From bj@zuto.de Sat Feb 1 08:50:52 2003 From: bj@zuto.de (Rainer) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 09:50:52 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Re: Cisco IOS Experiences In-Reply-To: <20030131173029.GA16928@thor.birkenwald.de> References: <20030131173029.GA16928@thor.birkenwald.de> Message-ID: <20030201085052.GA16002@zuto.de> Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > At this time I would wait for 12.2S which was sheduled for January, > 27th, so we hope it will be there soon. 12.2.14S was released on 30-01-2003. It seems to have the complete IPv6 feature-set for cisco 7[245]00 - except of OSPFv3: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122t/122t13/ipv6/ftipv6s.htm Rainer -- KeyID=759975BD fingerprint=887A 4BE3 6AB7 EE3C 4AE0 B0E1 0556 E25A 7599 75BD From dr@cluenet.de Sat Feb 1 11:46:48 2003 From: dr@cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 12:46:48 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Cisco IOS Experiences In-Reply-To: <20030131173029.GA16928@thor.birkenwald.de>; from berni@birkenwald.de on Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 06:30:29PM +0100 References: <20030131173029.GA16928@thor.birkenwald.de> Message-ID: <20030201124648.A28834@homebase.cluenet.de> On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 06:30:29PM +0100, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > At this time I would wait for 12.2S which was sheduled for January, I'd also recommend 12.2S in favour of 12.2T. > 27th, so we hope it will be there soon. 12.2(14)S is out since yesterday. Best regards, Daniel From gert@space.net Sat Feb 1 18:47:51 2003 From: gert@space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 19:47:51 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Cisco IOS Experiences In-Reply-To: <20030131173029.GA16928@thor.birkenwald.de>; from berni@birkenwald.de on Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 06:30:29PM +0100 References: <20030131173029.GA16928@thor.birkenwald.de> Message-ID: <20030201194751.V15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 06:30:29PM +0100, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > At this time I would wait for 12.2S which was sheduled for January, > 27th, so we hope it will be there soon. 12.2(14)S for 7200, 7400 and 7500 is out since yesterday. From the release notes, it seems to have all the IPv6 stuff that's in 12.2(11)T, but not everything that is contained in 12.2(13)T - especially the support for IPv6 stuff via radius (important for dial-in and VPN) seems to be missing. I haven't yet tried 12.2(14)S on any platform, but I'd very much like to hear about other's experiences with it. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 55671 (55600) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From mohacsi@niif.hu Mon Feb 3 08:27:48 2003 From: mohacsi@niif.hu (Janos Mohacsi) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:27:48 +0100 (CET) Subject: [6bone] Want help in Configuring OSPF3, DHCPv6 and Mobile IPv6 in Cisco Router. In-Reply-To: <1E27FF611EBEFB4580387FCB5BEF00F3031665@webmail.wipro.com> Message-ID: <20030203092334.C84609-100000@evil.ki.iif.hu> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Anil Bhaskarwar wrote: > Hi, > I want to configure DHCPv6, OSPF3 and Mobile IPv6 on a Cisco Router. I > have got the latest version i.e., 12.2(13T). This version is compiled on > 3 Jan 2003. > Can anybody tell whether this version supports one or all the above > mentioned protocols, as in the release notes I found that the version > supports OSPF3 but not able to see the commands related to OSPF for IPv6 > (OSPF3). Whether we have to enable OSPF3 routing as in the release notes > it is written that only RIPng is enabled by default but not OSPF3. > Looking forward for your valuable reply. Unfortunately the 12.2(13)T does not support OSPFv3. The next version will, according to the Cisco release plan. There is a beta IPv6 image, that has support for OSPFv3, but I do not recommend using it unless you want to debug Cisco IOS bugs... DHCPv6 is not available for Cisco routers, but soon there will be a beta image. Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi 6NET project (www.6net.org) > > Thanks and Best Regards, > Anil B. > Wipro Tech. > Electronics City-2 > India > Board No: +91-80-8520408-Ext: 5438 > Direct No: +91-80-8528778 > > From michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us Mon Feb 3 18:43:30 2003 From: michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 10:43:30 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement Message-ID: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F54BAB@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> Bob / Bob, Do we have a 6bone meeting in SF? I think that this topic is consensual enough so we could wrap it up there, get ML's approval and then ship it. My reading is that there are differences of opinion on the dates. I specifically say "differences of opinion" instead of "disagreements" because although several people have contributed alternative dates, there is also a general feeling that the dates proposed in the draft are acceptable, so this should not stop the text from moving. Michel. From bob@thefinks.com Tue Feb 4 03:13:53 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 19:13:53 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement In-Reply-To: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F54BAB@server2000.arneill-py .sacramento.ca.us> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030203191106.0208e788@mail.addr.com> Michel, At 10:43 AM 2/3/2003 -0800, Michel Py wrote: >Bob / Bob, > >Do we have a 6bone meeting in SF? I think that this topic is consensual >enough so we could wrap it up there, get ML's approval and then ship it. > >My reading is that there are differences of opinion on the dates. I >specifically say "differences of opinion" instead of "disagreements" >because although several people have contributed alternative dates, >there is also a general feeling that the dates proposed in the draft are >acceptable, so this should not stop the text from moving. I will schedule a meeting in San Francisco; probably the usual lunchtime meeting. I agree with your assessment of the response to the proposal, so far. I do believe we need a wider audience commenting. Stay tuned. Thanks, Bob From fernando@gont.com.ar Wed Feb 5 01:00:42 2003 From: fernando@gont.com.ar (Fernando Gont) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 22:00:42 -0300 Subject: [6bone] DNS support for IPv6 Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20030204215933.00d35b40@gont.com.ar> Hi, I'm just about to write a brief explanation about the RRs that need to be added to the ones described in RFC 1034 / 1035, in order to add support for IPv6. I've read RFC 3363, and it recommends that RFC 1886 stay on standards track and be advanced, and to move RFC 2874 to Experimental status. Shall I make comments on AAAA records, and don't even mention A6 records? About address mapping, RFC 3152 says IP6.ARPA should be used, instead IP6.INT. The same here: shall I omit the description of IP6.INT, or it is still being used, and so, I should describe it? TIA, Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar From aangel@myrealbox.com Wed Feb 5 01:37:11 2003 From: aangel@myrealbox.com (Aaron J. Angel) Date: 04 Feb 2003 19:37:11 -0600 Subject: [6bone] DNS support for IPv6 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030204215933.00d35b40@gont.com.ar> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030204215933.00d35b40@gont.com.ar> Message-ID: <1044409031.52581.8.camel@newstone.aquarius.null> On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 19:00, Fernando Gont wrote: > Hi, > > I'm just about to write a brief explanation about the RRs that need to be > added to the ones described in RFC 1034 / 1035, in order to add support for > IPv6. > > I've read RFC 3363, and it recommends that RFC 1886 stay on standards track > and be advanced, and to move RFC 2874 to Experimental status. > > Shall I make comments on AAAA records, and don't even mention A6 records? Currently, most IPv6 software only supports AAAA records, however IIRC, A6 records haven't died as a proposed standard (or I disagree eith it if they have). Only DNAME has that I'm aware of. If I'm worng, please, someone tell me. I'd mention the A6 RR, is it's rather nifty if I say so myself. The only problem is when using them for critical records like MX or NS, but then most people forget that you can use the whole address with a prefixlen of 0...djb forgot that, IIRC...or at least, neglects to mention it to assist him in spreading FUD. In short, mention it! At least, that's my opinion. > About address mapping, RFC 3152 says IP6.ARPA should be used, instead IP6.INT. > The same here: shall I omit the description of IP6.INT, or it is still > being used, and so, I should describe it? At this point, the only network using ip6.int is the 6bone, afaik. I would mention it as such. > TIA, > Fernando Gont > e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar > > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > From aangel@myrealbox.com Wed Feb 5 03:18:09 2003 From: aangel@myrealbox.com (Aaron J. Angel) Date: 04 Feb 2003 21:18:09 -0600 Subject: [6bone] Re: DNS support for IPv6 In-Reply-To: <3E40676A.4080903@bl.echidna.id.au> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030204215637.00d16e20@gont.com.ar> <3E40676A.4080903@bl.echidna.id.au> Message-ID: <1044415088.52581.11.camel@newstone.aquarius.null> On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 19:22, Carl Brewer wrote: > Fernando Gont wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm just about to write a brief explanation about the RRs that need to > > be added to the ones described in RFC 1034 / 1035, in order to add > > support for IPv6. > > > > I've read RFC 3363, and it recommends that RFC 1886 stay on standards > > track and be advanced, and to move RFC 2874 to Experimental status. > > > > Shall I make comments on AAAA records, and don't even mention A6 records? > > You want to mention them, but mention that they've been shelved, > cite the RFC that explains why :) Which one would that be? I can't find any particular RFC, or actual standards-related document about A6. I certainly know about DNAME, but I can't find any document on that either at the moment. As far as I knew, A6 wasn't shelved, only DNAME. I can understand DNAME, but not A6. A6 can be incredibly useful, and it's does /not/ pose as many problems as people think it does (at least, problems that aren't easily solved). From dragon@tdoi.org Wed Feb 5 06:12:04 2003 From: dragon@tdoi.org (Christian Nickel) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:12:04 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Re: DNS support for IPv6 References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030204215637.00d16e20@gont.com.ar> <3E40676A.4080903@bl.echidna.id.au> <1044415088.52581.11.camel@newstone.aquarius.null> Message-ID: <003401c2ccdd$810bd430$152ea8c0@alpha> > On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 19:22, Carl Brewer wrote: > > Fernando Gont wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm just about to write a brief explanation about the RRs that need to > > > be added to the ones described in RFC 1034 / 1035, in order to add > > > support for IPv6. > > > > > > I've read RFC 3363, and it recommends that RFC 1886 stay on standards > > > track and be advanced, and to move RFC 2874 to Experimental status. > > > > > > Shall I make comments on AAAA records, and don't even mention A6 records? > > > > You want to mention them, but mention that they've been shelved, > > cite the RFC that explains why :) > > Which one would that be? I can't find any particular RFC, or actual > standards-related document about A6. I certainly know about DNAME, but I > can't find any document on that either at the moment. As far as I knew, > A6 wasn't shelved, only DNAME. I can understand DNAME, but not A6. A6 > can be incredibly useful, and it's does /not/ pose as many problems as > people think it does (at least, problems that aren't easily solved). read RFC 3363 again Greets, Christian From dragon@tdoi.org Wed Feb 5 06:17:22 2003 From: dragon@tdoi.org (Christian Nickel) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:17:22 +0100 Subject: [6bone] DNS support for IPv6 References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030204215933.00d35b40@gont.com.ar> <1044409031.52581.8.camel@newstone.aquarius.null> Message-ID: <003f01c2ccde$3e91be20$152ea8c0@alpha> Hi, > On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 19:00, Fernando Gont wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm just about to write a brief explanation about the RRs that need to be > > added to the ones described in RFC 1034 / 1035, in order to add support for > > IPv6. > > > > I've read RFC 3363, and it recommends that RFC 1886 stay on standards track > > and be advanced, and to move RFC 2874 to Experimental status. > > > > Shall I make comments on AAAA records, and don't even mention A6 records? > > Currently, most IPv6 software only supports AAAA records, however IIRC, > A6 records haven't died as a proposed standard (or I disagree eith it if > they have). Only DNAME has that I'm aware of. If I'm worng, please, > someone tell me. I'd mention the A6 RR, is it's rather nifty if I say so > myself. > > The only problem is when using them for critical records like MX or NS, > but then most people forget that you can use the whole address with a > prefixlen of 0...djb forgot that, IIRC...or at least, neglects to > mention it to assist him in spreading FUD. > > In short, mention it! At least, that's my opinion. > > > About