI International

 703-234-6969

 frank.tr= oy@si-intl.com

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

 

=00 ----=_NextPart_ST_07_18_46_Tuesday_December_16_2003_1631-- From cwl.hoogenboezem@infra.carrier6.net Wed Dec 17 13:24:51 2003 From: cwl.hoogenboezem@infra.carrier6.net (C.W.L. Hoogenboezem) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:24:51 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Address Allocation Question In-Reply-To: <53325189A027E54A8ED72051B276D8BD414AEA@va03ex01.si.siroot.com> Message-ID: Frank, ARIN has an informative document about this matter on their homepage, and this is the exact URL: http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html. Educational projects usually have a good chance of getting their addresses allocated. Be sure to clearly describe the purpose of your study (and in particular what it has to do with this project), just as a tip. Best regards, Chris Hoogenboezem Carrier6 The Netherlands -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: 6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu [mailto:6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu]Namens Troy, Frank Verzonden: dinsdag 16 december 2003 13:19 Aan: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu Onderwerp: [6bone] Address Allocation Question Hey Folks, I am currently going through a study to quantify the IPv6 addressing needs of a very large (global) network. I need to justify the space so it can be presented to ARIN without protest. Where can I find some lessons learned or good sources of information on this topic? Thanks ======================== Frank P. Troy SI International 703-234-6969 frank.troy@si-intl.com ======================== From baby_boo_u@hotmail.com Tue Dec 16 15:54:59 2003 From: baby_boo_u@hotmail.com (noor al huda) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:54:59 +0400 Subject: [6bone] RE: Contents of 6bone digest Vol 1 #442 - 4 msgs Message-ID:

Yeah well i guess the admin was on vacation and wow it takes allot of time. Ummm how does it go through IPv6..I thought IPv6 was under experimentation ... or is it?