address mapping, RFC 3152 says IP6.ARPA should be used, instead IP6.INT. > > The same here: shall I omit the description of IP6.INT, or it is still > > being used, and so, I should describe it? > > At this point, the only network using ip6.int is the 6bone, afaik. I > would mention it as such. Currently you can use both ip6.int and ip6.arpa with 3ffe::/16 and 2001::/16, but ip6.arpa should be preferred. > > > TIA, > > Fernando Gont > > e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar Greets, Christian From rocheml@httrack.com Wed Feb 5 06:30:31 2003 From: rocheml@httrack.com (Xavier Roche) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 07:30:31 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Re: DNS support for IPv6 In-Reply-To: <1044415088.52581.11.camel@newstone.aquarius.null> References: <3E40676A.4080903@bl.echidna.id.au> <4.3.2.7.2.20030204215637.00d16e20@gont.com.ar> <3E40676A.4080903@bl.echidna.id.au> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030205072800.036274f0@www> >> You want to mention them, but mention that they've been shelved, >> cite the RFC that explains why :) >>Which one would that be? I can't find any particular RFC, or actual This one: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2474.txt?number=2474 And its update: (August 2002) http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3364.txt?number=3364 See "Less Compelling Arguments in Favor of AAAA" and "Potential Problems with A6" sections. " Recommendations based on these questions: (1) If the IPv6 working groups seriously intend to specify and deploy rapid renumbering or GSE-like routing, we should transition to using the A6 RR in the main tree and to using DNAME RRs as necessary in the reverse tree. (2) Otherwise, we should keep the simpler AAAA solution in the main tree and should not use DNAME RRs in the reverse tree. (3) In either case, the reverse tree should use the textual representation described in [RFC1886] rather than the bit label representation described in [RFC2874]. (4) If we do go to using A6 RRs in the main tree and to using DNAME RRs in the reverse tree, we should write applicability statements and implementation guidelines designed to discourage excessively complex uses of these features; in general, any network that can be described adequately using A6 0 RRs and without using DNAME RRs should be described that way, and the enhanced features should be used only when absolutely necessary, at least until we have much more experience with them and have a better understanding of their failure modes. " From koch@tiscali.net Wed Feb 5 09:29:55 2003 From: koch@tiscali.net (Alexander Koch) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 10:29:55 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Cisco IOS Experiences In-Reply-To: <20030131173029.GA16928@thor.birkenwald.de> References: <20030131173029.GA16928@thor.birkenwald.de> Message-ID: <20030205092955.GA30387@shekinah.ip.tiscali.net> Hiya. As we cover this topic here and I am truly not a cisco expert... What IOS image would I want to use for a 7206 that needs to do NAT (!) and IS-IS? Anyone? NAT is only for enterprise images? Thanks, Alexander From aangel@myrealbox.com Wed Feb 5 11:49:15 2003 From: aangel@myrealbox.com (Aaron J. Angel) Date: 05 Feb 2003 05:49:15 -0600 Subject: [6bone] Re: DNS support for IPv6 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030205072800.036274f0@www> References: <3E40676A.4080903@bl.echidna.id.au> <4.3.2.7.2.20030204215637.00d16e20@gont.com.ar> <3E40676A.4080903@bl.echidna.id.au> <5.2.0.9.0.20030205072800.036274f0@www> Message-ID: <1044445754.52952.7.camel@newstone.aquarius.null> On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 00:30, Xavier Roche wrote: > >> You want to mention them, but mention that they've been shelved, > >> cite the RFC that explains why :) > >>Which one would that be? I can't find any particular RFC, or actual > > This one: > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2474.txt?number=2474 That's definitely not it... > And its update: (August 2002) > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3364.txt?number=3364 But this was a rather interesting read. > See "Less Compelling Arguments in Favor of AAAA" and "Potential Problems with A6" sections." See also Less "Compelling Arguments in Favor of A6" and the Main Advantages sections. > Recommendations based on these questions: > > (1) If the IPv6 working groups seriously intend to specify and deploy > rapid renumbering or GSE-like routing, we should transition to > using the A6 RR in the main tree and to using DNAME RRs as > necessary in the reverse tree. Agreed, given number (3). > (3) In either case, the reverse tree should use the textual > representation described in [RFC1886] rather than the bit label > representation described in [RFC2874]. From MMESTDAG@ncsbe.jnj.com Wed Feb 5 14:20:17 2003 From: MMESTDAG@ncsbe.jnj.com (MMESTDAG@ncsbe.jnj.com) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:20:17 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Cisco IOS Experiences Message-ID: This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2CD21.B50CB940 Content-Type: text/plain NAT can be found in the IP only image too, so no enterprise image needed for that. Regs Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Alexander Koch [mailto:koch@tiscali.net] > Sent: Wednesday, 5 February 2003 10:30 > To: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > Subject: Re: [6bone] Cisco IOS Experiences > > > Hiya. > > As we cover this topic here and I am truly not a cisco > expert... What IOS image would I want to use for a 7206 that > needs to do NAT (!) and IS-IS? Anyone? NAT is only for > enterprise images? > > Thanks, > Alexander > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2CD21.B50CB940 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [6bone] Cisco IOS Experiences

NAT can be found in the IP only image too, so no = enterprise image needed for that.

Regs
Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Koch [mailto:koch@tiscali.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, 5 February 2003 10:30
> To: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu
> Subject: Re: [6bone] Cisco IOS = Experiences
>
>
> Hiya.
>
> As we cover this topic here and I am truly not = a cisco
> expert... What IOS image would I want to use = for a 7206 that
> needs to do NAT (!) and IS-IS? Anyone? NAT is = only for
> enterprise images?
>
> Thanks,
> Alexander
>
> = _______________________________________________
> 6bone mailing list
> 6bone@mailman.isi.edu
> http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone
>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2CD21.B50CB940-- From jorgen@hovland.cx Wed Feb 5 14:50:44 2003 From: jorgen@hovland.cx (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen_Hovland?=) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:50:44 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Cisco IOS Experiences References: <20030131173029.GA16928@thor.birkenwald.de> <20030205092955.GA30387@shekinah.ip.tiscali.net> Message-ID: <007f01c2cd25$fcf42d20$9598a8c0@CEEDOM> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Koch" Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 10:29 AM Subject: Re: [6bone] Cisco IOS Experiences > Hiya. > > As we cover this topic here and I am truly not a cisco > expert... What IOS image would I want to use for a 7206 that > needs to do NAT (!) and IS-IS? Anyone? NAT is only for > enterprise images? > > Thanks, > Alexander Hi Alexander c7200-is-mz.122-14.S should do that. I take it that you ofcourse want IPv6 support. NAT(!!!) is not only for enterprise images. -j From mohacsi@niif.hu Wed Feb 5 15:47:22 2003 From: mohacsi@niif.hu (Janos Mohacsi) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 16:47:22 +0100 (CET) Subject: [6bone] Cisco IOS Experiences In-Reply-To: <007f01c2cd25$fcf42d20$9598a8c0@CEEDOM> Message-ID: <20030205163318.H98329-100000@evil.ki.iif.hu> Hi to All, On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, [iso-8859-1] Jørgen Hovland wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alexander Koch" > Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 10:29 AM > Subject: Re: [6bone] Cisco IOS Experiences > > > > Hiya. > > > > As we cover this topic here and I am truly not a cisco > > expert... What IOS image would I want to use for a 7206 that > > needs to do NAT (!) and IS-IS? Anyone? NAT is only for > > enterprise images? > > > > Thanks, > > Alexander > > Hi Alexander > > c7200-is-mz.122-14.S should do that. I take it that you ofcourse want IPv6 > support. > NAT(!!!) is not only for enterprise images. But IS-IS is different thing. For IS-IS you need either enterprise or provider image. Unfortunately NAT is not supported in the service provider release, thus your only option is enterprise image. Regards, Janos Mohacsi 6NET project From rrockell@sprint.net Wed Feb 5 16:38:49 2003 From: rrockell@sprint.net (Robert J. Rockell) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:38:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [6bone] Sprint 6bone-only BGP changes Message-ID: Making the transition from 2001:440::/35 to 2001:440::/32 has caused us the need (based on config/software) to clear bgp to all neighbors this morning. Apologies for the inconvenience (but then again, this is why it is free :) ). It looks like some parts of the network were stuck in 2001:440::/35 as exported route. This is now fixed. Thanks. Let me know if you see any residual weirdness (privately please) and we'll be sure to address. Thanks Rob Rockell SprintLink (+1) 703-689-6322 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From Emanuele.Logalbo@TILAB.COM Thu Feb 6 11:12:31 2003 From: Emanuele.Logalbo@TILAB.COM (Lo Galbo Emanuele) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 12:12:31 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pim6sd&freebsd 4.7 Message-ID: <9620749A0C40FB49B72994B11B077C5DD25FEA@EXC2K01A.cselt.it> Hi. I have set up the Ipv6 multicast test plant. I installed pim6sd from its port in each of the 3 router I am going to set up. I wrote static unicast routing table instead of using RIP (I mean routed). Running netstat -nr I can find unicast routing table (infact I can ping all of my machines) but there are no multicast address except reserved ones. When I run pim6sd it tell me there is no global address available. What does it mean? In reality I gave site-local addresses to all interfaces because I want to estabilish an external link after having tested vic, rat, ect .. in local enviroment. So have I to give global addresses? I hope you will help me again. Thank you. Best regards Emanuele ==================================================================== CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by replying to MailAdmin@tilab.com. Thank you ==================================================================== From aangel@myrealbox.com Sat Feb 8 21:28:14 2003 From: aangel@myrealbox.com (Aaron J. Angel) Date: 08 Feb 2003 15:28:14 -0600 Subject: [6bone] DNS support for IPv6 In-Reply-To: <003f01c2ccde$3e91be20$152ea8c0@alpha> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030204215933.00d35b40@gont.com.ar> <1044409031.52581.8.camel@newstone.aquarius.null> <003f01c2ccde$3e91be20$152ea8c0@alpha> Message-ID: <1044739694.60809.1.camel@newstone.aquarius.null> On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 00:17, Christian Nickel wrote: > Currently you can use both ip6.int and ip6.arpa with 3ffe::/16 and 2001::/16, > but ip6.arpa should be preferred. That's just a tad bit misleading. You *can*, sure; but there is no reverse delegation for 3ffe::/16 under ip6.arpa, only ip6.int. From dragon@tdoi.org Sat Feb 8 21:57:16 2003 From: dragon@tdoi.org (Christian Nickel) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 22:57:16 +0100 Subject: [6bone] DNS support for IPv6 References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030204215933.00d35b40@gont.com.ar> <1044409031.52581.8.camel@newstone.aquarius.null> <003f01c2ccde$3e91be20$152ea8c0@alpha> <1044739694.60809.1.camel@newstone.aquarius.null> Message-ID: <006701c2cfbd$0b6ce650$152ea8c0@alpha> Hi, > > Currently you can use both ip6.int and ip6.arpa with 3ffe::/16 and 2001::/16, > > but ip6.arpa should be preferred. > > That's just a tad bit misleading. You *can*, sure; but there is no > reverse delegation for 3ffe::/16 under ip6.arpa, only ip6.int. Aaron thats not correct there is an ip6.arpa reverse delegation for 3ffe::/16! Greets, Christian From aangel@myrealbox.com Sat Feb 8 21:59:44 2003 From: aangel@myrealbox.com (Aaron J. Angel) Date: 08 Feb 2003 15:59:44 -0600 Subject: [6bone] DNS support for IPv6 In-Reply-To: <006701c2cfbd$0b6ce650$152ea8c0@alpha> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030204215933.00d35b40@gont.com.ar> <1044409031.52581.8.camel@newstone.aquarius.null> <003f01c2ccde$3e91be20$152ea8c0@alpha> <1044739694.60809.1.camel@newstone.aquarius.null> <006701c2cfbd$0b6ce650$152ea8c0@alpha> Message-ID: <1044741583.60809.3.camel@newstone.aquarius.null> On Sat, 2003-02-08 at 15:57, Christian Nickel wrote: > Hi, > > > > Currently you can use both ip6.int and ip6.arpa with 3ffe::/16 and 2001::/16, > > > but ip6.arpa should be preferred. > > > > That's just a tad bit misleading. You *can*, sure; but there is no > > reverse delegation for 3ffe::/16 under ip6.arpa, only ip6.int. > > Aaron thats not correct there is an ip6.arpa reverse delegation for 3ffe::/16! Really? When did this happen? ::is clueless:: From dragon@tdoi.org Sat Feb 8 22:21:28 2003 From: dragon@tdoi.org (Christian Nickel) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 23:21:28 +0100 Subject: [6bone] DNS support for IPv6 References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030204215933.00d35b40@gont.com.ar> <1044409031.52581.8.camel@newstone.aquarius.null> <003f01c2ccde$3e91be20$152ea8c0@alpha> <1044739694.60809.1.camel@newstone.aquarius.null> <006701c2cfbd$0b6ce650$152ea8c0@alpha> <1044741583.60809.3.camel@newstone.aquarius.null> Message-ID: <001101c2cfc0$6d03ef00$152ea8c0@alpha> Hi, > > > > Currently you can use both ip6.int and ip6.arpa with 3ffe::/16 and 2001::/16, > > > > but ip6.arpa should be preferred. > > > > > > That's just a tad bit misleading. You *can*, sure; but there is no > > > reverse delegation for 3ffe::/16 under ip6.arpa, only ip6.int. > > > > Aaron thats not correct there is an ip6.arpa reverse delegation for 3ffe::/16! > > Really? When did this happen? ::is clueless:: since January 2003 > Dear Colleagues, > > In accordance with RFC 3152, the administration of the name space within > ip6.arpa has been delegated to the RIRs. The 3FFE::/16 address space has > Not yet been allocated to the RIRs by the IANA. It is the intention that > the RIRs administer this space. The community has expressed a need for > 3FFE reverse space to be in the ip6.arpa domain. The RIR CEOs sent a > message to the IAB requesting a waiver regarding the RFC 3152 > requirement and received a positive response. The RIRs are prepared to > administer e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa domain in the manner as described below. > > We plan to implement it in the next few weeks and deliver the solution > soon after the RIPE 44 Meeting in January. > > Regards, > > Andrei Robachevsky > CTO, RIPE NCC > > > Support for reverse delegation for 6bone address space in ip6.arpa DNS tree > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Phase I. Before a final decision is made on future management of the > 3FFE address space > > The delegation for e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa is made by IANA to one of the RIRs. > Zone information for this space is produced by copying the existing > delegations in the e.f.f.3.ip6.int zone. Additional check is done to > ensure that the servers corresponding to the NS RR are also > authoritative in .arpa space. Zone information is updated whenever > changes are detected in the e.f.f.3.ip6.int zone. > > This approach has a couple of advantages. It keeps the RIRs out of the > 6bone registration process until a final decision is made on future > management of the 3FFE address space. It also implies no procedural > changes from a user's perspective since changes are made in only one > place, while at the same time it moves responsibility for maintaining > the e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa zone to the RIRs. This then prepares for a smoother > transition to Phase II. > > The main constraint of this approach is that it forces registrants to > use the same name servers for .arpa as for .int. > > > Phase II. Registration of 3FFE space is transferred to the RIRs > > A shared zone management process will be implemented similar to that > currently implemented by the RIRs for the legacy v4 space (ERX project, > http://www.ripe.net/db/erx/). That is, holders of 6bone address space > will be served for reverse delegation by the respective RIR in their > region, and the generation of the e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa zone can be entirely > automated using zone merging. Greets, Christian ------------------------------------------ TDOI Network | www.tdoi.org | noc@tdoi.org From bmanning@ISI.EDU Sun Feb 9 00:43:24 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 16:43:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] DNS support for IPv6 In-Reply-To: <001101c2cfc0$6d03ef00$152ea8c0@alpha> from Christian Nickel at "Feb 8, 3 11:21:28 pm" Message-ID: <200302090043.h190hO200879@boreas.isi.edu> You will note on careful inspection that Andrei's note was a -PROPOSAL- that has not yet been implemented. % % > > > > Currently you can use both ip6.int and ip6.arpa with 3ffe::/16 and 2001::/16, % > > > > but ip6.arpa should be preferred. % > > > % > > > That's just a tad bit misleading. You *can*, sure; but there is no % > > > reverse delegation for 3ffe::/16 under ip6.arpa, only ip6.int. % > > % > > Aaron thats not correct there is an ip6.arpa reverse delegation for 3ffe::/16! % > % > Really? When did this happen? ::is clueless:: % % % since January 2003 % % % > Dear Colleagues, % > % > In accordance with RFC 3152, the administration of the name space within % > ip6.arpa has been delegated to the RIRs. The 3FFE::/16 address space has % > Not yet been allocated to the RIRs by the IANA. It is the intention that % > the RIRs administer this space. The community has expressed a need for % > 3FFE reverse space to be in the ip6.arpa domain. The RIR CEOs sent a % > message to the IAB requesting a waiver regarding the RFC 3152 % > requirement and received a positive response. The RIRs are prepared to % > administer e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa domain in the manner as described below. % > % > We plan to implement it in the next few weeks and deliver the solution % > soon after the RIPE 44 Meeting in January. % > % > Regards, % > % > Andrei Robachevsky % > CTO, RIPE NCC % > % > % > Support for reverse delegation for 6bone address space in ip6.arpa DNS tree % > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- % > % > Phase I. Before a final decision is made on future management of the % > 3FFE address space % > % > The delegation for e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa is made by IANA to one of the RIRs. % > Zone information for this space is produced by copying the existing % > delegations in the e.f.f.3.ip6.int zone. Additional check is done to % > ensure that the servers corresponding to the NS RR are also % > authoritative in .arpa space. Zone information is updated whenever % > changes are detected in the e.f.f.3.ip6.int zone. % > % > This approach has a couple of advantages. It keeps the RIRs out of the % > 6bone registration process until a final decision is made on future % > management of the 3FFE address space. It also implies no procedural % > changes from a user's perspective since changes are made in only one % > place, while at the same time it moves responsibility for maintaining % > the e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa zone to the RIRs. This then prepares for a smoother % > transition to Phase II. % > % > The main constraint of this approach is that it forces registrants to % > use the same name servers for .arpa as for .int. % > % > % > Phase II. Registration of 3FFE space is transferred to the RIRs % > % > A shared zone management process will be implemented similar to that % > currently implemented by the RIRs for the legacy v4 space (ERX project, % > http://www.ripe.net/db/erx/). That is, holders of 6bone address space % > will be served for reverse delegation by the respective RIR in their % > region, and the generation of the e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa zone can be entirely % > automated using zone merging. % % % Greets, % Christian % % ------------------------------------------ % TDOI Network | www.tdoi.org | noc@tdoi.org % % % _______________________________________________ % 6bone mailing list % 6bone@mailman.isi.edu % http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone % -- --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). From anurag.mandhar@estelcom.com Sun Feb 9 07:07:44 2003 From: anurag.mandhar@estelcom.com (Anurag Singh) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 12:37:44 +0530 Subject: [6bone] connection to 6 bone Message-ID: <001601c2d009$f4bf5c60$129883ca@estel3> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C2D038.0B169310 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Can we connect to 6bone using sTLA address space. Anurag ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C2D038.0B169310 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
Can we connect to 6bone using sTLA = address=20 space.
 
Anurag
------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C2D038.0B169310-- From nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net Sun Feb 9 14:10:48 2003 From: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net (Nicolas DEFFAYET) Date: 09 Feb 2003 15:10:48 +0100 Subject: [6bone] connection to 6 bone In-Reply-To: <001601c2d009$f4bf5c60$129883ca@estel3> References: <001601c2d009$f4bf5c60$129883ca@estel3> Message-ID: <1044799847.1506.3052.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> On Sun, 2003-02-09 at 08:07, Anurag Singh wrote: Hi Anurag, > Can we connect to 6bone using sTLA address space. Yes, 6bone is not a independent network. In your routing table you have pTLA and sTLA. -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NDSoftware NOC: http://noc.ndsoftwarenet.com/ FNIX6: http://www.fnix6.net/ EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ From nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net Sun Feb 9 15:06:53 2003 From: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net (Nicolas DEFFAYET) Date: 09 Feb 2003 16:06:53 +0100 Subject: [6bone] 3FFE:4016::/32 - Another pTLA space hijack Message-ID: <1044803213.1506.3108.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Bob, I have discover another pTLA space hijack: ---------------------------------------------------------------------> Sun Feb 9 16:00:55 CET 2003 % RIPEdb(3.0.0b2) with ISI RPSL extensions inet6num: 3FFE:4016::/32 netname: KSC-TH descr: KSC Commercial Internet - sub-pTLA delegation for the 6bone testbed country: TH admin-c: JT183-AP tech-c: TO94-ORG mnt-by: MNT-KSC changed: netadmin@ksc.net 20030206 source: 6BONE ipv6-site: KSC-TH origin: AS7693 descr: KSC Commercial Internet - IPv6 site country: TH prefix: 3FFE:4016::/32 contact: TO94-ORG mnt-by: MNT-KSC changed: netadmin@ksc.net 20030206 source: 6BONE person: Joost Th.A Doevelaar address: KSC Commercial Internet Co.,Ltd. address: 2/4 Samaggi Insurance Tower 10th Fl., Viphavadee-Rangsit Rd., address: Thungsonghong, Laksi address: Bangkok 10210 phone: +66-2-9797777 nic-hdl: JT183-AP mnt-by: MNT-KSC changed: netadmin@ksc.net 20030205 changed: netadmin@ksc.net 20030206 source: 6BONE ---------------------------------------------------------------------> 3FFE:4016::/32 is not announced: route-server.ndsoftwarenet.net> show ipv6 bgp 3FFE:4016::/32 % Network not in table route-server.ndsoftwarenet.net> Best Regards, -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NDSoftware NOC: http://noc.ndsoftwarenet.com/ FNIX6: http://www.fnix6.net/ EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ From nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net Sun Feb 9 15:20:51 2003 From: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net (Nicolas DEFFAYET) Date: 09 Feb 2003 16:20:51 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA list: 3FFE:4014::/32 and 3FFE:4015::/32 allocated pTLA missing Message-ID: <1044804051.1511.3135.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Bob, Why 3FFE:4014::/32 and 3FFE:4015::/32 allocated pTLA are not in "pseudo TLA (backbone site) List" ? currently 3FFE:4014::/32 through 3FFE:7FFF::/32 UNALLOCATED and UNUSED => must be 3FFE:4016::/32 through 3FFE:7FFF::/32 Best Regards, -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NDSoftware NOC: http://noc.ndsoftwarenet.com/ FNIX6: http://www.fnix6.net/ EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ From jeroen@unfix.org Sun Feb 9 17:40:07 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 18:40:07 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA list: 3FFE:4014::/32 and 3FFE:4015::/32 allocated pTLA missing In-Reply-To: <1044804051.1511.3135.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Message-ID: <001401c2d062$4b5f89c0$210d640a@unfix.org> Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > Bob, > > Why 3FFE:4014::/32 and 3FFE:4015::/32 allocated pTLA are not > in "pseudo > TLA (backbone site) List" > ? > > currently > 3FFE:4014::/32 through 3FFE:7FFF::/32 UNALLOCATED and UNUSED > > => must be 3FFE:4016::/32 through 3FFE:7FFF::/32 The IPv6 mirror of www.6bone.net is out of date like most of the time... Check The IPv4 version, which gets automatically proxied from IPv4 to IPv6 at http://www.6bone.net.sixxs.org/6bone_pTLA_list.html Cut & Paste: 8<----------------------- LOXINFO-TH/TH 3FFE:4014::/32 [21Jan03] HP/US 3FFE:4015::/32 [22Jan03 currently 3FFE:4016::/32 through 3FFE:7FFF::/32 UNALLOCATED and UNUSED ----------------------->8 Greets, Jeroen From nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net Sun Feb 9 19:31:21 2003 From: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net (Nicolas DEFFAYET) Date: 09 Feb 2003 20:31:21 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA list: 3FFE:4014::/32 and 3FFE:4015::/32 allocated pTLA missing In-Reply-To: <001401c2d062$4b5f89c0$210d640a@unfix.org> References: <001401c2d062$4b5f89c0$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <1044819081.1496.3368.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> On Sun, 2003-02-09 at 18:40, Jeroen Massar wrote: > Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > > > Bob, > > > > Why 3FFE:4014::/32 and 3FFE:4015::/32 allocated pTLA are not > > in "pseudo > > TLA (backbone site) List" > > ? > > > > currently > > 3FFE:4014::/32 through 3FFE:7FFF::/32 UNALLOCATED and UNUSED > > > > => must be 3FFE:4016::/32 through 3FFE:7FFF::/32 > > The IPv6 mirror of www.6bone.net is out of date like most of the time... > Check The IPv4 version, which gets automatically proxied > from IPv4 to IPv6 at http://www.6bone.net.sixxs.org/6bone_pTLA_list.html > > Cut & Paste: > 8<----------------------- > LOXINFO-TH/TH 3FFE:4014::/32 [21Jan03] > HP/US 3FFE:4015::/32 [22Jan03 > currently 3FFE:4016::/32 through 3FFE:7FFF::/32 UNALLOCATED and UNUSED > ----------------------->8 I see 3 possibilities: - fix the current IPv6 mirror - change IPv6 mirror provider (NDSoftware can host this mirror) - remove AAAA record of www.6bone.net -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NDSoftware NOC: http://noc.ndsoftwarenet.com/ FNIX6: http://www.fnix6.net/ EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ From bob@thefinks.com Mon Feb 10 07:12:28 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 23:12:28 -0800 Subject: [6bone] pTLA list: 3FFE:4014::/32 and 3FFE:4015::/32 allocated pTLA missing In-Reply-To: <1044819081.1496.3368.