Keep in touch


Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. From Twitch303@comcast.net Wed Dec 17 00:23:16 2003 From: Twitch303@comcast.net (Twitch303) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:23:16 -0700 Subject: [6bone] 6Bone connection? References: <000001c3b94a$e652a440$0100a8c0@who5> <20031215213912.000023d5.matrix@miracle1.net> Message-ID: <05f101c3c433$f7921cb0$f801a8c0@nashltegaw> Hi. I'm steven hixson I'm somewhat of a hobbyist who's working with ipv6. I have an ipv6 router and dns server set up, Ive even set up an IPv6 tunnel and I have a fairly large address range with which to present data. just that I dont think my AAAA records are listed anywhere or whatnot and I'm really having a difficult time deciding what to do next with the address range I have been allocated. Ive added the microsoft advanced networking stack on my intranet and the system appears to respond normally. My question is, whats my best next step? I had considered setting up a point of presence so that other machines could tunnel, after I build my next server, but the standard IP addresses (v4) I have been allocated amount to only the one. Finally, if I were to construct a series of virtual servers for use on the IPv6 internet would there be a market for the machines? What would you like your server to be capable of? ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. Miracle" To: <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> Cc: "Jeroen Massar" ; "Bob Fink'" ; "Pim van Pelt" Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 7:39 PM Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 > I share views with Jeroen and Pim van Pelt. I do not feel that CTN1 has met all of the requirements to request a pTLA. They don't seem to have an immediate need for one, especially with only one BGP uplink. Why not just get IPv6 space from your uplink / transit provider? > Thanks, > J. Miracle > VLINK Internet Systems > > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:09:42 -0500 > "Gregg C Levine" wrote: [Message-ID: 000001c3b94a$e652a440$0100a8c0@who5] > > GCL> Hello from Gregg C Levine > GCL> I agree, with Pekka Savola, here. If we are going to admit service > GCL> providers as described in both items 2, and 3, then that company > GCL> obviously does not. When I saw the original message earlier today, I > GCL> saw something strange about it, but I could not finger it. Therefore, > GCL> as I said, I agree here with Pekka Savola, that this one should not be > GCL> granted. > GCL> ------------------- > GCL> Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net > GCL> ------------------------------------------------------------ > GCL> "The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi > GCL> "Use the Force, Luke." Obi-Wan Kenobi > GCL> (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi ) > GCL> (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda ) > GCL> > GCL> > GCL> > GCL> > -----Original Message----- > GCL> > From: 6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu > GCL> [mailto:6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu] On > GCL> > Behalf Of Pekka Savola > GCL> > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 3:14 PM > GCL> > To: Bob Fink > GCL> > Cc: 6BONE List; Marc GOMEZ > GCL> > Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 > GCL> December 2003 > GCL> > > GCL> > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Bob Fink wrote: > GCL> > > CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request > GCL> fully > GCL> > > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this closes 16 > GCL> December > GCL> > > 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. > GCL> > > > GCL> > > > GCL> > > > GCL> > > This may be the last 6bone pTLA allocation made as the phaseout > GCL> plan > GCL> > > specifies no new pTLA allocations after the end of this year. Thus > GCL> if > GCL> > > anyone is expecting to request a pTLA, the request must be sent to > GCL> me no > GCL> > > later than 5 December to allow enough review and approval time > GCL> prior to 31 > GCL> > > December. > GCL> > > GCL> > I do not believe this application fulfills the criteria for 2) or > GCL> 3). > GCL> > In particular, CTN1 is clearly a web/server-hosting company; this is > GCL> > not backbone operations: > GCL> > > GCL> > 2. The pTLA Applicant MUST have the ability and intent to provide > GCL> > "production-quality" 6Bone backbone service. [...] > GCL> > > GCL> > and: > GCL> > > GCL> > 3. The pTLA Applicant MUST have a potential "user community" > GCL> that > GCL> > would be served by its becoming a pTLA, e.g., the Applicant > GCL> is a > GCL> > major provider of Internet service in a region, country, or > GCL> focus > GCL> > of interest. Applicant must provide a statement and > GCL> information in > GCL> > support this claim. > GCL> > > GCL> > There was an answer to the latter, but it did not answer the real > GCL> > question, how would the user community be served by its becoming a > GCL> > *pTLA*. Sure, it's nice to give access to the users, but that can > GCL> be > GCL> > done as an end-site as well, as is currently being done. > GCL> > > GCL> > I'd strongly object to granting this pTLA request. > GCL> > > GCL> > > === > GCL> > > >From: "Marc GOMEZ" > GCL> > > >To: > GCL> > > >Cc: <6bone@ctn1.net> > GCL> > > >Subject: 6bone request form > GCL> > > >Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 23:06:31 +0100 > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > >Dear Bob, > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > >I'd like to request a pTLA for CTN1, please find relevant info > GCL> below. > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > > >From RFC 2772 > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > >7. Guidelines for 6Bone pTLA sites > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > > The following rules apply to qualify for a 6Bone pTLA > GCL> allocation. It > GCL> > > > should be recognized that holders of 6Bone pTLA allocations > GCL> are > GCL> > > > expected to provide production quality backbone network > GCL> services for > GCL> > > > the 6Bone. > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > > 1. The pTLA Applicant must have a minimum of three (3) months > GCL> > > > qualifying experience as a 6Bone end-site or pNLA > GCL> transit. During > GCL> > > > the entire qualifying period the Applicant must be > GCL> operationally > GCL> > > > providing the following: > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > >Our IPv6 site is operational since 09 August 2003. > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > > a. Fully maintained, up to date, 6Bone Registry entries > GCL> for their > GCL> > > > ipv6-site inet6num, mntner, and person objects, > GCL> including each > GCL> > > > tunnel that the Applicant has. > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > >http://whois.6bone.net/cgi-bin/whois?CTN1 > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > > b. Fully maintained, and reliable, BGP4+ peering and > GCL> connectivity > GCL> > > > between the Applicant's boundary router and the > GCL> appropriate > GCL> > > > connection point into the 6Bone. This router must be > GCL> IPv6 > GCL> > > > pingable. This criteria is judged by members of the > GCL> 6Bone > GCL> > > > Operations Group at the time of the Applicant's pTLA > GCL> request. > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > >Our ASN is 29402. > GCL> > > >We have an IPv6 native Gigabit connexion to FNIX6. > GCL> > > >NDSoftware (AS25358) provide us IPv6 transit through FNIX6. > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > > c. Fully maintained DNS forward (AAAA) and reverse > GCL> (ip6.int) > GCL> > > > entries for the Applicant's router(s) and at least one > GCL> host > GCL> > > > system. > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > >We have 3 nameservers: > GCL> > > > - ns1.ctn1.net > GCL> > > > - ns2.ctn1.net > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > > d. A fully maintained, and reliable, IPv6-accessible > GCL> system > GCL> > > > providing, at a mimimum, one or more web pages, > GCL> describing the > GCL> > > > Applicant's IPv6 services. This server must be IPv6 > GCL> pingable. > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > >http://www.ctn1.com (all services are ready to use with IPv6) > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > > 2. The pTLA Applicant MUST have the ability and intent to > GCL> provide > GCL> > > > "production-quality" 6Bone backbone service. Applicants > GCL> must > GCL> > > > provide a statement and information in support of this > GCL> claim. > GCL> > > > This MUST include the following: > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > > a. A support staff of two persons minimum, three > GCL> preferable, with > GCL> > > > person attributes registered for each in the ipv6-site > GCL> object > GCL> > > > for the pTLA applicant. > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > >RP10-6BONE > GCL> > > >MG22-6BONE > GCL> > > >BV3-6BONE > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > > b. A common mailbox for support contact purposes that all > GCL> support > GCL> > > > staff have acess to, pointed to with a notify > GCL> attribute in the > GCL> > > > ipv6-site object for the pTLA Applicant. > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > >6bone@ctn1.net > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > > 3. The pTLA Applicant MUST have a potential "user community" > GCL> that > GCL> > > > would be served by its becoming a pTLA, e.g., the > GCL> Applicant is a > GCL> > > > major provider of Internet service in a region, country, > GCL> or focus > GCL> > > > of interest. Applicant must provide a statement and > GCL> information in > GCL> > > > support this claim. > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > >CTN1 operates an IPv6 Network and provides a lot of IPv6 services > GCL> to many > GCL> > > >projects. > GCL> > > >We provide: Usenet Provider, Email provider and Hosting Provider > GCL> with dual > GCL> > > >IPv4 and IPv6. > GCL> > > >All IPv6 services is free of charge. > GCL> > > >We encourage all people to start a web site and Email server with > GCL> IPv6. > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > > 4. The pTLA Applicant MUST commit to abide by the current > GCL> 6Bone > GCL> > > > operational rules and policies as they exist at time of > GCL> its > GCL> > > > application, and agree to abide by future 6Bone backbone > GCL> > > > operational rules and policies as they evolve by > GCL> consensus of the > GCL> > > > 6Bone backbone and user community. > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > >We agree to all current and future rules and policies. > GCL> > > > > GCL> > > >---- > GCL> > > > GCL> > > _______________________________________________ > GCL> > > 6bone mailing list > GCL> > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > GCL> > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > GCL> > > > GCL> > > GCL> > -- > GCL> > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > GCL> > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > GCL> > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > GCL> > > GCL> > _______________________________________________ > GCL> > 6bone mailing list > GCL> > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > GCL> > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > GCL> > GCL> _______________________________________________ > GCL> 6bone mailing list > GCL> 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > GCL> http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net Wed Dec 17 19:47:20 2003 From: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net (Nicolas DEFFAYET) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:47:20 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <1071690440.26093.153.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 19:32, Bob Fink wrote: 6bone Folk, > CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this closes 16 December > 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. > > > > This may be the last 6bone pTLA allocation made as the phaseout plan > specifies no new pTLA allocations after the end of this year. Thus if > anyone is expecting to request a pTLA, the request must be sent to me no > later than 5 December to allow enough review and approval time prior to 31 > December. The community must be open about this request. This is the last pTLA request, I think that we can allocate this pTLA. Closing the pTLA allocation period with a request denied don't promote IPv6 usage and is not good for the community. CTN1 want promote the IPv6, i'm agree they are very just with the time, but with deny of this request they can't promote IPv6 usage and they can't offer free and high quality IPv6 services to their customers. Open your eyes, not all pTLA request respect fully RFC2772. There is a problem with this request, because some people want troll about it. I don't work for CTN1, CTN1 is just a partner for NDSoftware. We help CTN1 in its IPv6 deploiement. Please note that for get a sTLA from RIPE, the requester must be a LIR, (a cost of ~ 4500 EUR). It's a very high cost for promote IPv6 and offer free IPv6 services with a minimum of quality and independance.... Thanks for have read my mail, i wait your comments. Best Regards, -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NDSoftware IP Network: http://www.ip.ndsoftware.net/ FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/ EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ From matrix@miracle1.net Wed Dec 17 20:46:50 2003 From: matrix@miracle1.net (J. Miracle) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:46:50 -0500 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <1071690440.26093.153.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> <1071690440.26093.153.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Message-ID: <20031217154650.00003155.matrix@miracle1.net> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:47:20 +0100 Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: [Message-ID: 1071690440.26093.153.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com] ND> On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 19:32, Bob Fink wrote: ND> 6bone Folk, ND> ND> > CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully ND> > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this closes 16 December ND> > 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. ND> > ND> > ND> > ND> > This may be the last 6bone pTLA allocation made as the phaseout plan ND> > specifies no new pTLA allocations after the end of this year. Thus if ND> > anyone is expecting to request a pTLA, the request must be sent to me no ND> > later than 5 December to allow enough review and approval time prior to 31 ND> > December. ND> ND> The community must be open about this request. I believe the community has been very open with this request. ND> ND> This is the last pTLA request, I think that we can allocate this pTLA. ND> Closing the pTLA allocation period with a request denied don't promote ND> IPv6 usage and is not good for the community. CTN1 want promote the ND> IPv6, i'm agree they are very just with the time, but with deny of this ND> request they can't promote IPv6 usage and they can't offer free and high ND> quality IPv6 services to their customers. ND> I believe upholding the policies on which the 6BONE was founded for making any decisions related to this manner is exactly what we should expect, and exactly what we got. Might I ask why you say they could offer 'high quality' IPv6 services with only one IPv6 transit uplink? ND> Open your eyes, not all pTLA request respect fully RFC2772. ND> There is a problem with this request, because some people want troll ND> about it. If pTLA requests don't conform to RFC2772 they should not be allocated a pTLA. ND> ND> I don't work for CTN1, CTN1 is just a partner for NDSoftware. We help ND> CTN1 in its IPv6 deploiement. ND> If CTN1 is truly a partner of NDSOFTWARE why are you not allocating them address space. ND was allocated a /32 for this purpose, were they not? ND> Please note that for get a sTLA from RIPE, the requester must be a LIR, ND> (a cost of ~ 4500 EUR). It's a very high cost for promote IPv6 and offer ND> free IPv6 services with a minimum of quality and independance.... ND> ND> Thanks for have read my mail, i wait your comments. ND> ND> Best Regards, ND> ND> -- ND> Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware ND> NDSoftware IP Network: http://www.ip.ndsoftware.net/ ND> FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/ ND> EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ ND> ND> _______________________________________________ ND> 6bone mailing list ND> 6bone@mailman.isi.edu ND> http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone Thanks, J. Miracle From nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net Wed Dec 17 21:17:19 2003 From: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net (Nicolas DEFFAYET) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:17:19 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <20031217154650.00003155.matrix@miracle1.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> <1071690440.26093.153.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> <20031217154650.00003155.matrix@miracle1.net> Message-ID: <1071695838.26091.188.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 21:46, J. Miracle wrote: > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:47:20 +0100 > Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > ND> > ND> This is the last pTLA request, I think that we can allocate this pTLA. > ND> Closing the pTLA allocation period with a request denied don't promote > ND> IPv6 usage and is not good for the community. CTN1 want promote the > ND> IPv6, i'm agree they are very just with the time, but with deny of this > ND> request they can't promote IPv6 usage and they can't offer free and high > ND> quality IPv6 services to their customers. > ND> > > I believe upholding the policies on which the 6BONE was founded for making any decisions related > to this manner is exactly what we should expect, and exactly what we got. Might I ask why you say > they could offer 'high quality' IPv6 services with only one IPv6 transit uplink? They will have a second IPv6 transit uplink when they have a pTLA. The second transit provider don't want open BGP session without pTLA/sTLA. > ND> Open your eyes, not all pTLA request respect fully RFC2772. > ND> There is a problem with this request, because some people want troll > ND> about it. > > If pTLA requests don't conform to RFC2772 they should not be allocated a pTLA. Please read the archive before ! When you have pTLA allocated with unassigned ASN, only one contact person,... Are this pTLA conform to RFC2772 ? Why they have been allocated ? > ND> > ND> I don't work for CTN1, CTN1 is just a partner for NDSoftware. We help > ND> CTN1 in its IPv6 deploiement. > ND> > > If CTN1 is truly a partner of NDSOFTWARE why are you not allocating them address space. > ND was allocated a /32 for this purpose, were they not? It's not a problem of address space size, when you request a pTLA it's for be independent and present in worldwide routing table. A lot of pTLA allocated have never make end-user assignement... Why a pTLA request for make end-user assignement must be denied because the requester can use the upstream address space ? -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NDSoftware IP Network: http://www.ip.ndsoftware.net/ FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/ EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ From gert@space.net Wed Dec 17 21:26:57 2003 From: gert@space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:26:57 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <1071690440.26093.153.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> <1071690440.26093.153.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Message-ID: <20031217212656.GW30954@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:47:20PM +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > The community must be open about this request. > > This is the last pTLA request, I think that we can allocate this pTLA. > Closing the pTLA allocation period with a request denied don't promote > IPv6 usage It won't promote *6bone* usage, and we don't *want* to promote 6bone. 6bone is dead, face it. A number of the bigger european NRENs do not even route 3FFE space anymore. [..] > Open your eyes, not all pTLA request respect fully RFC2772. > There is a problem with this request, because some people want troll > about it. Nothing in CTN1's setup fulfill's proper technical standards for an IPv6 pTLA holder. [..] > Please note that for get a sTLA from RIPE, the requester must be a LIR, > (a cost of ~ 4500 EUR). It's a very high cost for promote IPv6 and offer > free IPv6 services with a minimum of quality and independance.... Just take upstream space then. CTN1 could use some from NDSOFTWARE, for example. (Just to drive home the point: 6bone space will *not* provide quality IPv6 services, as *people do not route it*) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57386 (57785) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From pim@ipng.nl Wed Dec 17 21:48:23 2003 From: pim@ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:48:23 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <20031217214823.GB18677@bfib.colo.bit.nl> Hi, | CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully | compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this closes 16 December | 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. Even though I've had my say already, I would like to repeat myself. There were some serious holes in the application as pointed out previously by some folk. After this, there were no clear signs that the situation improved and I find it very strange that a third party is answering questions regarding the pTLA request and not the requestor. As a matter of fact, the whole thread was CC:ed to Mr. Gomez and he did not answer a single question. It is my honest opinion (and I have been fair in the past) that this company is not ready to be granted custody of a pTLA. With regards to this being the last one: it should not be an issue that the last request was denied. People who state differently are not thinking straight. groet, Pim -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From dragon@tdoi.org Wed Dec 17 21:54:16 2003 From: dragon@tdoi.org (Christian Nickel) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:54:16 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> <1071690440.26093.153.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Message-ID: <001501c3c4e8$511bf7b0$152ea8c0@ALPHA> From: "Nicolas DEFFAYET" Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 8:47 PM Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 19:32, Bob Fink wrote: > 6bone Folk, > > > CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully > > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this closes 16 December > > 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. > > > > > > > > This may be the last 6bone pTLA allocation made as the phaseout plan > > specifies no new pTLA allocations after the end of this year. Thus if > > anyone is expecting to request a pTLA, the request must be sent to me no > > later than 5 December to allow enough review and approval time prior to 31 > > December. > > The community must be open about this request. > > This is the last pTLA request, I think that we can allocate this pTLA. > Closing the pTLA allocation period with a request denied don't promote > IPv6 usage and is not good for the community. CTN1 want promote the > IPv6, i'm agree they are very just with the time, but with deny of this > request they can't promote IPv6 usage and they can't offer free and high > quality IPv6 services to their customers. > > Open your eyes, not all pTLA request respect fully RFC2772. > There is a problem with this request, because some people want troll > about it. > > I don't work for CTN1, CTN1 is just a partner for NDSoftware. We help > CTN1 in its IPv6 deploiement. > > Please note that for get a sTLA from RIPE, the requester must be a LIR, > (a cost of ~ 4500 EUR). It's a very high cost for promote IPv6 and offer > free IPv6 services with a minimum of quality and independance.... > > Thanks for have read my mail, i wait your comments. > I do _not_ agree to the pTLA request until CTN1 let us know a bit more about what their plans are. e.g., IF they DO have plans to operate a large scaled IPv6 Network, WHY is it impossible to become a LIR and get REAL IPv6 address space. "I have put 1.000.000 EUR. I respect your job respect my company!!!" So, there shouldn't be a fincancial problem in this case. As Gert said, 6bone is (nearly) dead, and is not a place to provide commercial services to customers. So, which research projects does CTN1 support and/or provide? I think we've read enough chitchat by Mr. NDSOFTWARE, and I'm awaiting eagerly a statement by CTN1. Greets, Christian Nickel ------------------------------------------ TDOI Network | www.tdoi.org | noc@tdoi.org From bob@thefinks.com Wed Dec 17 21:51:44 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:51:44 -0800 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <1071690440.26093.153.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031217131355.02b96610@mail.addr.com> 6bone Folk, I have denied the CTN1 pTLA request as of today. I do wish Marc Gomez and CTN1 well in providing IPv6 transport to the customers of CTN1, and do hope Marc will pursue a production prefix from RIPE. I did not deny this request lightly, and did ask various follow up questions. I remained concerned about the inability to even reach the CTN1 web site or find a AAAA record in its DNS until today (or at least intermittently so). In my opinion it is unlikely that CTN1 really provided all the required services for the full 3 month period required. If we weren't at the end of 6bone prefix allocation, I would have encouraged Marc to wait a little longer until he clearly established operational experience in IPv6 for CTN1 sufficient to qualify for a pTLA. Alas, we are out of time and no more 6bone pTLA prefixes will be allocated. Regardless of the cost to acquire production prefixes from the RIRs, clearly it isn't all that hard as there are almost 500 prefixes allocated now, more than half (274) of which come from RIPE. Compare this to the current 123 6bone pTLA prefixes allocated and it is clear that the time for an early experimental method to distribute IPv6 addresses is past. I want to thank everyone who has participated in this pTLA review, on both sides, for your comments. Thanks, Bob Fink From jeroen@unfix.org Wed Dec 17 22:43:05 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:43:05 +0100 Subject: Cleansing 6bone (Was: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003) In-Reply-To: <1071695838.26091.188.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Message-ID: <00f101c3c4ef$23be5590$210d640a@unfix.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [Real problems, private ASN's etc, at the about 50% of the mail] Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > > ND> Open your eyes, not all pTLA request respect fully RFC2772. > > ND> There is a problem with this request, because some people want troll > > ND> about it. > > > > If pTLA requests don't conform to RFC2772 they should not > > be allocated a pTLA. > > Please read the archive before ! > When you have pTLA allocated with unassigned ASN, only one contact > person,... Are this pTLA conform to RFC2772 ? Why they have been > allocated ? I totally agree with you Nico, 6bone should be reclaiming space that is not actively maintained any more. We will start by pointing out one of the newer prefixes, yours: $ whois -h whois.6bone.net 3FFE:4013::/32 netname: FR-NDSOFTWARE-20021110 descr: NDSoftware IP Network country: FR admin-c: NN175-RIPE tech-c: NN175-RIPE rev-srv: ns1.ndsoftware.net rev-srv: ns2.ndsoftware.net rev-srv: ns3.ndsoftware.net notify: noc@ndsoftware.net mnt-by: MNT-NDSOFTWARE changed: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net 20021110 changed: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net 20031206 source: 6BONE Let me see, 1 contact person, not even a 6bone handle, but that is allowed and it's probably cooler to register 6bone objects in the wrong registry. Could your staff (or you yourself) fix this as per RFC2772, which you just commented about? Aka you might want to add 2 more contacts, who are not you. Don't complain about other TLA's when you cannot even fix maintain own or that of your company. Ofcourse you are completely correct, this should be fixed as soon as possible. Fortunatly for the owners of these prefixes there hasn't been a real witch hunt for these problems and I suspect there never will be. 6bone is testspace and problems are allowed to happen. Ofcourse they should be fixed asap and the only way of doing that is contacting the relevant. I would like to point people out to : http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ Current problems, which really should not be there: 2001:d10::/32 AS64600 is reserved 2001:d30::/32 Multiple Origin ASN's (2500,4717) 2002:c2b1:d06e::/48 More specific 6to4 prefix (194.177.208.110/32) from AS5408 2002:c8a2::/33 More specific 6to4 prefix (200.162.0.0/17) from AS15180 2002:c8c6:4000::/34 More specific 6to4 prefix (200.198.64.0/18) from AS15180 2002:c8ca:7000::/36 More specific 6to4 prefix (200.202.112.0/20) from AS15180 3ffe:1300::/24 Mismatching origin ASN, should be 762 (now: 10318) 3ffe:2200::/24 Ghost Route (18/12) 3ffe:3500::/24 AS64600 and AS64702 are reserved 3ffe:8030::/28 Ghost Route (20/12) 6bone does affect RIPE space as you can see from the above list. btw AS10318, if *anybody* has a contact there, please ask them to respond to the list or privatly. Any peers still peering with them please consider to depeer as they have been unreachable for over a year now. > A lot of pTLA allocated have never make end-user assignement... There is no requirement for making end-user assignments. 