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> References: <001401c2d062$4b5f89c0$210d640a@unfix.org> <001401c2d062$4b5f89c0$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030209231111.01f86738@mail.addr.com> At 08:31 PM 2/9/2003 +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: >On Sun, 2003-02-09 at 18:40, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > > > > > Bob, > > > > > > Why 3FFE:4014::/32 and 3FFE:4015::/32 allocated pTLA are not > > > in "pseudo > > > TLA (backbone site) List" > > > ? > > > > > > currently > > > 3FFE:4014::/32 through 3FFE:7FFF::/32 UNALLOCATED and UNUSED > > > > > > => must be 3FFE:4016::/32 through 3FFE:7FFF::/32 > > > > The IPv6 mirror of www.6bone.net is out of date like most of the time... > > Check The IPv4 version, which gets automatically proxied > > from IPv4 to IPv6 at http://www.6bone.net.sixxs.org/6bone_pTLA_list.html > > > > Cut & Paste: > > 8<----------------------- > > LOXINFO-TH/TH 3FFE:4014::/32 [21Jan03] > > HP/US 3FFE:4015::/32 [22Jan03 > > currently 3FFE:4016::/32 through 3FFE:7FFF::/32 UNALLOCATED and UNUSED > > ----------------------->8 > >I see 3 possibilities: > >- fix the current IPv6 mirror >- change IPv6 mirror provider (NDSoftware can host this mirror) >- remove AAAA record of www.6bone.net I have been working with Marc Blanchet to merge the v4 and v6 6bone web server so this won't be a problem. Stay tuned. Bob From bob@thefinks.com Mon Feb 10 07:16:06 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 23:16:06 -0800 Subject: [6bone] Re: 3FFE:4016::/32 - Another pTLA space hijack In-Reply-To: <1044803213.1506.3108.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030209231540.029c5250@mail.addr.com> Nicolas, I'll take care of it. Thanks, Bob === At 04:06 PM 2/9/2003 +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: >Bob, > >I have discover another pTLA space hijack: > >---------------------------------------------------------------------> >Sun Feb 9 16:00:55 CET 2003 > >% RIPEdb(3.0.0b2) with ISI RPSL extensions > >inet6num: 3FFE:4016::/32 >netname: KSC-TH >descr: KSC Commercial Internet - sub-pTLA delegation for the >6bone testbed >country: TH >admin-c: JT183-AP >tech-c: TO94-ORG >mnt-by: MNT-KSC >changed: netadmin@ksc.net 20030206 >source: 6BONE > >ipv6-site: KSC-TH >origin: AS7693 >descr: KSC Commercial Internet - IPv6 site >country: TH >prefix: 3FFE:4016::/32 >contact: TO94-ORG >mnt-by: MNT-KSC >changed: netadmin@ksc.net 20030206 >source: 6BONE > >person: Joost Th.A Doevelaar >address: KSC Commercial Internet Co.,Ltd. >address: 2/4 Samaggi Insurance Tower 10th Fl., Viphavadee-Rangsit >Rd., >address: Thungsonghong, Laksi >address: Bangkok 10210 >phone: +66-2-9797777 >nic-hdl: JT183-AP >mnt-by: MNT-KSC >changed: netadmin@ksc.net 20030205 >changed: netadmin@ksc.net 20030206 >source: 6BONE >---------------------------------------------------------------------> > >3FFE:4016::/32 is not announced: > >route-server.ndsoftwarenet.net> show ipv6 bgp 3FFE:4016::/32 >% Network not in table >route-server.ndsoftwarenet.net> > > >Best Regards, > >-- >Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware >NDSoftware NOC: http://noc.ndsoftwarenet.com/ >FNIX6: http://www.fnix6.net/ >EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ From Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org Mon Feb 10 08:51:21 2003 From: Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org (Ronald van der Pol) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:51:21 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA list: 3FFE:4014::/32 and 3FFE:4015::/32 allocated pTLA missing In-Reply-To: <1044819081.1496.3368.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> References: <001401c2d062$4b5f89c0$210d640a@unfix.org> <1044819081.1496.3368.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Message-ID: <20030210085121.GC25983@rvdp.org> On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 20:31:21 +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > On Sun, 2003-02-09 at 18:40, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > The IPv6 mirror of www.6bone.net is out of date like most of the time... Yes, this is really annoying. > I see 3 possibilities: > > - fix the current IPv6 mirror > - change IPv6 mirror provider (NDSoftware can host this mirror) > - remove AAAA record of www.6bone.net Or 4: - the proper way: make the server dual stack. Bob is working on this. Any updates, Bob? rvdp From bob@thefinks.com Mon Feb 10 15:18:42 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 07:18:42 -0800 Subject: [6bone] pTLA list: 3FFE:4014::/32 and 3FFE:4015::/32 allocated pTLA missing In-Reply-To: <20030210085121.GC25983@rvdp.org> References: <1044819081.1496.3368.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> <001401c2d062$4b5f89c0$210d640a@unfix.org> <1044819081.1496.3368.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030210071805.01dc2bc8@mail.addr.com> Ronald, At 09:51 AM 2/10/2003 +0100, Ronald van der Pol wrote: >On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 20:31:21 +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > > > On Sun, 2003-02-09 at 18:40, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > > > > The IPv6 mirror of www.6bone.net is out of date like most of the time... > >Yes, this is really annoying. > > > > > I see 3 possibilities: > > > > - fix the current IPv6 mirror > > - change IPv6 mirror provider (NDSoftware can host this mirror) > > - remove AAAA record of www.6bone.net > >Or 4: >- the proper way: make the server dual stack. Bob is working on this. >Any updates, Bob? Marc says it will real soon now. Bob From basit@basit.cc Fri Feb 14 17:43:57 2003 From: basit@basit.cc (Abdul Basit) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 17:43:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [6bone] pim6sd crash Message-ID: Hey, on freebsd 5.0-Release, pim6sd crashes if i execute ifconfig gifX destroy if it is running in background, i need to restart it manually. pim6sd display 'check_vif_state' Device not configured and exits. any workaround ? - basit From basit@basit.cc Fri Feb 14 18:56:35 2003 From: basit@basit.cc (Abdul Basit) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:56:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [6bone] another tb Message-ID: hey, a new interface to tunnel clients needs to be tested at NGC(NextGenCollective), if someone wants to get a tunnel please look http://www.stcp.nextgencollective.net thanks - basit From cfaber@fpsn.net Sat Feb 15 07:56:31 2003 From: cfaber@fpsn.net (Colin Faber) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 00:56:31 -0700 Subject: [6bone] another tb References: Message-ID: <3E4DF2AF.45F776BB@fpsn.net> Off topic from the protocol it self. A VERY useful feature of your web site may be to offer up the end point IP(s) so that a given client could see if it's even worth the time to beta. Abdul Basit wrote: > > hey, > > a new interface to tunnel clients needs to be tested > at NGC(NextGenCollective), if someone wants to get a tunnel > please look http://www.stcp.nextgencollective.net > > thanks > - basit > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone -- Colin Faber (303) 736-5160 fpsn.net, Inc. * Black holes are where God divided by zero. * -> SPAM TRAP ADDRESS - DO NOT EMAIL <- cfaber.signature@mysqlfaqs.com -> SPAM TRAP ADDRESS - DO NOT EMAIL <- From jeroen@unfix.org Sun Feb 16 13:49:33 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:49:33 +0100 Subject: [6bone] another tb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002601c2d5c2$4037b6c0$210d640a@unfix.org> Abdul Basit wrote: > hey, > > a new interface to tunnel clients needs to be tested > at NGC(NextGenCollective), if someone wants to get a tunnel > please look http://www.stcp.nextgencollective.net > You might be interrested in: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vg-ngtrans-tsp-01.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vg-ngtrans-tsp-v6v4profile-01. txt Which uses a defined XML scheme and allows multiple prefixes to be assigned to the requester. You will find many common things with your setup. Also the above drafts are already succesfully being used by Freenet6 and they have a number of publicly available clients, see http://www.freenet6.net. Also you should use a challenge/response with your MD5 authentication. Or if you did use it define where you define the challenge/response. Your current setup is suspect to sniffing and then simply sending the same signature again. And I am not even talking about replays ;) Greets, Jeroen From basit@basit.cc Sun Feb 16 12:50:52 2003 From: basit@basit.cc (Abdul Basit) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 12:50:52 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [6bone] another tb In-Reply-To: <002601c2d5c2$4037b6c0$210d640a@unfix.org> References: <002601c2d5c2$4037b6c0$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: right, currently i use simple text, i will switch to md5 soon. thanks :) -- basit On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Jeroen Massar wrote: > Abdul Basit wrote: > > > hey, > > > > a new interface to tunnel clients needs to be tested > > at NGC(NextGenCollective), if someone wants to get a tunnel > > please look http://www.stcp.nextgencollective.net > > > > You might be interrested in: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vg-ngtrans-tsp-01.txt > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vg-ngtrans-tsp-v6v4profile-01. > txt > > Which uses a defined XML scheme and allows multiple prefixes to be > assigned to the requester. You will find many common things with your > setup. > Also the above drafts are already succesfully being used by Freenet6 and > they have a number of publicly available clients, see > http://www.freenet6.net. > > Also you should use a challenge/response with your MD5 authentication. > Or if you did use it define where you define the challenge/response. > Your current setup is suspect to sniffing and then simply sending > the same signature again. And I am not even talking about replays ;) > > Greets, > Jeroen > > From hari@UDel.Edu Sun Feb 16 20:44:59 2003 From: hari@UDel.Edu (Harish Nair) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 15:44:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: [6bone] IPv6 Site Multicast In-Reply-To: <200302162005.h1GK5BD15198@gamma.isi.edu> References: <200302162005.h1GK5BD15198@gamma.isi.edu> Message-ID: Hi, I have a question about IPv6 site Multicasting. Our IPv6 network here is composed of two subnets. Subnet 1 has prefix 3ffe:b80:17d2:1 and subnet 2 has prefix 3ffe:b80:17d2:2. Each subnet has a FreeBSD Router in its domain. The two FreeBSD routers are "IPv6" connected using gif tunnels using the existing IPv4 routing framework. The router in subnet 1 is connected to freenet6 (through another gif tunnel. Router 1 -------- gif0: flags=8251 mtu 1280 inet6 fe80::260:8ff:fe11:d903%gif0 prefixlen 64 physical address inet 128.4.1.3 --> 128.4.2.16 gif1: flags=8051 mtu 1280 inet6 fe80::260:8ff:fe11:d903%gif1 prefixlen 64 inet6 3ffe:b80:3:197b::2 --> 3ffe:b80:3:197b::1 prefixlen 128 physical address inet 128.4.1.3 --> 206.123.31.114 Router 2 -------- gif0: flags=8051 mtu 1280 inet6 fe80::250:daff:fedd:5333%gif0 prefixlen 64 physical address inet 128.4.2.16 --> 128.4.1.3 Our requirement is to set up NTP multicast servers at our site (subnet1 and subnet2). The NTP IPv6 site multicast address is ff05::101. An NTP packet sent to this address (or any address starting with ff05::) from any machine on subnet1 or subnet2 should be received by all machnies on both subnets. The router on subnet 1 should drop all ff05 packets received from freenet6 and should not route any ff05 poackets over to freenet6. I would aprreciate any help in this regard... Thanks, Harish From admin@euroshells.dk Mon Feb 17 22:10:52 2003 From: admin@euroshells.dk (EuroShells.dk Admin) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 23:10:52 +0100 Subject: [6bone] IPv6 bgp4+ peering Message-ID: <01b001c2d6d1$6f90e170$0401a8c0@druid> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01AD_01C2D6D9.D0E5BEC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey hey! :-) Been watching the list for quite some time now, anyway :-) Currently we have a ipv6 tunnel configured trough our local ISP but we = would like try out zebra and do some ipv6 bgp4+ peering. We do not have our own ASN number. How do we proceed on this? Any pointeres to where we could find a FAQ/HOWTO and possibly who we = could peer with? Best Regards Rasmus Haslund System Administrator EuroShells.dk Phone: +45 86 19 19 34 Direct: +45 26 - 80 60 13 E-mail: admin@euroshells.dk Web: http://www.shellhost.dk ------=_NextPart_000_01AD_01C2D6D9.D0E5BEC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
Hey hey! :-)
 
Been watching the list for quite some = time now,=20 anyway :-)
 
Currently we have a ipv6 tunnel = configured trough=20 our local ISP but we would like try out zebra and do some ipv6 bgp4+=20 peering.
We do not have our own ASN = number.
 
How do we proceed on this?
Any pointeres to where we could find a = FAQ/HOWTO=20 and possibly who we could peer with?