6bone is a *test* bed, not a production environment. Though one of the methods for testing could be to test making end-user assignments and giving them access to the 6bone so that they can test how IPv6 works, thus making you test out whether your routing infrastructure works. That is the main goal for the 6bone: testing. Ofcourse it is needless to say that prefixes don't even have to be announced for this reason. Checking: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/6bone/ 8<--------------------------------------------------------- The database currently holds 144 IPv6 TLA's. Of which 16 (11.11%) are returned to the pool, 16 (11.11%) IPv6 TLA's didn't have a routing entry. Thus 112 (77.78%) networks are currently announced. - --------------------------------------------------------->8 Unfortunatly we don't have data from way back when most of these where allocated, but this does show that some are not reachable. > Why a pTLA request for make end-user assignement must be > denied because the requester can use the upstream address space ? Indeed, quite strange that you need another pTLA then: $ whois -M 3ffe:4013::/32 |grep inet6num inet6num: 3FFE:4013:2207::/48 inet6num: 3FFE:4013:2105::/48 inet6num: 3FFE:4013:2300::/40 inet6num: 3FFE:4013:1000::/36 inet6num: 3FFE:4013:2104::/48 3 /48's a /40 for 'personal' use and a /36 for some other 'project'. You could btw with ease delegate some more space to CTN1, they have the same upstream and then they can test their commercial million euro webhosting. If you try to make your point then you really should have gotten your own act together first. Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP+Db7CmqKFIzPnwjEQI9EgCgva+RyN0Ha1KmEmq9APzMq8ei8aYAnjBQ sU6ObEhLDJlL3UDvDQxlS5Fx =/QjC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From tony@lava.net Wed Dec 17 23:25:28 2003 From: tony@lava.net (Antonio Querubin) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:25:28 -1000 (HST) Subject: [6bone] doubt about protocol independent Ping. In-Reply-To: <20031215060349.3B6DB93@coconut.itojun.org> References: <20031215045757.42754.qmail@web8006.mail.in.yahoo.com> <20031215060349.3B6DB93@coconut.itojun.org> Message-ID: <20031217130237.G938@tempura.lava.net> On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: > Stevens' book (TCP/IP network programming) has very old description of > protocol independent programming, so do not refer it. rather, please > refer the following: > http://www.kame.net/newsletter/19980604/ > http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/usenix2000/freenix/metzprotocol/ Steven's book has many detailed examples of coding in a protocol independent manner that continue to be applicable even today. The API hasn't changed that much in 5 years to make it the book so obsolete that it should no longer be referred to. While the above 2 articles talk about protocol independent issues, they're a bit sparse for reference use by someone learning a new API. From dan@reeder.name Wed Dec 17 23:35:19 2003 From: dan@reeder.name (Dan Reeder) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:35:19 +1000 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> <1071690440.26093.153.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> <20031217154650.00003155.matrix@miracle1.net> <1071695838.26091.188.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Message-ID: <003501c3c4f6$6f7c93a0$0200a8c0@dryad> > Please read the archive before ! > When you have pTLA allocated with unassigned ASN, only one contact > person,... Are this pTLA conform to RFC2772 ? Why they have been > allocated ? Nicholas, you can't seem to get beyond the fact that just because something bad happened in the past that doesn't mean it should continue to happen. Just beacuse banks have been robbed in the past doesnt mean you should feel free to walk in and demand what you want today. The point is that those allocations were mistakes and shouldn't have been granted approval in the first place. Just like CTN1. Besides, as has been pointed out the 6bone is on its last legs. If CTN1 is such a well funded company (i'd love to have 1 million euros at my disposal) then I'm sure RIPE would be all ears. And if thats still not feasible, what is stopping NDSoftware from giving a /35 to them? You are partners, right? Dan Reeder From tony@lava.net Wed Dec 17 23:37:42 2003 From: tony@lava.net (Antonio Querubin) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:37:42 -1000 (HST) Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031217131355.02b96610@mail.addr.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031217131355.02b96610@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <20031217133429.H938@tempura.lava.net> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Bob Fink wrote: > I want to thank everyone who has participated in this pTLA review, on both > sides, for your comments. Thank YOU for all your time and effort in coordinating this aspect of the 6bone project through the years :) From tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk Thu Dec 18 11:26:28 2003 From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:26:28 +0000 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <1071690440.26093.153.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> <1071690440.26093.153.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Message-ID: <20031218112628.GE10500@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> On reflection I think this request should be denied, because it does not meet the requirements, as highlighted by others on this list. I thus remove my previous support for the request. Tim On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:47:20PM +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 19:32, Bob Fink wrote: > 6bone Folk, > > > CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully > > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this closes 16 December > > 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. > > > > > > > > This may be the last 6bone pTLA allocation made as the phaseout plan > > specifies no new pTLA allocations after the end of this year. Thus if > > anyone is expecting to request a pTLA, the request must be sent to me no > > later than 5 December to allow enough review and approval time prior to 31 > > December. > > The community must be open about this request. > > This is the last pTLA request, I think that we can allocate this pTLA. > Closing the pTLA allocation period with a request denied don't promote > IPv6 usage and is not good for the community. CTN1 want promote the > IPv6, i'm agree they are very just with the time, but with deny of this > request they can't promote IPv6 usage and they can't offer free and high > quality IPv6 services to their customers. > > Open your eyes, not all pTLA request respect fully RFC2772. > There is a problem with this request, because some people want troll > about it. > > I don't work for CTN1, CTN1 is just a partner for NDSoftware. We help > CTN1 in its IPv6 deploiement. > > Please note that for get a sTLA from RIPE, the requester must be a LIR, > (a cost of ~ 4500 EUR). It's a very high cost for promote IPv6 and offer > free IPv6 services with a minimum of quality and independance.... > > Thanks for have read my mail, i wait your comments. > > Best Regards, > > -- > Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware > NDSoftware IP Network: http://www.ip.ndsoftware.net/ > FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/ > EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk Thu Dec 18 11:57:53 2003 From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:57:53 +0000 Subject: [6bone] winding down and returns? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031217131355.02b96610@mail.addr.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031217131355.02b96610@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <20031218115753.GD12001@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Thanks Bob. The next step is then to wind down the 6bone allocations, and perhaps encourage formal returns? It may be that 50% of current holders are inactive due to commercial allocations, but have not bothered to "hand in" pTLAs as there's isn't a process as such. Some networks already don't accept 6bone prefixes. So their usefulness is already becoming more limited. Tim On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 01:51:44PM -0800, Bob Fink wrote: > 6bone Folk, > > I have denied the CTN1 pTLA request as of today. I do wish Marc Gomez and > CTN1 well in providing IPv6 transport to the customers of CTN1, and do hope > Marc will pursue a production prefix from RIPE. > > I did not deny this request lightly, and did ask various follow up > questions. I remained concerned about the inability to even reach the CTN1 > web site or find a AAAA record in its DNS until today (or at least > intermittently so). In my opinion it is unlikely that CTN1 really provided > all the required services for the full 3 month period required. If we > weren't at the end of 6bone prefix allocation, I would have encouraged Marc > to wait a little longer until he clearly established operational experience > in IPv6 for CTN1 sufficient to qualify for a pTLA. Alas, we are out of time > and no more 6bone pTLA prefixes will be allocated. > > Regardless of the cost to acquire production prefixes from the RIRs, > clearly it isn't all that hard as there are almost 500 prefixes allocated > now, more than half (274) of which come from RIPE. Compare this to the > current 123 6bone pTLA prefixes allocated and it is clear that the time for > an early experimental method to distribute IPv6 addresses is past. > > I want to thank everyone who has participated in this pTLA review, on both > sides, for your comments. > > > Thanks, > > Bob Fink > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From jeroen@unfix.org Thu Dec 18 13:43:23 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:43:23 +0100 Subject: [6bone] winding down and returns? In-Reply-To: <20031218115753.GD12001@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Message-ID: <008f01c3c56c$e8c79680$210d640a@unfix.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim Chown wrote: > Thanks Bob. > > The next step is then to wind down the 6bone allocations, and perhaps > encourage formal returns? It may be that 50% of current holders are > inactive due to commercial allocations, but have not bothered > to "hand in" pTLAs as there's isn't a process as such. Afaik, the process is quite simple: - stop announcing the prefix into BGP - remove prefixes (inet6num, ipv6-site etc) from the 6bone registry - notify this (6bone@mailman.isi.edu) list that your organisation is returning the prefix and not using it any more. This is what the other ISP's did when returning their prefixes. Note that one in some cases cannot clean everything from the registry, eg customers that put prefixes into the database, which is possible as their are no mnt-lower's in place. The maintainers of the database will in those cases clean them out. If you want to see if your prefix is still seen somewhere you can check that very easily using GRH (http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/) If it isn't in the Looking Glass it will quite probably not be seen anywhere. Though ofcourse not everybody provides a feed. ASN's are encouraged ofcourse to sign up and providing BGP feeds making it a better resource and thus helping the community. > Some networks already don't accept 6bone prefixes. So their > usefulness is already becoming more limited. Not if one is using the prefix internally for testing purposes ofcourse. For interconnectivity it does get less useful. I would also like to add that I think that the 6bone project can be called quite a success, having helped IPv6 deployment in general and allowing many people to get early experience by testing it using this deployment. Now into the future! Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP+Gu8SmqKFIzPnwjEQKMsQCgkRlbEk1AQ55uknh4aPWoFVFPEW4AoMB3 t6anlmlwny+S5d9r/9KCCfV9 =xpg9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From bob@thefinks.com Thu Dec 18 15:52:25 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:52:25 -0800 Subject: [6bone] winding down and returns? In-Reply-To: <20031218115753.GD12001@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031217131355.02b96610@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031217131355.02b96610@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031218074406.02bd0908@mail.addr.com> Tim, At 11:57 AM 12/18/2003 +0000, Tim Chown wrote: >Thanks Bob. > >The next step is then to wind down the 6bone allocations, and perhaps >encourage formal returns? It may be that 50% of current holders are >inactive due to commercial allocations, but have not bothered to "hand in" >pTLAs as there's isn't a process as such. As for winding down pTLA allocations, they are done wound down :-) As for bugging folk to return allocations that are not in use at all, does it really matter at this stage? If there are "in-use" pTLAs that are really badly managed/operated to the detriment of the greater whole, that's another story. If there is some general agreement on the problem and what to do about it, I am willing to help, but would like to hear a comment or two. >Some networks already don't accept 6bone prefixes. So their usefulness >is already becoming more limited. If this is becoming the trend, doesn't it make most uses of the 6bone irrelevant? Maybe it would be better to create (and keep current) a list of really good pTLAs, even establishing some meaningful standards for what that means, that would encourage production prefix holders to peer with them? Thanks, Bob From baby_boo_u@hotmail.com Thu Dec 18 17:11:08 2003 From: baby_boo_u@hotmail.com (noor al huda) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:11:08 +0400 Subject: [6bone] RE: Content of 6bone digest, Vol 1 #446 Message-ID:


well everyone..I am a bit confused here...if the IPv6 and 6bone are under experimentation uptil now..how come there are IPv6 routers or 6bone routers available?..

as it was mentioned in the internetnew.com website...the pentagon suspects that IPv6 will be presented publically in the year 2008..(with all my respect to you all.)..

could some one clarify this to me please?

thanx,

noor_al_huda




Keep in touch
>From: 6bone-request@mailman.isi.edu >Reply-To: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu >To: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu >Subject: 6bone digest, Vol 1 #446 - 13 msgs >Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 04:10:09 -0800 (PST) > >Send 6bone mailing list submissions to > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > 6bone-request@mailman.isi.edu > >You can reach the person managing the list at > 6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of 6bone digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 (J. Miracle) > 2. Re: pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 (Nicolas DEFFAYET) > 3. Re: pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 (Gert Doering) > 4. Re: pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 (Pim van Pelt) > 5. Re: pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 (Christian Nickel) > 6. Re: pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December > 2003 (Bob Fink) > 7. Cleansing 6bone (Was: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003) (Jeroen Massar) > 8. Re: doubt about protocol independent Ping. (Antonio Querubin) > 9. Re: pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 (Dan Reeder) > 10. Re: pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 (Antonio Querubin) > 11. Re: pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 (Tim Chown) > 12. Re: winding down and returns? (Tim Chown) > >--__--__-- > >Message: 1 >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:46:50 -0500 >From: "J. Miracle" >To: Nicolas DEFFAYET >Cc: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu >Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 >Organization: Miracle1 Systems > >On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:47:20 +0100 >Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: [Message-ID: 1071690440.26093.153.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com] > >ND> On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 19:32, Bob Fink wrote: >ND> 6bone Folk, >ND> >ND> > CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully >ND> > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this closes 16 December >ND> > 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. >ND> > >ND> > >ND> > >ND> > This may be the last 6bone pTLA allocation made as the phaseout plan >ND> > specifies no new pTLA allocations after the end of this year. Thus if >ND> > anyone is expecting to request a pTLA, the request must be sent to me no >ND> > later than 5 December to allow enough review and approval time prior to 31 >ND> > December. >ND> >ND> The community must be open about this request. > >I believe the community has been very open with this request. > >ND> >ND> This is the last pTLA request, I think that we can allocate this pTLA. >ND> Closing the pTLA allocation period with a request denied don't promote >ND> IPv6 usage and is not good for the community. CTN1 want promote the >ND> IPv6, i'm agree they are very just with the time, but with deny of this >ND> request they can't promote IPv6 usage and they can't offer free and high >ND> quality IPv6 services to their customers. >ND> > >I believe upholding the policies on which the 6BONE was founded for making any decisions related >to this manner is exactly what we should expect, and exactly what we got. Might I ask why you say >they could offer 'high quality' IPv6 services with only one IPv6 transit uplink? > >ND> Open your eyes, not all pTLA request respect fully RFC2772. >ND > There is a problem with this request, because some people want troll >ND> about it. > >If pTLA requests don't conform to RFC2772 they should not be allocated a pTLA. > >ND> >ND> I don't work for CTN1, CTN1 is just a partner for NDSoftware. We help >ND> CTN1 in its IPv6 deploiement. >ND> > >If CTN1 is truly a partner of NDSOFTWARE why are you not allocating them address space. >ND was allocated a /32 for this purpose, were they not? > >ND> Please note that for get a sTLA from RIPE, the requester must be a LIR, >ND> (a cost of ~ 4500 EUR). It's a very high cost for promote IPv6 and offer >ND> free IPv6 services with a minimum of quality and independance.... >ND> >ND> Thanks for have read my mail, i wait your comments. >ND> >ND> Best Regards, >ND> >ND> -- >ND> Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware >ND> NDSoftware IP Network: http://www.ip.ndsoftware.net/ >ND> FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/ >ND> EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ >ND> >ND> _______________________________________________ >ND> 6bone mailing list >ND> 6bone@mailman.isi.edu >ND> http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > >Thanks, >J. Miracle > >--__--__-- > >Message: 2 >Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 >From: Nicolas DEFFAYET >To: "J. Miracle" >Cc: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu >Organization: NDSoftware >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:17:19 +0100 > >On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 21:46, J. Miracle wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:47:20 +0100 > > Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > > ND> > > ND> This is the last pTLA request, I think that we can allocate this pTLA. > > ND> Closing the pTLA allocation period with a request denied don't promote > > ND> IPv6 usage and is not g ood for the community. CTN1 want promote the > > ND> IPv6, i'm agree they are very just with the time, but with deny of this > > ND> request they can't promote IPv6 usage and they can't offer free and high > > ND> quality IPv6 services to their customers. > > ND> > > > > I believe upholding the policies on which the 6BONE was founded for making any decisions related > > to this manner is exactly what we should expect, and exactly what we got. Might I ask why you say > > they could offer 'high quality' IPv6 services with only one IPv6 transit uplink? > >They will have a second IPv6 transit uplink when they have a pTLA. The >second transit provider don't want open BGP session without pTLA/sTLA. > > > ND> Open your eyes, not all pTLA request respect fully RFC2772. > > ND> There is a problem with this request, because some people want troll > > ND> about it. > > > > If pTLA requests don't conform to RFC2772 they should not be allocated a pTLA. > >Please read the archive before ! >When you have pTLA allocated with unassigned ASN, only one contact >person,... Are this pTLA conform to RFC2772 ? Why they have been >allocated ? > > > ND> > > ND> I don't work for CTN1, CTN1 is just a partner for NDSoftware. We help > > ND> CTN1 in its IPv6 deploiement. > > ND> > > > > If CTN1 is truly a partner of NDSOFTWARE why are you not allocating them address space. > > ND was allocated a /32 for this purpose, were they not? > >It's not a problem of address space size, when you request a pTLA it's >for be independent and present in worldwide routing table. > >A lot of pTLA allocated have never make end-user assignement... >Why a pTLA request for make end-user assignement must be denied because >the requester can use the upstream address space ? > >-- >Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware >NDSoftware IP Network: http://www.ip.ndso ftware.net/ >FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/ >EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 3 >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:26:57 +0100 >From: Gert Doering >To: Nicolas DEFFAYET >Cc: Bob Fink , 6BONE List <6bone@mailman.isi.edu>, > Marc GOMEZ >Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 > >Hi, > >On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:47:20PM +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > > The community must be open about this request. > > > > This is the last pTLA request, I think that we can allocate this pTLA. > > Closing the pTLA allocation period with a request denied don't promote > > IPv6 usage > >It won't promote *6bone* usage, and we don't *want* to promote 6bone. > >6bone is dead, face it. A number of the bigger european NRENs do not even >route 3FFE space anymore. > >[..] > > Open your eyes, not all pTLA request respect fully RFC2772. > > There is a problem with this request, because some people want troll > > about it. > >Nothing in CTN1's setup fulfill's proper technical standards for an >IPv6 pTLA holder. > >[..] > > Please note that for get a sTLA from RIPE, the requester must be a LIR, > > (a cost of ~ 4500 EUR). It's a very high cost for promote IPv6 and offer > > free IPv6 services with a minimum of quality and independance.... > >Just take upstream space then. CTN1 could use some from NDSOFTWARE, >for example. > >(Just to drive home the point: 6bone space will *not* provide quality >IPv6 services, as *people do not route it*) > >Gert Doering > -- NetMaster >-- >Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57386 (57785) > >SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net >Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 >80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 4 >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:48:23 +0100 >From: Pim van Pelt >To: Bob Fink >Cc: 6BONE List <6bone@mailman.isi.edu>, Marc GOMEZ >Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 > >Hi, > >| CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully >| compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this closes 16 December >| 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. >Even though I've had my say already, I would like to repeat myself. > >There were some serious holes in the application as pointed out previously >by some folk. After this, there were no clear signs that the situation >improved and I find it very strange that a third party is answering >questions regarding the pTLA request and not the requestor. As a matter of >fact, the whole thread was CC:ed to Mr. Gomez and he did not answer a single >question. > >It is my honest opinion (and I have been fair in the past) that this >company is not ready to be granted custody of a pTLA. > >With regards to this being the last one: it should not be an issue that >the last request was denied. People who state differently are not thinking >straight. > >groet, >Pim > >-- >---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- >Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl >http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment >----------------------------------------------- > >--__--__-- > >Message: 5 >From: "Christian Nickel" >To: "Nicolas DEFFAYET" , > "Bob Fink" >Cc: "6BONE List" <6bone@mailman.isi.edu>, "Marc GOMEZ" >Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:54:16 +0100 > >From: "Nicolas DEFFAYET" >Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 8:47 PM >Subject: R e: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 > > > > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 19:32, Bob Fink wrote: > > 6bone Folk, > > > > > CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully > > > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this closes 16 >December > > > 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. > > > > > > > > > > > > This may be the last 6bone pTLA allocation made as the phaseout plan > > > specifies no new pTLA allocations after the end of this year. Thus if > > > anyone is expecting to request a pTLA, the request must be sent to me no > > > later than 5 December to allow enough review and approval time prior to >31 > > > December. > > > > The community must be open about this request. > > > > This is the last pTLA request, I think that we can allocate this pTLA. > > Closing the pTLA allocation period with a request denied don't promote > > IPv6 usage and is not good for the community. CTN1 want promote the > > IPv6, i'm agree they are very just with the time, but with deny of this > > request they can't promote IPv6 usage and they can't offer free and high > > quality IPv6 services to their customers. > > > > Open your eyes, not all pTLA request respect fully RFC2772. > > There is a problem with this request, because some people want troll > > about it. > > > > I don't work for CTN1, CTN1 is just a partner for NDSoftware. We help > > CTN1 in its IPv6 deploiement. > > > > Please note that for get a sTLA from RIPE, the requester must be a LIR, > > (a cost of ~ 4500 EUR). It's a very high cost for promote IPv6 and offer > > free IPv6 services with a minimum of quality and independance.... > > > > Thanks for have read my mail, i wait your comments. > > > >I do _not_ agree to the pTLA request until CTN1 let us know a bit more about >what their plans are. > >e.g., IF they DO have plans to operate a large scaled IPv6 Network, WHY is >it >impossible to become a LIR and get REAL IPv6 address space. >"I have put 1.000.000 EUR. I respect your job respect my company!!!" >So, there shouldn't be a fincancial problem in this case. > >As Gert said, 6bone is (nearly) dead, and is not a place to provide >commercial >services to customers. So, which research projects does CTN1 support and/or >provide? > >I think we've read enough chitchat by Mr. NDSOFTWARE, and I'm awaiting >eagerly >a statement by CTN1. > > >Greets, >Christian Nickel > >------------------------------------------ >TDOI Network | www.tdoi.org | noc@tdoi.org > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 6 >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:51:44 -0800 >To: 6BONE List <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> >From: Bob Fink >Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December > 2003 > >6bone Folk, > >I have denied the CTN1 pTLA request as of today. I do wish Marc Gomez and >CTN1 well in providing IPv6 transport to the customers of CTN1, and do hope >Marc will pursue a production prefix from RIPE. > >I did not deny this request lightly, and did ask various follow up >questions. I remained concerned about the inability to even reach the CTN1 >web site or