 
Best Regards
 
Rasmus Haslund
System=20 Administrator
EuroShells.dk
 
Phone: +45 86 19 19 34
Direct: +45 = 26 - 80 60=20 13
E-mail: admin@euroshells.dk
Web: http://www.shellhost.dk
=
------=_NextPart_000_01AD_01C2D6D9.D0E5BEC0-- From kni501ss@optushome.com.au Tue Feb 18 09:10:00 2003 From: kni501ss@optushome.com.au (Marco Grigull) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 19:10:00 +1000 Subject: [6bone] IPv6 Mini-Conference Update In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021224131839.01b43400@mail.iprimus.com.au> Message-ID: <20030218191000.4899b21b.kni501ss@optushome.com.au> On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 13:08:42 +0800 "Gav" wrote: > > I wonder if maybe there would be a summary of events and lectures posted to > your web site some time after the event.? > How was the conference? Cheers Marco From old_mc_donald@hotmail.com Tue Feb 18 14:23:34 2003 From: old_mc_donald@hotmail.com (Gav) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:23:34 +0800 Subject: [6bone] IPv6 Mini-Conference Update References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021224131839.01b43400@mail.iprimus.com.au> <20030218191000.4899b21b.kni501ss@optushome.com.au> Message-ID: Hi Marco, Sorry but I didn't make it there. I will try and find out if docs are available. Gav... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marco Grigull" To: <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 5:10 PM Subject: Re: [6bone] IPv6 Mini-Conference Update | On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 13:08:42 +0800 | "Gav" wrote: | | | > | > I wonder if maybe there would be a summary of events and lectures posted to | > your web site some time after the event.? | > | | How was the conference? | | Cheers | Marco | _______________________________________________ | 6bone mailing list | 6bone@mailman.isi.edu | http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone | From jhay@icomtek.csir.co.za Tue Feb 18 15:51:43 2003 From: jhay@icomtek.csir.co.za (John Hay) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:51:43 +0200 Subject: [6bone] IPv6 Site Multicast In-Reply-To: References: <200302162005.h1GK5BD15198@gamma.isi.edu> Message-ID: <20030218155143.GA53890@zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za> On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 03:44:59PM -0500, Harish Nair wrote: > > Hi, > > I have a question about IPv6 site Multicasting. Our IPv6 network here is > composed of two subnets. Subnet 1 has prefix 3ffe:b80:17d2:1 and subnet 2 > has prefix 3ffe:b80:17d2:2. Each subnet has a FreeBSD Router in its > domain. The two FreeBSD routers are "IPv6" connected using gif tunnels > using the existing IPv4 routing framework. The router in subnet 1 is > connected to freenet6 (through another gif tunnel. > > Router 1 > -------- > > gif0: flags=8251 mtu 1280 > inet6 fe80::260:8ff:fe11:d903%gif0 prefixlen 64 > physical address inet 128.4.1.3 --> 128.4.2.16 > gif1: flags=8051 mtu 1280 > inet6 fe80::260:8ff:fe11:d903%gif1 prefixlen 64 > inet6 3ffe:b80:3:197b::2 --> 3ffe:b80:3:197b::1 prefixlen 128 > physical address inet 128.4.1.3 --> 206.123.31.114 > > > Router 2 > -------- > gif0: flags=8051 mtu 1280 > inet6 fe80::250:daff:fedd:5333%gif0 prefixlen 64 > physical address inet 128.4.2.16 --> 128.4.1.3 > > Our requirement is to set up NTP multicast servers at our site (subnet1 > and subnet2). The NTP IPv6 site multicast address is ff05::101. An NTP > packet sent to this address (or any address starting with ff05::) from any > machine on subnet1 or subnet2 should be received by all machnies on both > subnets. The router on subnet 1 should drop all ff05 packets received from > freenet6 and should not route any ff05 poackets over to freenet6. > > I would aprreciate any help in this regard... I use pim6dd from ports and in /usr/local/etc/pim6dd.conf I have phyint stf0 disable phyint gif0 disable phyint gif2 disable A few other odds and ends. You will need "options MROUTING" in your kernel. Multicasting also seems to work better if there is a specific route for it in the kernel. I use this in my /etc/rc.conf file, adjust fxp0 to what you have locally: ipv6_static_routes="sitemcast" ipv6_route_sitemcast="ff05:: -prefixlen 16 ::1 -ifp fxp0" And yes I did all this just for ntp. :-) John -- John Hay -- John.Hay@icomtek.csir.co.za / jhay@FreeBSD.org From wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au Tue Feb 18 16:53:03 2003 From: wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au (Anand Kumria) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 03:53:03 +1100 Subject: [6bone] IPv6 Mini-Conference Update In-Reply-To: <20030218191000.4899b21b.kni501ss@optushome.com.au> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021224131839.01b43400@mail.iprimus.com.au> <20030218191000.4899b21b.kni501ss@optushome.com.au> Message-ID: <20030218165303.GK10589@geryon.progsoc.uts.edu.au> On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 07:10:00PM +1000, Marco Grigull wrote: > On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 13:08:42 +0800 > "Gav" wrote: > > > > > > I wonder if maybe there would be a summary of events and lectures posted to > > your web site some time after the event.? > > > > How was the conference? Pretty good, about 400 people attended in all. The IPv6 mini-conf was held two prior to the actual conference so there were only about 150 people around on the first day. Abuot 30 of them spent that day in the IPv6 sessions. A CD is in preparation - it will be sent to those who attended and it'll be available for download for those who weren't able to make it. I don't have a more exact date apart from "shortly" at the moment but I'd expect something to happen in the next 2 - 3 weeks. Regards, Anand -- `` We are shaped by our thoughts, we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves. '' -- Buddha, The Dhammapada From bob@thefinks.com Tue Feb 18 20:48:43 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:48:43 -0800 Subject: [6bone] curious indirect effect of the 6bone registry Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030218123420.0206eed0@mail.addr.com> 6bone Folk, For your info, and possible amusement, I have deleted the inet6num for 2002::/16 from the 6bone registry. It is becoming common for a less experienced person to have a problem with their IPv6 connection of some kind, look at either their own source or remote ipv6 address and see the "6to4" address, and not understand what it is all about. Then they look in the 6bone registry for the entire /128 2002 address and (previously) found my courtesy entry for 2002::/16. From there they send me email as they believe I own the 2002 space. Sometimes it is even a complaint that I am causing them troubles :-) I think it is simpler to not list the 2002 prefix in the 6bone registry (it was just for info anyway). Bob From trent@irc-desk.net Wed Feb 19 00:22:34 2003 From: trent@irc-desk.net (Trent Lloyd) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:22:34 +0800 Subject: [6bone] IPv6 Mini-Conference Update In-Reply-To: <20030218191000.4899b21b.kni501ss@optushome.com.au> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021224131839.01b43400@mail.iprimus.com.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030219082106.02006d90@mail.bur.st> Hey yeh it was great had about 20-30 people come or so And about 100 saw my talk at the Debian Mini-Conference on IPv6 in genereal My website is still offline due to issues when upgrading my server etc but i hope to run another one at next years linux.conf.au The slides etc will be available soon At 07:10 PM 18/02/2003 +1000, you wrote: >On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 13:08:42 +0800 >"Gav" wrote: > > > > > > I wonder if maybe there would be a summary of events and lectures posted to > > your web site some time after the event.? > > > >How was the conference? > >Cheers >Marco >_______________________________________________ >6bone mailing list >6bone@mailman.isi.edu >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From trent@irc-desk.net Wed Feb 19 00:27:25 2003 From: trent@irc-desk.net (Trent Lloyd) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:27:25 +0800 Subject: [6bone] curious indirect effect of the 6bone registry In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030218123420.0206eed0@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030219082642.022864d0@mail.bur.st> perhaps an entry without a real email or something commenting "This is the reserved 6to4 address space for hosts to use their ipv4 as a blah balh bnlahkdqwdq" At 12:48 PM 18/02/2003 -0800, you wrote: >6bone Folk, > >For your info, and possible amusement, I have deleted the inet6num for >2002::/16 from the 6bone registry. > >It is becoming common for a less experienced person to have a problem with >their IPv6 connection of some kind, look at either their own source or >remote ipv6 address and see the "6to4" address, and not understand what it >is all about. Then they look in the 6bone registry for the entire /128 >2002 address and (previously) found my courtesy entry for 2002::/16. From >there they send me email as they believe I own the 2002 space. Sometimes >it is even a complaint that I am causing them troubles :-) > >I think it is simpler to not list the 2002 prefix in the 6bone registry >(it was just for info anyway). > > >Bob > >_______________________________________________ >6bone mailing list >6bone@mailman.isi.edu >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From bob@thefinks.com Wed Feb 19 02:58:32 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:58:32 -0800 Subject: [6bone] curious indirect effect of the 6bone registry In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030219082642.022864d0@mail.bur.st> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030218123420.0206eed0@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030218185804.024e3940@mail.addr.com> Trent, At 08:27 AM 2/19/2003 +0800, Trent Lloyd wrote: >perhaps an entry without a real email or something commenting "This is the >reserved 6to4 address space for hosts to use their ipv4 as a blah balh >bnlahkdqwdq" Useful idea. I'll think on it. Thanks, Bob From stephan@telstra.net Wed Feb 19 05:37:45 2003 From: stephan@telstra.net (Stephan Millet) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:37:45 +1100 Subject: [6bone] Dial-up over v6 Message-ID: <200302190538.h1J5cJH29657@mako1.telstra.net> Has anyone had experience with configuring native v6 dialup with win2000/XP ? There does no seem to be much documentation at microsoft (or what there is seems to be ethernet/tunnel specific) I have downloaded the latest Microsoft IPv6 Tech Preview for 2000 and IPv6 connectivity over Ethernet is not an issue. I have configured a Cisco 5300 to allocate me an IPv6 address on dial in though "debug ppp neg" seems to show that the dial in client is rejecting ipv6 negotiations. --- As1 LCP: I PROTREJ [Open] id 7 len 20 protocol IPV6CP (0x80570101000E010A02107BFFFE4D6E5E) --- Any info would be greatly appreciated. Regards -- Stephan Millet From stansley@microsoft.com Wed Feb 19 19:56:14 2003 From: stansley@microsoft.com (Stewart Tansley) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:56:14 -0800 Subject: [6bone] Dial-up over v6 Message-ID: <240659DFBDD99C4299EF7483EAD70F24024D806D@RED-MSG-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Stephen -- there is no native PPPv6 support in Windows XP SP1, the forthcoming Windows Server 2003, or, I believe, the very old Windows 2000 Technology Preview. Note the latter has not been developed for 3 years and there are no plans to touch it at this time. PPPv6 support is being looked at for a future release. If you have a business need for this rather than just experimental, we'd very much welcome mail to our IPv6 products feedback alias at ipv6-fb@microsoft.com to understand your requirements and timeframe. Thanks, Stewart Tansley http://www.microsoft.com/ipv6/ http://www.microsoft.com/embedded/ -----Original Message----- From: Stephan Millet [mailto:stephan@telstra.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 9:38 PM To: 6BONE List Has anyone had experience with configuring native v6 dialup with win2000/XP ? There does no seem to be much documentation at microsoft (or what there is seems to be ethernet/tunnel specific) I have downloaded the latest Microsoft IPv6 Tech Preview for 2000 and IPv6 connectivity over Ethernet is not an issue. I have configured a Cisco 5300 to allocate me an IPv6 address on dial in though "debug ppp neg" seems to show that the dial in client is rejecting ipv6 negotiations. --- As1 LCP: I PROTREJ [Open] id 7 len 20 protocol IPV6CP (0x80570101000E010A02107BFFFE4D6E5E) --- Any info would be greatly appreciated. Regards -- Stephan Millet _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list 6bone@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone RE From pim@ipng.nl Thu Feb 20 08:08:05 2003 From: pim@ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:08:05 +0100 Subject: [6bone] ip6.arpa ... Message-ID: <20030220080805.GF28914@bfib.colo.bit.nl> Hallo. I have seen that the ip6.arpa delegation is now in place, but the e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa is not. Following a statement I picked up at RIPE44 in Amsterdam a month ago, I believe that the RIRs are held to keep the nameservers in their control. May I suggest opening up dot.ep.net for slave transfers from ns.ripe.net so that RIPE may copy the zone nightly, rewrite all the ip6.int into ip6.arpa and create a duplicate tree for e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa ? groet, Pim -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From lists.fcu@no-way.org Thu Feb 20 08:35:41 2003 From: lists.fcu@no-way.org (Flavio Curti) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:35:41 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Dial-up over v6 In-Reply-To: <240659DFBDD99C4299EF7483EAD70F24024D806D@RED-MSG-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> References: <240659DFBDD99C4299EF7483EAD70F24024D806D@RED-MSG-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Message-ID: <20030220083541.GQ755@no-way.org> hi On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 11:56:14AM -0800, Stewart Tansley wrote: > Stephen -- there is no native PPPv6 support in Windows XP SP1, the > forthcoming Windows Server 2003, or, I believe, the very