find a AAAA record in its DNS until today (or at least >intermittently so). In my opinion it is unlikely that CTN1 really provided >all the required services for the full 3 month period required. If we >weren't at the end of 6bone prefix allocation, I would have encouraged Marc >to wait a little longer until he clearly established operational experience >in IPv6 for CTN1 sufficient to qualify for a pTLA. Alas, we are out of time >and no more 6bone pTLA prefixes will be allocated. > >Regardless of the cost to acquire production prefi xes from the RIRs, >clearly it isn't all that hard as there are almost 500 prefixes allocated >now, more than half (274) of which come from RIPE. Compare this to the >current 123 6bone pTLA prefixes allocated and it is clear that the time for >an early experimental method to distribute IPv6 addresses is past. > >I want to thank everyone who has participated in this pTLA review, on both >sides, for your comments. > > >Thanks, > >Bob Fink > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 7 >From: "Jeroen Massar" >To: "'Nicolas DEFFAYET'" >Cc: <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> >Subject: Cleansing 6bone (Was: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003) >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:43:05 +0100 >Organization: Unfix > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >[Real problems, private ASN's etc, at the about 50% of the mail] > >Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > > > > ND> Open your eyes, not all pTLA request respect fully RFC2772. > > > ND> There is a problem with this request, because some people want troll > > > ND> about it. > > > > > > If pTLA requests don't conform to RFC2772 they should not > > > be allocated a pTLA. > > > > Please read the archive before ! > > When you have pTLA allocated with unassigned ASN, only one contact > > person,... Are this pTLA conform to RFC2772 ? Why they have been > > allocated ? > >I totally agree with you Nico, 6bone should be reclaiming space >that is not actively maintained any more. > >We will start by pointing out one of the newer prefixes, yours: > >$ whois -h whois.6bone.net 3FFE:4013::/32 > >netname: FR-NDSOFTWARE-20021110 >descr: NDSoftware IP Network >country: FR >admin-c: NN175-RIPE >tech-c: NN175-RIPE >rev-srv: ns1.ndsoftware.net >rev-srv: ns2.ndsoftware.net >rev-srv: ns3.ndsoftware.net >notify: noc@ndsoftware.ne t >mnt-by: MNT-NDSOFTWARE >changed: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net 20021110 >changed: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net 20031206 >source: 6BONE > >Let me see, 1 contact person, not even a 6bone handle, >but that is allowed and it's probably cooler to register >6bone objects in the wrong registry. > >Could your staff (or you yourself) fix this as per >RFC2772, which you just commented about? Aka you might >want to add 2 more contacts, who are not you. > >Don't complain about other TLA's when you cannot even >fix maintain own or that of your company. > >Ofcourse you are completely correct, this should be >fixed as soon as possible. > >Fortunatly for the owners of these prefixes there hasn't >been a real witch hunt for these problems and I suspect >there never will be. 6bone is testspace and problems are >allowed to happen. Ofcourse they should be fixed asap and >the only way of doing that is contacting the relevant. > >I would like to point people out to : >http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ > >Current problems, which really should not be there: > >2001:d10::/32 AS64600 is reserved >2001:d30::/32 Multiple Origin ASN's (2500,4717) >2002:c2b1:d06e::/48 More specific 6to4 prefix (194.177.208.110/32) from AS5408 >2002:c8a2::/33 More specific 6to4 prefix (200.162.0.0/17) from AS15180 >2002:c8c6:4000::/34 More specific 6to4 prefix (200.198.64.0/18) from AS15180 >2002:c8ca:7000::/36 More specific 6to4 prefix (200.202.112.0/20) from AS15180 >3ffe:1300::/24 Mismatching origin ASN, should be 762 (now: 10318) >3ffe:2200::/24 Ghost Route (18/12) >3ffe:3500::/24 AS64600 and AS64702 are reserved >3ffe:8030::/28 Ghost Route (20/12) > >6bone does affect RIPE space as you can see from the above list. > >btw AS10318, if *anybody* has a contact there, please ask them to >respond to the list or privatly. Any peers still peering with them >please consider to depeer as they have been unreachable for over >a year now. > > > > > A lot of pTLA allocated have never make end-user assignement... > >There is no requirement for making end-user assignments. >6bone is a *test* bed, not a production environment. >Though one of the methods for testing could be to test making >end-user assignments and giving them access to the 6bone so >that they can test how IPv6 works, thus making you test out >whether your routing infrastructure works. That is the main >goal for the 6bone: testing. Ofcourse it is needless to say >that prefixes don't even have to be announced for this reason. > >Checking: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/6bone/ >8<--------------------------------------------------------- >The database currently holds 144 IPv6 TLA's. >Of which 16 (11.11%) are returned to the pool, 16 (11.11%) >IPv6 TLA's didn't have a routing entry. >Thus 112 (77.78%) networks are currently announced. >- --------------------------------------------------------->8 > >Unfortunatly we don't have data from way back when most of >these where allocated, but this does show that some are >not reachable. > > > Why a pTLA request for make end-user assignement must be > > denied because the requester can use the upstream address space ? > >Indeed, quite strange that you need another pTLA then: > >$ whois -M 3ffe:4013::/32 |grep inet6num > >inet6num: 3FFE:4013:2207::/48 >inet6num: 3FFE:4013:2105::/48 >inet6num: 3FFE:4013:2300::/40 >inet6num: 3FFE:4013:1000::/36 >inet6num: 3FFE:4013:2104::/48 > >3 /48's a /40 for 'personal' use and a /36 for some other 'project'. >You could btw with ease delegate some more space to CTN1, they >have the same upstream and then they can test their commercial >million euro webhosting. If you try to make your point then >you really should have gotten your own act together first. > >Greets, > Jeroen > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > ;Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. >Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ > >iQA/AwUBP+Db7CmqKFIzPnwjEQI9EgCgva+RyN0Ha1KmEmq9APzMq8ei8aYAnjBQ >sU6ObEhLDJlL3UDvDQxlS5Fx >=/QjC >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 8 >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:25:28 -1000 (HST) >From: Antonio Querubin >To: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino >Cc: mamthabc@yahoo.co.in, 6bone@mailman.isi.edu >Subject: Re: [6bone] doubt about protocol independent Ping. > >On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: > > > Stevens' book (TCP/IP network programming) has very old description of > > protocol independent programming, so do not refer it. rather, please > > refer the following: > > http://www.kame.net/newsletter/19980604/ > > http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/usenix2000/freenix/metzprotocol/ > >Steven's book has many detailed examples of coding in a protocol >independent manner that continue to be applicable even today. The API >hasn't changed that much in 5 years to make it the book so obsolete that >it should no longer be referred to. While the above 2 articles talk about >protocol independent issues, they're a bit sparse for reference use by >someone learning a new API. > >--__--__-- > >Message: 9 >From: "Dan Reeder" >To: "Nicolas DEFFAYET" >Cc: <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> >Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 >Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:35:19 +1000 > > > Please read the archive before ! > > When you have pTLA allocated with unassigned ASN, only one contact > > person,... Are this pTLA conform to RFC2772 ? Why they have been > > allocated ? > >Nicholas, you can't seem to get beyond the fact that just because something >bad happened in the past that doesn't mean it should continue to happen. >Just beacuse banks have been robbed in the past doesnt mean you should feel >free to walk in and demand what you want today. > >The point is that those allocations were mistakes and shouldn't have been >granted approval in the first place. Just like CTN1. > >Besides, as has been pointed out the 6bone is on its last legs. If CTN1 is >such a well funded company (i'd love to have 1 million euros at my disposal) >then I'm sure RIPE would be all ears. And if thats still not feasible, what >is stopping NDSoftware from giving a /35 to them? You are partners, right? > >Dan Reeder > > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 10 >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:37:42 -1000 (HST) >From: Antonio Querubin >To: Bob Fink >Cc: 6BONE List <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> >Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 > >On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Bob Fink wrote: > > > I want to thank everyone who has participated in this pTLA review, on both > > sides, for your comments. > >Thank YOU for all your time and effort in coordinating this aspect of the >6bone project through the years :) > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 11 >Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:26:28 +0000 >From: Tim Chown >To: 6BONE List <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> >Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 > >On reflection I think this request should be denied, because it does not >meet the requirements, as highlighted by others on this list. I thus >remove my previous support for the request. > >Tim > >On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:47:20PM +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 19:32, Bob Fink wrote: > > 6bone Folk, > > > > > CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully > > > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this closes 16 December > > > 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. > > > > > > > > > > > > This may be the last 6bone pTLA allocation made as the phaseout plan > > > specifies no new pTLA allocations after the end of this year. Thus if > > > anyone is expecting to request a pTLA, the request must be sent to me no > > > later than 5 December to allow enough review and approval time prior to 31 > > > December. > > > > The community must be open about this request. > > > > This is the last pTLA request, I think that we can allocate this pTLA. > > Closing the pTLA allocation period with a request denied don't promote > > IPv6 usage and is not good for the community. CTN1 want promote the > > IPv6, i'm agree they are very just with the time, but with deny of this > > request they can't promote IPv6 usage and they can't offer free and high > > quality IPv6 services to their customers. > > > > Open your eyes, not all pTLA request respect fully RFC2772. > > There is a problem with this request, because some people want troll > > about it. > > > > I don't work for CTN1, CTN1 is just a partner for NDSoftware. We help > > CTN1 in its IPv6 deploiement. > > > > Please note that for get a sTLA from RIPE, the requester must be a LIR, > > (a cost of ~ 4500 EUR). It's a very high cost for promote IPv6 and offer > > free IPv6 services with a minimum of quality and independance.... > > > > Thanks for have read my mail, i wait your comments. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > -- > > Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware > > NDSoftware IP Network: http://www.ip.ndsoftware.net/ > > FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/ > > EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 6bone mailing list > ; > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > >--__--__-- > >Message: 12 >Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:57:53 +0000 >From: Tim Chown >To: 6BONE List <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> >Subject: Re: [6bone] winding down and returns? > >Thanks Bob. > >The next step is then to wind down the 6bone allocations, and perhaps >encourage formal returns? It may be that 50% of current holders are >inactive due to commercial allocations, but have not bothered to "hand in" >pTLAs as there's isn't a process as such. > >Some networks already don't accept 6bone prefixes. So their usefulness >is already becoming more limited. > >Tim > >On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 01:51:44PM -0800, Bob Fink wrote: > > 6bone Folk, > > > > I have denied the CTN1 pTLA request as of today. I do wish Marc Gomez and > > CTN1 well in providing IPv6 transport to the customers of CTN1, and do hope > > Marc will pursue a production prefix from RIPE. > > > > I did not deny this request lightly, and did ask various follow up > > questions. I remained concerned about the inability to even reach the CTN1 > > web site or find a AAAA record in its DNS until today (or at least > > intermittently so). In my opinion it is unlikely that CTN1 really provided > > all the required services for the full 3 month period required. If we > > weren't at the end of 6bone prefix allocation, I would have encouraged Marc > > to wait a little longer until he clearly established operational experience > > in IPv6 for CTN1 sufficient to qualify for a pTLA. Alas, we are out of time > > and no more 6bone pTLA prefixes will be allocated. > > > > Regardless of the cost to acquire production prefixes from the RIRs, > > clearly it isn't all that hard as there are almost 500 prefixes allocated > > now, more than half (274) of which come from RIPE. Compare this to the > > current 123 6bone pTLA prefixes allocated and it is clear that the time for > > an early experimental method to distribute IPv6 addresses is past. > > > > I want to thank everyone who has participated in this pTLA review, on both > > sides, for your comments. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bob Fink > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 6bone mailing list > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > >--__--__-- > >_______________________________________________ >6bone mailing list >6bone@mailman.isi.edu >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > >End of 6bone Digest


Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. From pim@ipng.nl Thu Dec 18 19:13:14 2003 From: pim@ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:13:14 +0100 Subject: [6bone] RE: Content of 6bone digest, Vol 1 #446 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20031218191314.GA6092@bfib.colo.bit.nl> Hi, Please refrain from sending HTML mail to this mailinglist. Many people cannot read that type of message. As for the Pentagon saying 2008; Not the whole world follows American standards -- The far east and Europe are far ahead of the Americas when it comes to IPv6 deployment. Europe is kind of getting there. I've seen native BGP come to Holland for example, and now many respectable companies are treating IPv6 as a part of their network. groet, Pim -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From tony@lava.net Thu Dec 18 22:08:09 2003 From: tony@lava.net (Antonio Querubin) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:08:09 -1000 (HST) Subject: [6bone] winding down and returns? In-Reply-To: <008f01c3c56c$e8c79680$210d640a@unfix.org> References: <008f01c3c56c$e8c79680$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <20031218112939.T4739@tempura.lava.net> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Jeroen Massar wrote: > Afaik, the process is quite simple: > - stop announcing the prefix into BGP > - remove prefixes (inet6num, ipv6-site etc) from the 6bone registry Are there any other alternate registries for tracking BGP peering/tunnels between IPv6 networks? We use the RADB for IPv4 prefixes but it has no provision for handling IPv6 route objects as far as I can tell. I think the 6bone registry still serves a useful purpose in this area for those of us peering with ASNs still using 6bone prefixes. > - notify this (6bone@mailman.isi.edu) list that your organisation > is returning the prefix and not using it any more. Ok, we're officially returning 3ffe:8160::/28. There are still some BGP links using a few addresses out there but they'll be renumbered soon. From cinnion@ka8zrt.com Thu Dec 18 22:42:55 2003 From: cinnion@ka8zrt.com (Douglas Wade Needham) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:42:55 -0500 Subject: [6bone] RE: Content of 6bone digest, Vol 1 #446 In-Reply-To: <20031218191314.GA6092@bfib.colo.bit.nl> References: <20031218191314.GA6092@bfib.colo.bit.nl> Message-ID: <20031218224254.GA434@pell.home.ka8zrt.com> Quoting Pim van Pelt (pim@ipng.nl): > Please refrain from sending HTML mail to this mailinglist. Many people > cannot read that type of message. I agree 1M percent. I either have to bring up such a message as text and try to puzzle my way through the excuse for HTML which most programs like outlook or netscape create, or save it and fire up a browser to look at it. The only thing more inexcusable is sending stuff from Micro$oft Orifice to a mailing list. > As for the Pentagon saying 2008; Not the whole world follows American > standards -- The far east and Europe are far ahead of the Americas when > it comes to IPv6 deployment. > > Europe is kind of getting there. I've seen native BGP come to Holland > for example, and now many respectable companies are treating IPv6 as a > part of their network. In a way, the US being the birthplace for the Internet has become a major drawback. There is quite a bit of equipment in North America which must be updated to allow us to get IPv6 widely deployed, so I think the Pentagon may unfortunately be correct. 8( Add to this the fact that companies like MCI/UUNET and others spent quite a bit of money for Y2K and do not want to turn around right now to spend more on IPv6 to get things converted, and I think we may be 2010 or later before IPv4 goes away in the backbone. Makes for an interesting conversation with my friends who are still working over at UUNET and AOL. - Doug -- Douglas Wade Needham - KA8ZRT UN*X Consultant & UW/BSD kernel programmer Email: cinnion @ ka8zrt . com http://cinnion.ka8zrt.com Disclaimer: My opinions are my own. Since I don't want them, why should my employer, or anybody else for that matter! From david@iprg.nokia.com Thu Dec 18 23:17:45 2003 From: david@iprg.nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:17:45 -0800 Subject: [6bone] winding down and returns? In-Reply-To: <20031218112939.T4739@tempura.lava.net>; from Antonio Querubin on Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:08:09PM -1000 References: <008f01c3c56c$e8c79680$210d640a@unfix.org> <20031218112939.T4739@tempura.lava.net> Message-ID: <20031218151745.H21341@iprg.nokia.com> Antonio, On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:08:09PM -1000, Antonio Querubin wrote: > > Are there any other alternate registries for tracking BGP peering/tunnels > between IPv6 networks? Not yet, but Merit and the RIPE NCC are working on RPSLng which should give you simular functionality (and some more). > We use the RADB for IPv4 prefixes but it has no > provision for handling IPv6 route objects as far as I can tell. I think > the 6bone registry still serves a useful purpose in this area for those of > us peering with ASNs still using 6bone prefixes. It's perfectly fine if you want to store tunnel information about production prefixes in the 6bone database too. Nothing has been decided so far when the registry will go away. At this point, I would anticipate that we will keep running until at least the official end of the 6bone and I guess we can decide close to that point whether it still serves a purpose or whether it is time to retire. Nothing will be done/changed without asking the community first. I hope this helps, David Kessens --- From jeroen@unfix.org Thu Dec 18 23:52:50 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:52:50 +0100 Subject: [6bone] winding down and returns? In-Reply-To: <20031218112939.T4739@tempura.lava.net> Message-ID: <000e01c3c5c2$0c908130$210d640a@unfix.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Antonio Querubin wrote: > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > Afaik, the process is quite simple: > > - stop announcing the prefix into BGP > > - remove prefixes (inet6num, ipv6-site etc) from the 6bone registry > > Are there any other alternate registries for tracking BGP > peering/tunnels between IPv6 networks? We use the RADB for IPv4 prefixes but > it has no provision for handling IPv6 route objects as far as I can > tell. I think the 6bone registry still serves a useful purpose in this area > for those of us peering with ASNs still using 6bone prefixes. One can document import/export rules like in: http://www.noc.easynet.net/network/public/whois.cgi?Whois=-r%20-a%20-T%20aut-num%20AS4589 For the rest one has to wait for RPSLng to be deployed, but afaik that is nearing completion. RADB and RIPE will at least support this and so will APNIC at the least. I am wondering what the state of both ARIN and LACNIC's implementations are though. > > - notify this (6bone@mailman.isi.edu) list that your organisation > > is returning the prefix and not using it any more. > > Ok, we're officially returning 3ffe:8160::/28. There are > still some BGP > links using a few addresses out there but they'll be renumbered soon. It, nor any more specifics, where seen by GRH since 01-12-2003, thus it looks it is globally gone already. Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP+I90imqKFIzPnwjEQLyxQCeJkt4Jpg3/l3iix95VkZZVbBxqbAAn1tr PPgAaMa9DEQKFoRQTPCeUU3r =Wyk1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jeroen@unfix.org Fri Dec 19 00:26:58 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:26:58 +0100 Subject: [6bone] RE: Content of 6bone digest, Vol 1 #446 In-Reply-To: <20031218224254.GA434@pell.home.ka8zrt.com> Message-ID: <002801c3c5c6$d859b4e0$210d640a@unfix.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Douglas Wade Needham wrote: > In a way, the US being the birthplace for the Internet has become a > major drawback. "Yeah, Al Gore invented it!" :) > There is quite a bit of equipment in North America > which must be updated to allow us to get IPv6 widely deployed, so I > think the Pentagon may unfortunately be correct. 8( Add to this the > fact that companies like MCI/UUNET and others spent quite a bit of > money for Y2K and do not want to turn around right now to spend more > on IPv6 to get things converted, and I think we may be 2010 or later > before IPv4 goes away in the backbone. Makes for an interesting > conversation with my friends who are still working over at UUNET and > AOL. Well, they do all have IPv6 allocations: 2001:600::/32 EU-UUNET-19990810 3ffe:1100::/24 UUNET-UK/GB 3ffe:8090::/28 UUNET-US 3ffe:8290::/28 AOL/US AOL is not visible in the global BGP tables though ;( Next to that there is quite a number of big American ISP's that are doing IPv6 and with a couple of very good projects and a lot of marketing effort from the DoD I think that the US will start catching up, better late then never. As for not having IPv6 everywhere yet, that's why there are quite a number of transition methods and there are even companies providing special hardware for providing those services and apparently making money from it ;) Oh but that one is Canadian, but that is North American too. IPv4 btw will not go away from the backbone in the coming 40 years at least. There is just too much equipment out there that is using it. One shouldn't be thinking about converting to IPv6 either, IPv6 brings one new features and much more address space and services will start co-existing in both IPv4 and IPv6 and one day in the future IPv4 will become used only by a few and it will go away, but not just in the coming couple of years... Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP+JF0SmqKFIzPnwjEQIS3ACgv6MnzAsgKCgUF9ln5XZ4d/BFoQkAn0pC 4kWVWr4B81KU5jl6SLsXoJ1J =QjVQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jeroen@unfix.org Fri Dec 19 00:52:38 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:52:38 +0100 Subject: [6bone] RE: Content of 6bone digest, Vol 1 #446 Message-ID: <003201c3c5ca$66c1d2f0$210d640a@unfix.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [reply to self ;)] Jeroen Massar wrote: > AOL is not visible in the global BGP tables though ;( Oops, they also have a ARIN prefix, the 6bone prefix isn't visible but the ARIN prefix is and it also works and has content ;) See http://wwwv6.aolv6.aol.com/ Which also contains a link to http://home.ipv6.netscape.com Their pinger output does show that the majority of entries in the 6bone database are not updated, especially if one doesn't update the local copy of the database. As for MCI, they also run VBNS which is in their way too. Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP+JL1SmqKFIzPnwjEQL0owCfZCVcB4zXYH+/2u8Whee0qSTII+0AoIzB O6GMIYZF6YT4fXe5/u2UjsSR =a8YN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mg@ctn1.com Fri Dec 19 01:41:42 2003 From: mg@ctn1.com (Marc GOMEZ) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:41:42 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <20031218112628.GE10500@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Message-ID: <000201c3c5d1$40dfee80$180aa8c0@spiderman> Good Evening Gentlemen, Thanks for your different comments. You have make a choice and I respect this choice. I have not comment about this decision. Each remark is positive and I would like thanks all people of this list. Well, have a nice day and good luck for your project on Ipv6. Best regards Marc Gomez CTN1 -----Message d'origine----- De : 6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu [mailto:6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu] De la part de Tim Chown Envoyé : jeudi 18 décembre 2003 12:26 À : 6BONE List Objet : Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 On reflection I think this request should be denied, because it does not meet the requirements, as highlighted by others on this list. I thus remove my previous support for the request. Tim On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:47:20PM +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 19:32, Bob Fink wrote: > 6bone Folk, > > > CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully > > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this closes 16 December > > 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. > > > > > > > > This may be the last 6bone pTLA allocation made as the phaseout plan > > specifies no new pTLA allocations after the end of this year. Thus if > > anyone is expecting to request a pTLA, the request must be sent to me no > > later than 5 December to allow enough review and approval time prior to 31 > > December. > > The community must be open about this request. > > This is the last pTLA request, I think that we can allocate this pTLA. > Closing the pTLA allocation period with a request denied don't promote > IPv6 usage and is not good for the community. CTN1 want promote the > IPv6, i'm agree they are very just with the time, but with deny of this > request they can't promote IPv6 usage and they can't offer free and high > quality IPv6 services to their customers. > > Open your eyes, not all pTLA request respect fully RFC2772. > There is a problem with this request, because some people want troll > about it. > > I don't work for CTN1, CTN1 is just a partner for NDSoftware. We help > CTN1 in its IPv6 deploiement. > > Please note that for get a sTLA from RIPE, the requester must be a LIR, > (a cost of ~ 4500 EUR). It's a very high cost for promote IPv6 and offer > free IPv6 services with a minimum of quality and independance.... > > Thanks for have read my mail, i wait your comments. > > Best Regards, > > -- > Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware > NDSoftware IP Network: http://www.ip.ndsoftware.net/ > FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/ > EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list 6bone@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From gert@space.net Fri Dec 19 08:40:33 2003 From: gert@space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:40:33 +0100 Subject: [6bone] RE: Content of 6bone digest, Vol 1 #446 In-Reply-To: <20031218224254.GA434@pell.home.ka8zrt.com> References: <20031218191314.GA6092@bfib.colo.bit.nl> <20031218224254.GA434@pell.home.ka8zrt.com> Message-ID: <20031219084033.GG30954@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 05:42:55PM -0500, Douglas Wade Needham wrote: > money for Y2K and do not want to turn around right now to spend more > on IPv6 to get things converted, and I think we may be 2010 or later > before IPv4 goes away in the backbone. Makes for an interesting > conversation with my friends who are still working over at UUNET and > AOL. "Widely deploying IPv6" and "IPv4 going away in the backbone" are two very distinct pairs of shoe :-)- I think Europe is really making big progress towards the first, but nobdy has any realistic estimates for a shutdown day for IPv4 (if it ever happens)... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57386 (57785) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk Fri Dec 19 09:28:57 2003 From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:28:57 +0000 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <000201c3c5d1$40dfee80$180aa8c0@spiderman> References: <20031218112628.GE10500@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <000201c3c5d1$40dfee80$180aa8c0@spiderman> Message-ID: <20031219092857.GB7527@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Hi Marc, You should still have no problem getting IPv6 address space for your company. Either you should be able to get (production) IPv6 address space from an existing European provider, or alternatively since NDSoftware is backing your request just get address space from their experimental pTLA. Alternatively if you meet the requirements and pay the RIPE NCC membership/ LIR fee (I believe around 2,500 Euros) you can apply for your own production prefix, if you meet the requirements: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html (see Section 5.1) Good luck! Tim On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 02:41:42AM +0100, Marc GOMEZ wrote: > Good Evening Gentlemen, > > Thanks for your different comments. You have make a choice and I respect > this choice. I have not comment about this decision. > > Each remark is positive and I would like thanks all people of this list. > > Well, have a nice day and good luck for your project on Ipv6. > Best regards > Marc Gomez > CTN1 > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : 6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu [mailto:6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu] De la > part de Tim Chown > Envoyé : jeudi 18 décembre 2003 12:26 > À : 6BONE List > Objet : Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 > > On reflection I think this request should be denied, because it does not > meet the requirements, as highlighted by others on this list. I thus > remove my previous support for the request. > > Tim > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:47:20PM +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 19:32, Bob Fink wrote: > > 6bone Folk, > > > > > CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully > > > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this closes 16 > December > > > 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. > > > > > > > > > > > > This may be the last 6bone pTLA allocation made as the phaseout plan > > > specifies no new pTLA allocations after the end of this year. Thus if > > > anyone is expecting to request a pTLA, the request must be sent to me no > > > > later than 5 December to allow enough review and approval time prior to > 31 > > > December. > > > > The community must be open about this request. > > > > This is the last pTLA request, I think that we can allocate this pTLA. > > Closing the pTLA allocation period with a request denied don't promote > > IPv6 usage and is not good for the community. CTN1 want promote the > > IPv6, i'm agree they are very just with the time, but with deny of this > > request they can't promote IPv6 usage and they can't offer free and high > > quality IPv6 services to their customers. > > > > Open your eyes, not all pTLA request respect fully RFC2772. > > There is a problem with this request, because some people want troll > > about it. > > > > I don't work for CTN1, CTN1 is just a partner for NDSoftware. We help > > CTN1 in its IPv6 deploiement. > > > > Please note that for get a sTLA from RIPE, the requester must be a LIR, > > (a cost of ~ 4500 EUR). It's a very high cost for promote IPv6 and offer > > free IPv6 services with a minimum of quality and independance.... > > > > Thanks for have read my mail, i wait your comments. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > -- > > Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware > > NDSoftware IP Network: http://www.ip.ndsoftware.net/ > > FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/ > > EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 6bone mailing list > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net Fri Dec 19 11:16:57 2003 From: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net (Nicolas DEFFAYET) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:16:57 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <20031219092857.GB7527@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> References: <20031218112628.GE10500@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <000201c3c5d1$40dfee80$180aa8c0@spiderman> <20031219092857.GB7527@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Message-ID: <1071832617.24875.17.camel@w1-aub-fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> On Fri, 2003-12-19 at 10:28, Tim Chown wrote: Hi, > You should still have no problem getting IPv6 address space for your company. > > Either you should be able to get (production) IPv6 address space from an > existing European provider, or alternatively since NDSoftware is backing your > request just get address space from their experimental pTLA. NDSoftware have assigned the prefix 3ffe:4013:4000::/36 to CTN1: inet6num: 3FFE:4013:4000::/36 netname: FR-CTN1-20031218 descr: CTN1 country: FR admin-c: RP1620-RIPE tech-c: RP1620-RIPE rev-srv: ns1.ctn1.net rev-srv: ns2.ctn1.net rev-srv: ns3.ctn1.net notify: noc@ndsoftware.net mnt-by: MNT-NDSOFTWARE changed: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net 20031218 source: 6BONE We have reserved 3ffe:4013:5000::/36 for CTN1 if after they need more address space. Best regards, -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NDSoftware IP Network: http://www.ip.ndsoftware.net/ FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/ EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ From nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net Fri Dec 19 11:39:58 2003 From: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net (Nicolas DEFFAYET) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:39:58 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 In-Reply-To: <003501c3c4f6$6f7c93a0$0200a8c0@dryad> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> <1071690440.26093.153.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> <20031217154650.00003155.matrix@miracle1.net> <1071695838.26091.188.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> <003501c3c4f6$6f7c93a0$0200a8c0@dryad> Message-ID: <1071833998.24882.26.camel@w1-aub-fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 00:35, Dan Reeder wrote: Dan, > Besides, as has been pointed out the 6bone is on its last legs. If CTN1 is > such a well funded company (i'd love to have 1 million euros at my disposal) > then I'm sure RIPE would be all ears. And if thats still not feasible, what > is stopping NDSoftware from giving a /35 to them? You are partners, right? We have assigned a /36 to CTN1 with the possibility to extend to a /35. (see my previous mail about that for more details). Yes, we are partner. -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NDSoftware IP Network: http://www.ip.ndsoftware.net/ FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/ EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ From nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net Fri Dec 19 11:44:11 2003 From: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net (Nicolas DEFFAYET) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:44:11 +0100 Subject: [6bone] winding down and returns? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031218074406.02bd0908@mail.addr.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031217131355.02b96610@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031202103001.02b69788@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031217131355.02b96610@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031218074406.02bd0908@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <1071834251.24882.31.camel@w1-aub-fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 16:52, Bob Fink wrote: Bob, > >Some networks already don't accept 6bone prefixes. So their usefulness > >is already becoming more limited. > > If this is becoming the trend, doesn't it make most uses of the 6bone > irrelevant? Maybe it would be better to create (and keep current) a list of > really good pTLAs, even establishing some meaningful standards for what > that means, that would encourage production prefix holders to peer with them? I'm agree, making a list of really good and important pTLAs is very useful. -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NDSoftware IP Network: http://www.ip.ndsoftware.net/ FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/ EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ From 6bone@mailman.isi.edu Tue Dec 23 01:00:59 2003 From: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu (Chuck Yerkes) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:00:59 -0500 Subject: [6bone] RE: Content of 6bone digest, Vol 1 #446 In-Reply-To: <20031218224254.GA434@pell.home.ka8zrt.com> References: <20031218191314.GA6092@bfib.colo.bit.nl> <20031218224254.GA434@pell.home.ka8zrt.com> Message-ID: <20031223010059.GA3639@snew.com> Quoting Douglas Wade Needham (cinnion@ka8zrt.com): > Quoting Pim van Pelt (pim@ipng.nl): > > Please refrain from sending HTML mail to this mailinglist. Many people > > cannot read that type of message. > > I agree 1M percent. I either have to bring up such a message as text > and try to puzzle my way through the excuse for HTML which most I know I skipped it :) > > As for the Pentagon saying 2008; Not the whole world follows American > > standards -- The far east and Europe are far ahead of the Americas when > > it comes to IPv6 deployment. And have far more motivation (and less address space). It's also EASIER. I don't find many homes in the EU that have internet there 24x7. That means that there's less of a "redo" to do. Easiest, likely are areas without as much net prevalence - eg. china and africa. I recall amazing my coworkers in france (while visiting) in that I could 1) log into my house from the internet and 2) control lights and read the alarm's motion sensors and such (hmmm, motion in living room, then kitchen, She must be awake). They didn't get, in 1999, why you'd have a computer on all the time in your house. Sure, they'd carry a laptop home, but all the time? (and these were unix guys generally). I do regularly ask my broadband and Cellular provider when I get IPv6 addresses. I've gotten others too as well. So when PacBell says nobody brings it up, they lie. > In a way, the US being the birthplace for the Internet has become a > major drawback. There is quite a bit of equipment in North America > which must be updated to allow us to get IPv6 widely deployed, so I > think the Pentagon may unfortunately be correct. 8( Add to this the > fact that companies like MCI/UUNET and others spent quite a bit of > money for Y2K and do not want to turn around right now to spend more > on IPv6 to get things converted, and I think we may be 2010 or later I disagree. Y2k was nearly 4 years ago. Most of that newly bought equipment is fully depreciated. I think that was a big cause of not much being bought POST y2k (everything is < 2years old, why refresh?). > before IPv4 goes away in the backbone. Makes for an interesting > conversation with my friends who are still working over at UUNET and > AOL. I think the backbone is exactly where IPv4 CAN go away most easily. The edges and inside companies is where IPv6 is likely to be around for decades. Me? My pet desire is to see a tiny IPv6 stack that could easily be used in embedded devices (< 1MB of RAM). I can get plenty of boards that speak IPv4, but 6 means that it's at least more feasable in itty bitty stupid things (say a controller for an appliance). And it would help if I could easily run an NFS workstation in a mixed env using ZERO ipv4. Windows free is fine; but I can't run 6 only with a FAITH gateway with most unixes (or OS X). From jguthrie@brokersys.com Tue Dec 23 02:56:01 2003 From: jguthrie@brokersys.com (Jonathan Guthrie) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:56:01 -0600 Subject: [6bone] RE: Content of 6bone digest, Vol 1 #446 In-Reply-To: <20031223010059.GA3639@snew.com> References: <20031218191314.GA6092@bfib.colo.bit.nl> <20031218224254.GA434@pell.home.ka8zrt.com> <20031223010059.GA3639@snew.com> Message-ID: <20031223025601.GA3674@brokersys.com> On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 08:00:59PM -0500, Chuck Yerkes wrote: > And have far more motivation (and less address space). Actually, since the free IPv4 blocks are allocated on an on-demand basis, that isn't true. Everybody pulls IPv4 addresses out of the same pool of unallocated addresses. > I do regularly ask my broadband and Cellular provider when I get > IPv6 addresses. I've gotten others too as well. So when PacBell > says nobody brings it up, they lie. So you've gotten perhaps 20 people to ask. SBC has perhaps 10 million customers. To a first order approximation, nobody does bring it up. I have had other problems with SBC and I know that they really aren't able to handle anything but mass market "any color you want, as long as it's black" service. You're probably doomed to disappointement if you're trying to convince SBC to do anything "leading edge". > > before IPv4 goes away in the backbone. Makes for an interesting > > conversation with my friends who are still working over at UUNET and > > AOL. > I think the backbone is exactly where IPv4 CAN go away most easily. I've got $100 US in my pocket that says that there will be at least one "backbone" provider with native IPv4 service 30 years from now. (I would have said 100 years from now, but it's unlikely in the extreme that I'll live long enough to collect on that bet.) Even if IPv6 is adopted vastly faster than I expect, IPv4 will likely not go away within the lifetimes of any of the participants here. Perhaps never. > Me? My pet desire is to see a tiny IPv6 stack that could easily > be used in embedded devices (< 1MB of RAM). Don't want much, do you. The IPv6 module I use on my computers is 280k long. IPv4 takes maybe 1/10th that much. In fact, that, along with a complete lack of multihoming solutions unless you're a TLA, is what prevents the widespread adoption of IPv6. Here's a question: What end-user routers for DSL, cablemodem, or ISDN access support IPv6? If you want IPv6 to be adopted in North America, make that list longer. -- Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) Sto pro veritate From cinnion@ka8zrt.com Tue Dec 23 04:35:10 2003 From: cinnion@ka8zrt.com (Douglas Wade Needham) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:35:10 -0500 Subject: [6bone] RE: Content of 6bone digest, Vol 1 #446 In-Reply-To: <20031223025601.GA3674@brokersys.com> References: <20031218191314.GA6092@bfib.colo.bit.nl> <20031218224254.GA434@pell.home.ka8zrt.com> <20031223010059.GA3639@snew.com> <20031223025601.GA3674@brokersys.com> Message-ID: <20031223043510.GA15156@pell.home.ka8zrt.com> Quoting Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com): > I have had other problems with SBC and I know that they really aren't > able to handle anything but mass market "any color you want, as long > as it's black" service. You're probably doomed to disappointement if > you're trying to convince SBC to do anything "leading edge". And unfortunately, given how big SBC is and how they are used to provide connectivity for folks like me, IPv6 is going to be tunneled for folks like me for quite a while. > > > before IPv4 goes away in the backbone. Makes for an interesting > > > conversation with my friends who are still working over at UUNET and > > > AOL. > > > I think the backbone is exactly where IPv4 CAN go away most easily. > > I've got $100 US in my pocket that says that there will be at least one > "backbone" provider with native IPv4 service 30 years from now. (I > would have said 100 years from now, but it's unlikely in the extreme > that I'll live long enough to collect on that bet.) Even if IPv6 is > adopted vastly faster than I expect, IPv4 will likely not go away > within the lifetimes of any of the participants here. Perhaps never. I would have to agree that IPv4 has quite a lifetime ahead of it. And while quite a bit of the equipment which was bought for Y2K has depreciated, companies tend not to buy new equipment unless they absolutely have to do so. This is how Lucent has managed to layoff the 70% or more of us who were working there Jan 1, 2000, including myself. They are still selling what amounts to legacy equipment with just a few new features tacked on top of it. Indeed, the 5ESS telco switch which we designed probably 20 or more years ago had a project to produce a replacement. I know about half the folks who were working on the 7E when it was canceled about 2 years ago. A number of those folks ended up working on my project here in Columbus, OH, and in the past 2 years, over 70% of us either were retired early or laid off. There are three certain ways to force a company to upgrade equipment or software, at least in the telco sector. They are: a) Lack of parts b) Lack of capacity c) Lack of a key feature (e.g. being able to handle Jan 1, 2000 properly). Anything short of that, and getting somebody to upgrade becomes nearly impossible. This is the main way they manage to give you dialtone every time you pick up the phone. I have been looking at this whole area for a number of years now. Probably the best thing to happen to get IPv6 going in NA is to have a killer app encourage the deployment of IPv6 so that each cell phone gets an IP. One other possibility would be fiber to the premises (FTTP), so that we end up with more folks wanting to access things at home while they are out and about. However... > > Me? My pet desire is to see a tiny IPv6 stack that could easily > > be used in embedded devices (< 1MB of RAM). > > Don't want much, do you. The IPv6 module I use on my computers is 280k > long. IPv4 takes maybe 1/10th that much. In fact, that, along with a > complete lack of multihoming solutions unless you're a TLA, is what > prevents the widespread adoption of IPv6. > > Here's a question: What end-user routers for DSL, cablemodem, or ISDN > access support IPv6? If you want IPv6 to be adopted in North America, > make that list longer. This is probably one of the real reasons it will take at least a few years. I know quite a bit of the HW is capable of it, but the companies writing the SW do not see a good ROI, so they are not doing anything to get IPv6 support into their equipment. You could say this is a chicken and egg scenario. - Doug -- Douglas Wade Needham - KA8ZRT UN*X Consultant & UW/BSD kernel programmer Email: cinnion @ ka8zrt . com http://cinnion.ka8zrt.com Disclaimer: My opinions are my own. Since I don't want them, why should my employer, or anybody else for that matter! From alain.frieden@restena.lu Wed Dec 24 00:02:32 2003 From: alain.frieden@restena.lu (alain.frieden@restena.lu) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 01:02:32 +0100 Subject: [6bone] alain.frieden@restena.lu is out of the office. Message-ID: I will be out of the office starting 20/12/2003 and will not return until 02/01/2004. For urgent matters please contact noc@restena.lu !