old Windows > 2000 Technology Preview. Note the latter has not been developed for 3 > years and there are no plans to touch it at this time. i noted that, and wondered how one could bring 'recent' ipv6 support to windows 2000. are there any plans? thank you & greetz Flavio -- http://no-way.org/~fcu/ From bmanning@ISI.EDU Thu Feb 20 13:44:06 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 05:44:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] ip6.arpa ... In-Reply-To: <20030220080805.GF28914@bfib.colo.bit.nl> from Pim van Pelt at "Feb 20, 3 09:08:05 am" Message-ID: <200302201344.h1KDi6Y20675@boreas.isi.edu> % Hallo. % % I have seen that the ip6.arpa delegation is now in place, but the % e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa is not. Following a statement I picked up at RIPE44 % in Amsterdam a month ago, I believe that the RIRs are held to keep % the nameservers in their control. % % May I suggest opening up dot.ep.net for slave transfers from ns.ripe.net % so that RIPE may copy the zone nightly, rewrite all the ip6.int into ip6.arpa % and create a duplicate tree for e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa ? % % groet, % Pim % -- several issues raised at the last RIPE mtg w/ Andrei are: ) zone consistancy. the delegations in 3ffe should be identical, regardless of the anchor point. the RIR proposal is to have the data -differ- between the two anchor points. The proper way forward would be to use $ORIGIN to anchor the same zone in two places. The reason you need to do this is that there is nearly a decade of deployed resolvers that will only look in ip6.int for data and it will take a decade or more to have those resolvers expire. ) the zone transfers should be protected by TSIG. I have not been able to successfully work with RIPE on getting TSIGS in place. I have been able to do so with both APNIC and ARIN. I've not had dealings w/ LATNIC yet. ) IPv6 transport capability. ARIN does not have v6 capability. RIPE has only sporadically supported v6 although I hope the current efforts will be stable. APNIC has had stable v6 capability for several years now. LATNIC has v6 experise but I've not been able to get closure on their operational stance. ) previous email to the 6bone list have suggested that the same servers be used for both e.f.f.3.ip6.int and e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa and I think this is a sound stratagy. So what I proposed to Andrei to take back to the RIRs was the following: Recognise that the data published for 3ffe:: should be identical regardless of anchorpoint. Plan for an active migration plan from industry/user nameservers to RIR nameservers for this delegation, based on the capability of the RIRs to support native IPv6 and TSIG. I've not heard back from Andrei or anyone else on this proposal. I intend to work with the RIRs, starting with APNIC, to migrate the 3ffe:: zone to RIR servers. --bill --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). From gert@space.net Thu Feb 20 14:06:55 2003 From: gert@space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:06:55 +0100 Subject: [6bone] ip6.arpa ... In-Reply-To: <200302201344.h1KDi6Y20675@boreas.isi.edu>; from bmanning@ISI.EDU on Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 05:44:06AM -0800 References: <20030220080805.GF28914@bfib.colo.bit.nl> <200302201344.h1KDi6Y20675@boreas.isi.edu> Message-ID: <20030220150655.L15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 05:44:06AM -0800, Bill Manning wrote: > So what I proposed to Andrei to take back to the RIRs was the > following: > > Recognise that the data published for 3ffe:: should be identical > regardless of anchorpoint. Plan for an active migration plan > from industry/user nameservers to RIR nameservers for this delegation, > based on the capability of the RIRs to support native IPv6 and > TSIG. > > I've not heard back from Andrei or anyone else on this proposal. > I intend to work with the RIRs, starting with APNIC, to migrate > the 3ffe:: zone to RIR servers. I'm glad to hear that there is some progress going on now. I agree with your proposal. The thing that RIPE thought up always felt needlessly complex to me. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56285 (56029) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From tbegin@tf1.fr Thu Feb 20 15:42:23 2003 From: tbegin@tf1.fr (BEGIN, Thomas) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:42:23 +0100 Subject: [6bone] network's architecture under IPv6 Message-ID: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD20CC9DD@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> Hello to all, I am wondering on IPv6 impacts over a company network's architecture. I mean, a big IPv4 network has to be divided in several VLANs in order to lighten the available bandwidth (sometimes for security reasons but it is not my interest in this case). And this because broadcast messages are received and examined by all network adapter. Thus comes my question: As there is no more broadcast messages but only multicast messages in IPv6, is there still a need to divide a big network in smaller networks (VLANs) ? Thanks Thomas BEGIN From pekkas@netcore.fi Thu Feb 20 16:23:24 2003 From: pekkas@netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:23:24 +0200 (EET) Subject: [6bone] ip6.arpa ... In-Reply-To: <20030220150655.L15927@Space.Net> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Gert Doering wrote: > On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 05:44:06AM -0800, Bill Manning wrote: > > So what I proposed to Andrei to take back to the RIRs was the > > following: > > > > Recognise that the data published for 3ffe:: should be identical > > regardless of anchorpoint. Plan for an active migration plan > > from industry/user nameservers to RIR nameservers for this delegation, > > based on the capability of the RIRs to support native IPv6 and > > TSIG. > > > > I've not heard back from Andrei or anyone else on this proposal. > > I intend to work with the RIRs, starting with APNIC, to migrate > > the 3ffe:: zone to RIR servers. > > I'm glad to hear that there is some progress going on now. > > I agree with your proposal. The thing that RIPE thought up always felt > needlessly complex to me. Uhh, the proposal at least to me looks unnecessarily complex. There is no need to tie the process to having IPv6 enabled nameservers, or (to a lesser degree) TSIG capabilities. Those items can be worked out, though, after the initial setup. Folks want the delegations soon, not in a year. -- 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 pim@ipng.nl Thu Feb 20 16:30:49 2003 From: pim@ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:30:49 +0100 Subject: [6bone] ip6.arpa ... In-Reply-To: <200302201344.h1KDi6Y20675@boreas.isi.edu> References: <20030220080805.GF28914@bfib.colo.bit.nl> <200302201344.h1KDi6Y20675@boreas.isi.edu> Message-ID: <20030220163049.GC1091@bfib.colo.bit.nl> | several issues raised at the last RIPE mtg w/ Andrei are: | ) zone consistancy. the delegations in 3ffe should be | identical, regardless of the anchor point. the RIR | proposal is to have the data -differ- between the | two anchor points. The proper way forward would be | to use $ORIGIN to anchor the same zone in two places. | The reason you need to do this is that there is nearly | a decade of deployed resolvers that will only look in | ip6.int for data and it will take a decade or more to | have those resolvers expire. This is a good point, however it is not the only proper way. I do not think there is any problem with converting the zonefile to fit the ip6.arpa tree on a regular (daily) basis. We might just be able to fix some lame delegations in the same run, but that would be deliberately creating different zones though. | ) the zone transfers should be protected by TSIG. I have | not been able to successfully work with RIPE on getting | TSIGS in place. I have been able to do so with both APNIC | and ARIN. I've not had dealings w/ LATNIC yet. This is unnessecary. | ) IPv6 transport capability. ARIN does not have v6 capability. | RIPE has only sporadically supported v6 although I hope | the current efforts will be stable. APNIC has had stable | v6 capability for several years now. LATNIC has v6 experise | but I've not been able to get closure on their operational | stance. This is unnessecary. | ) previous email to the 6bone list have suggested that | the same servers be used for both e.f.f.3.ip6.int and e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa | and I think this is a sound stratagy. This is undesirable as 6BONE should not be administering servers in the .arpa tree. It is also unnessecary. | Recognise that the data published for 3ffe:: should be identical | regardless of anchorpoint. Plan for an active migration plan | from industry/user nameservers to RIR nameservers for this delegation, | based on the capability of the RIRs to support native IPv6 and | TSIG. It can be identical with the RIPE proposal (copying the zone and s/int\./arpa.) also. I see no technical problems at all with implementing it that way. groet, Pim -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From gert@space.net Thu Feb 20 16:41:57 2003 From: gert@space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:41:57 +0100 Subject: [6bone] ip6.arpa ... In-Reply-To: ; from pekkas@netcore.fi on Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 06:23:24PM +0200 References: <20030220150655.L15927@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20030220174156.X15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 06:23:24PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > Uhh, the proposal at least to me looks unnecessarily complex. There is no > need to tie the process to having IPv6 enabled nameservers, or (to a > lesser degree) TSIG capabilities. Those items can be worked out, though, > after the initial setup. To clarify this: I agree with Bill that it's better to just copy the same zone with a different $ORIGIN than to have a complex mechanism that will "copy some of the records but not all of them". As for the proposal itself - well, RIPE has IPv6 enabled name servers now, it seems to be here to stay, let's get on with that. > Folks want the delegations soon, not in a year. Folks wanted the delegations *a year ago*. I, for one, have been complaining about this since R43. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56285 (56029) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From stansley@microsoft.com Thu Feb 20 18:11:22 2003 From: stansley@microsoft.com (Stewart Tansley) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:11:22 -0800 Subject: [6bone] Dial-up over v6 Message-ID: <240659DFBDD99C4299EF7483EAD70F24024D81FE@RED-MSG-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Hi Flavio -- no, per http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6.asp, first paragraph, there are no current plans. The stack code is different between Windows 2000 and Windows XP/Server 2003, so it would require substantial work. Stewart Tansley http://www.microsoft.com/ipv6/ http://www.microsoft.com/embedded/ -----Original Message----- From: Flavio Curti [mailto:lists.fcu@no-way.org] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:36 AM To: 6BONE List hi On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 11:56:14AM -0800, Stewart Tansley wrote: > Stephen -- there is no native PPPv6 support in Windows XP SP1, the > forthcoming Windows Server 2003, or, I believe, the very old Windows > 2000 Technology Preview. Note the latter has not been developed for 3 > years and there are no plans to touch it at this time. i noted that, and wondered how one could bring 'recent' ipv6 support to windows 2000. are there any plans? thank you & greetz Flavio -- http://no-way.org/~fcu/ _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list 6bone@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From bmanning@ISI.EDU Thu Feb 20 19:07:35 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:07:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] ip6.arpa ... In-Reply-To: from Pekka Savola at "Feb 20, 3 06:23:24 pm" Message-ID: <200302201907.h1KJ7Zs16242@boreas.isi.edu> % > I agree with your proposal. The thing that RIPE thought up always felt % > needlessly complex to me. % % Uhh, the proposal at least to me looks unnecessarily complex. There is no % need to tie the process to having IPv6 enabled nameservers, or (to a % lesser degree) TSIG capabilities. Those items can be worked out, though, % after the initial setup. % % Folks want the delegations soon, not in a year. It won't take a year. And while it may have been required crutch seven years ago, there is -zero- reason why one should expect IPv6 data -not- be visable over IPv6 transport. Do you want to tie IPv6 applications to reachability of an IPv4 service? a gripe about the RIR proposal is that only one (APNIC) has been fully committed to IPv6 and has had working v6 capable systems online for years. RIPE has been sporadic in its support for IPv6 capable systems. LATNIC has the expertise and some transmission capability while ARIN does not seem to have a working IPv6 support stratagy. --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). From bmanning@ISI.EDU Thu Feb 20 19:11:22 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:11:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] ip6.arpa ... In-Reply-To: <20030220163049.GC1091@bfib.colo.bit.nl> from Pim van Pelt at "Feb 20, 3 05:30:49 pm" Message-ID: <200302201911.h1KJBMA19250@boreas.isi.edu> % | several issues raised at the last RIPE mtg w/ Andrei are: % | ) zone consistancy. the delegations in 3ffe should be % This is a good point, however it is not the only proper way. I % do not think there is any problem with converting the zonefile % to fit the ip6.arpa tree on a regular (daily) basis. We might % just be able to fix some lame delegations in the same run, but % that would be deliberately creating different zones though. thank you. % | ) the zone transfers should be protected by TSIG. I have % | not been able to successfully work with RIPE on getting % | TSIGS in place. I have been able to do so with both APNIC % | and ARIN. I've not had dealings w/ LATNIC yet. % This is unnessecary. perhaps. % | ) IPv6 transport capability. ARIN does not have v6 capability. % | RIPE has only sporadically supported v6 although I hope % | the current efforts will be stable. APNIC has had stable % | v6 capability for several years now. LATNIC has v6 experise % | but I've not been able to get closure on their operational % | stance. % This is unnessecary. is there any reason to support DNS on IPv6 transport? some folks think this is a requirement. % | ) previous email to the 6bone list have suggested that % | the same servers be used for both e.f.f.3.ip6.int and e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa % | and I think this is a sound stratagy. % This is undesirable as 6BONE should not be administering servers % in the .arpa tree. It is also unnessecary. why not? % | Recognise that the data published for 3ffe:: should be identical % | regardless of anchorpoint. Plan for an active migration plan % | from industry/user nameservers to RIR nameservers for this delegation, % | based on the capability of the RIRs to support native IPv6 and % | TSIG. % It can be identical with the RIPE proposal (copying the zone and % s/int\./arpa.) also. this worries me as a DNS admin for a number of years. zone copy & modify has -always- generated problems. % I see no technical problems at all with implementing it that way. % % groet, % Pim % -- % ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- % Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl % http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment % ----------------------------------------------- % -- --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). From bmanning@ISI.EDU Thu Feb 20 19:13:05 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:13:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] ip6.arpa ... In-Reply-To: <20030220174156.X15927@Space.Net> from Gert Doering at "Feb 20, 3 05:41:57 pm" Message-ID: <200302201913.h1KJD5g21056@boreas.isi.edu> % Folks wanted the delegations *a year ago*. % % I, for one, have been complaining about this since R43. % and I've complained about it since I first learned that the IAB/IESG in its infinate wisdom decided to have -two- anchor points for IPv6 data and -not- mandate they remain syncronized. --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). From pekkas@netcore.fi Thu Feb 20 19:41:05 2003 From: pekkas@netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 21:41:05 +0200 (EET) Subject: [6bone] ip6.arpa ... In-Reply-To: <200302201907.h1KJ7Zs16242@boreas.isi.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Bill Manning wrote: > % > I agree with your proposal. The thing that RIPE thought up always felt > % > needlessly complex to me. > % > % Uhh, the proposal at least to me looks unnecessarily complex. There is no > % need to tie the process to having IPv6 enabled nameservers, or (to a > % lesser degree) TSIG capabilities. Those items can be worked out, though, > % after the initial setup. > % > % Folks want the delegations soon, not in a year. > > It won't take a year. And while it may have been required > crutch seven years ago, there is -zero- reason why one should > expect IPv6 data -not- be visable over IPv6 transport. Do you > want to tie IPv6 applications to reachability of an IPv4 service? Let me put this other way around: there is -zero- reason to tie the IPv6 data and IPv6 transport together. People want the data, by any means necessary. Having IPv6 transport is bonus but -definitely- _only_ a bonus. I sympathize, but this is all irrelevant. People wanted this a year ago. It doesn't really matter how the servers are reachable. -- 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 Robert.Kiessling@de.easynet.net Thu Feb 20 19:56:32 2003 From: Robert.Kiessling@de.easynet.net (Robert Kiessling) Date: 20 Feb 2003 19:56:32 +0000 Subject: [6bone] ip6.arpa ... In-Reply-To: <200302201907.h1KJ7Zs16242@boreas.isi.edu> References: <200302201907.h1KJ7Zs16242@boreas.isi.edu> Message-ID: Bill Manning writes: > % Folks want the delegations soon, not in a year. > > It won't take a year. And while it may have been required > crutch seven years ago, there is -zero- reason why one should > expect IPv6 data -not- be visable over IPv6 transport. Do you > want to tie IPv6 applications to reachability of an IPv4 service? There is zero reason not to rely on IPv4 for zone transfer. RIPE nameservers have IPv6 connectivity. So what exactly is the issue here? > a gripe about the RIR proposal is that only one (APNIC) has been > fully committed to IPv6 and has had working v6 capable systems > online for years. RIPE has been sporadic in its support for > IPv6 capable systems. LATNIC has the expertise and some > transmission capability while ARIN does not seem to have > a working IPv6 support stratagy. All this seems pretty unrelated to ip6.arpa delegation for 3ffe. Things like TSIG or IPv6 transport for zone transfer are nice to have, but to me as an uninitiated sound like bad excuses for still more delay, for reasons untold. Robert From bmanning@ISI.EDU Thu Feb 20 20:20:27 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:20:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] ip6.arpa ... In-Reply-To: from Robert Kiessling at "Feb 20, 3 07:56:32 pm" Message-ID: <200302202020.h1KKKRo17681@boreas.isi.edu> % All this seems pretty unrelated to ip6.arpa delegation for % 3ffe. Things like TSIG or IPv6 transport for zone transfer are nice to % have, but to me as an uninitiated sound like bad excuses for still % more delay, for reasons untold. as I stated these are gripes. the nut of the issue is that RIPE is proposing to edit/change the zone data between the 3ffe:: delegations as seen from ip6.int and ip6.arpa This is fatally flawed, as some folks will get one set of answers while others will get distinctly different answers to the same questions, based on the age of the resolver that is in their endsystems. the transition proposal I made has certain features as "checklist" items. If you really don't care about IPv6 transport or zone transmission integrity, they can be excised. And the simplist, fastest way to get e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa. out the door is to have the IANA delegate that point to -exactly- the same server suite that hosts the e.f.f.3.ip6.int delegation. The RIRs will have none of that, for reasons that do not appear to be technical. the servers for ip6.int all have native IPv6 capability as well as IPv4 capability and have since 2000. Moving to the RIPE proposal looks like moving backward to me, in a number of respects. I would really like to be persuaded that it really is an advancement. % Robert --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). From RJorgensen@upctechnology.com Thu Feb 20 20:25:58 2003 From: RJorgensen@upctechnology.com (Jorgensen, Roger) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 21:25:58 +0100 Subject: [6bone] ip6.arpa ... Message-ID: <7CEA40C0E10C7D4FBE076AE7C3EFB78D0114C6B4@nlcbbms03> > On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Bill Manning wrote: The technical side are quite trivial so whats the reason to delay this even more? Has to be some non technical issues if there are any. The Important thing are to get 3ffe spaced moved to ip6.arpa, not next year but Now. Issues like IPv6 transport and not IPv4 are features and not important enough to delay this. Same goes for if the RIR have IPv6 strategy or not... it's not even related to 6bone as I see it. Please, just get it working so we can move on with IPv6... --- Roger J. --- From Robert.Kiessling@de.easynet.net Thu Feb 20 20:55:52 2003 From: Robert.Kiessling@de.easynet.net (Robert Kiessling) Date: 20 Feb 2003 20:55:52 +0000 Subject: [6bone] ip6.arpa ... In-Reply-To: <200302202020.h1KKKRo17681@boreas.isi.edu> References: <200302202020.h1KKKRo17681@boreas.isi.edu> Message-ID: Bill Manning writes: > as I stated these are gripes. the nut of the issue is that > RIPE is proposing to edit/change the zone data between > the 3ffe:: delegations as seen from ip6.int and ip6.arpa > > This is fatally flawed, as some folks will get one set of > answers while others will get distinctly different answers > to the same questions, based on the age of the resolver that > is in their endsystems. You cannot avoid that. Having the same delegations on sub-e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa level does not guarantee that the eventual answers are the same, since the nameserver to which it's finally delgated can have different zones for ....ip6.arpa and ...ip6.int. And quite often they would. The only way to avoid that is to recursively transfer all the subzones. I wouldn't think anyone seriously proposes this. > the transition proposal I made has certain features as "checklist" > items. If you really don't care about IPv6 transport or zone > transmission integrity, they can be excised. And the simplist, > fastest way to get e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa. out the door is to have > the IANA delegate that point to -exactly- the same server > suite that hosts the e.f.f.3.ip6.int delegation. Then why has't this been done long ago? > the servers for ip6.int all have native IPv6 capability > as well as IPv4 capability and have since 2000. This might be, but as long as this capability is not announced it's of no use for resolving. > dig ip6.int. ns imag.imag.fr. 3d23h53m15s IN A 129.88.30.1 > dig imag.imag.fr. aaaa ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 Let's have a look into our cache how the situation actually looks. > dig ip6.int ns ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: z.ip6.int. 20h24m5s IN AAAA 3ffe:0:1::c620:242 ns3.nic.fr. 2d14h19s IN A 192.134.0.49 ns3.nic.fr. 3d21h13m44s IN AAAA 2001:660:3006:1::1:1 flag.ep.net. 16h24m6s IN A 198.32.4.13 flag.ep.net. 23h48m24s IN AAAA 3ffe:805::2d0:b7ff:fee8:c4d9 imag.imag.fr. 3d23h47m58s IN A 129.88.30.1 munnari.oz.au. 1d22h32m12s IN A 128.250.1.21 munnari.oz.au. 1h48m48s IN AAAA 2001:388:c02:4000::1:21 y.ip6.int. 20h24m5s IN AAAA 3ffe:50e::1 > dig 6.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. ns ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ns.ripe.net. 18h56m42s IN AAAA 2001:610:240:0:193::193 ns.ripe.net. 1d21h45m57s IN A 193.0.0.193 ns.apnic.net. 12h31m21s IN A 203.37.255.97 munnari.oz.au. 1d22h31m20s IN A 128.250.1.21 munnari.oz.au. 1h47m56s IN AAAA 2001:388:c02:4000::1:21 auth03.ns.uu.net. 40m38s IN A 198.6.1.83 svc00.apnic.net. 1d23h57m7s IN A 202.12.28.131 sunic.sunet.se. 4h14m23s IN A 192.36.125.2 ns3.nic.fr. 2d13h59m27s IN A 192.134.0.49 ns3.nic.fr. 3d21h12m52s IN AAAA 2001:660:3006:1::1:1 So the difference here is 55% AAAA vs. 30% AAAA. Or in absolute terms three vs. five AAAA answers. This does not look like a substantial difference to me. > Moving to the RIPE proposal looks like moving backward to > me, in a number of respects. I would really like to be > persuaded that it really is an advancement. Any delegation is an advancement. Robert From Robert.Kiessling@de.easynet.net Thu Feb 20 21:04:23 2003 From: Robert.Kiessling@de.easynet.net (Robert Kiessling) Date: 20 Feb 2003 21:04:23 +0000 Subject: [6bone] ip6.arpa ... In-Reply-To: <200302202020.h1KKKRo17681@boreas.isi.edu> References: <200302202020.h1KKKRo17681@boreas.isi.edu> Message-ID: Bill Manning writes: > as I stated these are gripes. the nut of the issue is that > RIPE is proposing to edit/change the zone data between > the 3ffe:: delegations as seen from ip6.int and ip6.arpa > > This is fatally flawed, as some folks will get one set of > answers while others will get distinctly different answers > to the same questions, based on the age of the resolver that > is in their endsystems. Could you please indicate which changes you mean? In the RIR proposal, I only find: | The delegation for e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa is made by IANA to one of the | RIRs. Zone information for this space is produced by copying the | existing delegations in the e.f.f.3.ip6.int zone. Additional check is | done to ensure that the servers corresponding to the NS RR are also | authoritative in .arpa space. Zone information is updated whenever | changes are detected in the e.f.f.3.ip6.int zone. So the only change is to remove non-responsive name servers. And the net effect of this is that queries get an earlier negative reply, but not "different answers". | And the simplist, | fastest way to get e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa. out the door is to have | the IANA delegate that point to -exactly- the same server | suite that hosts the e.f.f.3.ip6.int delegation. Surely the fastest way at the moment it for the RIRs to provide this information, since the address space is already delegated to them. Robert From tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk Thu Feb 20 21:31:09 2003 From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 21:31:09 +0000 Subject: [6bone] ip6.arpa ... In-Reply-To: <200302202020.h1KKKRo17681@boreas.isi.edu> References: <200302202020.h1KKKRo17681@boreas.isi.edu> Message-ID: <20030220213109.GC1611@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 12:20:27PM -0800, Bill Manning wrote: > > the transition proposal I made has certain features as "checklist" > items. If you really don't care about IPv6 transport or zone > transmission integrity, they can be excised. And the simplist, > fastest way to get e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa. out the door is to have > the IANA delegate that point to -exactly- the same server > suite that hosts the e.f.f.3.ip6.int delegation. The RIRs > will have none of that, for reasons that do not appear to > be technical. At this rate the 6bone will be deprecated before the (sensible) delegation happens :( There seems no point continuing to gripe, as clearly nothing will happen... which is a big shame. Tim From tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk Thu Feb 20 21:33:33 2003 From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 21:33:33 +0000 Subject: [6bone] ip6.arpa ... In-Reply-To: References: <200302201907.h1KJ7Zs16242@boreas.isi.edu> Message-ID: <20030220213333.GE1611@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 09:41:05PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > > I sympathize, but this is all irrelevant. People wanted this a year ago. > It doesn't really matter how the servers are reachable. Exactly. Tim From bmanning@ISI.EDU Fri Feb 21 00:01:54 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:01:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] ip6.arpa ... In-Reply-To: from Robert Kiessling at "Feb 20, 3 08:55:52 pm" Message-ID: <200302210001.h1L01so13972@boreas.isi.edu> % Bill Manning writes: % % > This is fatally flawed, as some folks will get one set of % > answers while others will get distinctly different answers % > to the same questions, based on the age of the resolver that % > is in their endsystems. % % You cannot avoid that. Having the same delegations on % sub-e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa level does not guarantee that the eventual % answers are the same, since the nameserver to which it's finally % delgated can have different zones for ....ip6.arpa and ...ip6.int. And % quite often they would. actually, you can. using -ONE- zone file with two $ORIGIN statements will ensure that e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa is identical to e.f.f.3.ip6.int. % > transmission integrity, they can be excised. And the simplist, % > fastest way to get e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa. out the door is to have % > the IANA delegate that point to -exactly- the same server % > suite that hosts the e.f.f.3.ip6.int delegation. % % Then why has't this been done long ago? the RIRs refused to allow it. --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). From Robert.Kiessling@de.easynet.net Fri Feb 21 01:39:27 2003 From: Robert.Kiessling@de.easynet.net (Robert Kiessling) Date: 21 Feb 2003 01:39:27 +0000 Subject: [6bone] ip6.arpa ... In-Reply-To: <200302210001.h1L01so13972@boreas.isi.edu> References: <200302210001.h1L01so13972@boreas.isi.edu> Message-ID: Bill Manning writes: > % Bill Manning writes: > % > % > This is fatally flawed, as some folks will get one set of > % > answers while others will get distinctly different answers > % > to the same questions, based on the age of the resolver that > % > is in their endsystems. > % > % You cannot avoid that. Having the same delegations on > % sub-e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa level does not guarantee that the eventual > % answers are the same, since the nameserver to which it's finally > % delgated can have different zones for ....ip6.arpa and ...ip6.int. And > % quite often they would. > > actually, you can. using -ONE- zone file with two $ORIGIN > statements will ensure that e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa is identical > to e.f.f.3.ip6.int. You know this is not true. This only guarantees that one level of delgation is exactly the same. For all practical purposes the RIR proposal does the same. In no way does this ensure that the answer to a reverse query is the same for .ip6.arpa and .ip6.int. We are still waiting for your example about a substantially different answer which you claim results from the RIR proposal. And what you mean by | And the simplist, | fastest way to get e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa. out the door is to have | the IANA delegate that point to -exactly- the same server | suite that hosts the e.f.f.3.ip6.int delegation given the fact that ip6.arpa is delegated to the RIRs, and consequently it is the RIRs who would need to make that delegation, not IANA. Robert From andrei@ripe.net Fri Feb 21 11:26:34 2003 From: andrei@ripe.net (Andrei Robachevsky) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:26:34 +0100 Subject: [6bone] ip6.arpa ... References: <200302202020.h1KKKRo17681@boreas.isi.edu> Message-ID: <3E560CEA.7010406@ripe.net> Dear all, Some points to clarify and defend the RIRs proposal. Robert Kiessling wrote: > Bill Manning writes: > > >> as I stated these are gripes. the nut of the issue is that >> RIPE is proposing to edit/change the zone data between >> the 3ffe:: delegations as seen from ip6.int and ip6.arpa >> >> This is fatally flawed, as some folks will get one set of >> answers while others will get distinctly different answers >> to the same questions, based on the age of the resolver that >> is in their endsystems. > > > Could you please indicate which changes you mean? In the RIR proposal, > I only find: > > | The delegation for e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa is made by IANA to one of the > | RIRs. Zone information for this space is produced by copying the > | existing delegations in the e.f.f.3.ip6.int zone. Additional check is > | done to ensure that the servers corresponding to the NS RR are also > | authoritative in .arpa space. Zone information is updated whenever > | changes are detected in the e.f.f.3.ip6.int zone. > Our goal here is to reduce lameness in the zone. If people feel that the goal of making data in both zones identical overweights, lameness check can be removed. > So the only change is to remove non-responsive name servers. And the > net effect of this is that queries get an earlier negative reply, but > not "different answers". > > | And the simplist, > | fastest way to get e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa. out the door is to have > | the IANA delegate that point to -exactly- the same server > | suite that hosts the e.f.f.3.ip6.int delegation. > We promised and developed a pragmatic solution, a simple hack, if you want. Provided that many 6bone related issues are still on the table this seems to be a solution with a narrow scope and without implications - just to solve the particular problem. > Surely the fastest way at the moment it for the RIRs to provide this > information, since the address space is already delegated to them. > The RIRs have the prototype running. We are happy to start working with Bill regarding the zone transfers. This should not take long as I see no real technical issues here. > Robert > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone Thanks, Andrei -- Andrei Robachevsky CTO, RIPE NCC From joe@621.org Fri Feb 21 19:20:11 2003 From: joe@621.org (Joe Williams) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:20:11 -0600 Subject: [6bone] IPv6 docs Message-ID: <3E567BEB.7040901@621.org> hello, im pretty new to IPv6 and was wondering where i could find really good documentation on the subject. ive been on the listserv for a while and i understand most of what you guys are discussing, but theres about 25% i dont. any help would be great. -joe -- ___________________________________________________ <> .:Part of the 621.org Network:. 6BONE Handle: JAW621-6BONE RIPE Handle: JAW621-RIPE From basit@basit.cc Fri Feb 21 16:21:37 2003 From: basit@basit.cc (Abdul Basit) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:21:37 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [6bone] IPv6 docs In-Reply-To: <3E567BEB.7040901@621.org> References: <3E567BEB.7040901@621.org> Message-ID: www.hs247.com ? On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Joe Williams wrote: > hello, > im pretty new to IPv6 and was wondering where i could find really good > documentation on the subject. ive been on the listserv for a while and i > understand most of what you guys are discussing, but theres about 25% i > dont. any help would be great. > -joe > > -- > ___________________________________________________ > <> .:Part of the 621.org Network:. > 6BONE Handle: JAW621-6BONE > RIPE Handle: JAW621-RIPE > > > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > From robson_oliverra@hotmail.com Sun Feb 23 18:36:03 2003 From: robson_oliverra@hotmail.com (Robson Oliveira) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:36:03 -0300 Subject: [6bone] Database and Web servers Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2DB51.45DFE450 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, Can somebody let us know any experience with a Database application = (MySql or Oracle) and multihomed web server (IIS or Apache) ready in = IPv6? I'll appreciate your information. Robson Oliveira ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2DB51.45DFE450 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,
 
    Can somebody let us know any = experience=20 with a Database application (MySql or Oracle) and multihomed = web server=20 (IIS or Apache) ready in IPv6?
 
I'll appreciate your information.
 
Robson Oliveira
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2DB51.45DFE450-- From fuzzball@ipv6peer.net Sun Feb 23 19:35:53 2003 From: fuzzball@ipv6peer.net (Jean-Francois Laforest) Date: 23 Feb 2003 14:35:53 -0500 Subject: [6bone] Database and Web servers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1046028953.4427.3.camel@hellraiser.ipv6peer.net> On Sun, 2003-02-23 at 13:36, Robson Oliveira wrote: > Hi all, > > Can somebody let us know any experience with a Database > application (MySql or Oracle) and multihomed web server (IIS or > Apache) ready in IPv6? Apache works great with IPv6, (only the router is multihomed) load balanced / clustered. I use it at home at at work. Performance is overall the same. MySQL / Oracle, couldn't tell you, I only use postgresql (I use a 6 to 4 daemon, didn't look into ipv6 support for it) and I don't touch db's at work. IIS is not a good webserver, it's performance are mediocre and it is very unsecure. Make sure you patch your MS servers as soon as a patch get out. > I'll appreciate your information. We all do. What is this for, do you work for a company that is looking forward to move to IPv6 ? -- -------------------------- | Jean-Francois Laforest | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | http://www.mcgill.ca/ece/research | McGill Computer Engineering Departement | | http://www.ipv6peer.net/ | IPv6 Peer +01-514-524-8120 | | fuzzball@ipv6peer.net | BOFH: What was your usename ? :) | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net Sun Feb 23 20:29:14 2003 From: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net (Nicolas DEFFAYET) Date: 23 Feb 2003 21:29:14 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Database and Web servers In-Reply-To: <1046028953.4427.3.camel@hellraiser.ipv6peer.net> References: <1046028953.4427.3.camel@hellraiser.ipv6peer.net> Message-ID: <1046032154.24017.8472.camel@w1-2-lev.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> On Sun, 2003-02-23 at 20:35, Jean-Francois Laforest wrote: > MySQL / Oracle, couldn't tell you, I only use postgresql (I use a 6 to 4 > daemon, didn't look into ipv6 support for it) and I don't touch db's at > work. PostgreSQL have a IPv6 patch: ftp://213.91.4.28/pub/software/unix/patch/postgresql/ -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NDSoftware NOC: http://noc.ndsoftwarenet.com/ FNIX6: http://www.fnix6.net/ EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ From Q@ping.be Sun Feb 23 20:33:44 2003 From: Q@ping.be (Kurt Roeckx) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:33:44 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Database and Web servers In-Reply-To: <1046028953.4427.3.camel@hellraiser.ipv6peer.net> References: <1046028953.4427.3.camel@hellraiser.ipv6peer.net> Message-ID: <20030223203344.GA23558@ping.be> On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 02:35:53PM -0500, Jean-Francois Laforest wrote: > On Sun, 2003-02-23 at 13:36, Robson Oliveira wrote: > > MySQL / Oracle, couldn't tell you, I only use postgresql (I use a 6 to 4 > daemon, didn't look into ipv6 support for it) and I don't touch db's at > work. There exists a patch for postgresql, and it's in the current cvs version. Kurt From wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au Mon Feb 24 00:06:18 2003 From: wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au (Anand Kumria) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:06:18 +1100 Subject: [6bone] Database and Web servers In-Reply-To: <20030223203344.GA23558@ping.be> References: <1046028953.4427.3.camel@hellraiser.ipv6peer.net> <20030223203344.GA23558@ping.be> Message-ID: <20030224000607.GR10589@geryon.progsoc.uts.edu.au> On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 09:33:44PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 02:35:53PM -0500, Jean-Francois Laforest wrote: > > On Sun, 2003-02-23 at 13:36, Robson Oliveira wrote: > > > > MySQL / Oracle, couldn't tell you, I only use postgresql (I use a 6 to 4 > > daemon, didn't look into ipv6 support for it) and I don't touch db's at > > work. > > There exists a patch for postgresql, and it's in the current cvs > version. Is that merely to allow it to have IPv6 ACLs and sustain connections or is the inet type also modified to know about IPv6 as well? Thanks, Anand -- `` We are shaped by our thoughts, we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves. '' -- Buddha, The Dhammapada From Q@ping.be Mon Feb 24 00:57:02 2003 From: Q@ping.be (Kurt Roeckx) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 01:57:02 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Database and Web servers In-Reply-To: <20030224000607.GR10589@geryon.progsoc.uts.edu.au> References: <1046028953.4427.3.camel@hellraiser.ipv6peer.net> <20030223203344.GA23558@ping.be> <20030224000607.GR10589@geryon.progsoc.uts.edu.au> Message-ID: <20030224005702.GA23956@ping.be> On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 11:06:18AM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote: > On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 09:33:44PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 02:35:53PM -0500, Jean-Francois Laforest wrote: > > > On Sun, 2003-02-23 at 13:36, Robson Oliveira wrote: > > > > > > MySQL / Oracle, couldn't tell you, I only use postgresql (I use a 6 to 4 > > > daemon, didn't look into ipv6 support for it) and I don't touch db's at > > > work. > > > > There exists a patch for postgresql, and it's in the current cvs > > version. > > Is that merely to allow it to have IPv6 ACLs and sustain connections or > is the inet type also modified to know about IPv6 as well? Currently it only allows ipv6 connection. The plan is either to have inet type support ipv6 too, or have an inet6 type in the 7.4 release. See the discussions on the pgsql-hackers archive. Kurt From mohacsi@niif.hu Mon Feb 24 08:13:02 2003 From: mohacsi@niif.hu (Janos Mohacsi) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:13:02 +0100 (CET) Subject: [6bone] network's architecture under IPv6 In-Reply-To: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD20CC9DD@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> Message-ID: <20030224090920.R89454-100000@evil.ki.iif.hu> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, BEGIN, Thomas wrote: > Hello to all, I am wondering on IPv6 impacts over a company network's > architecture. I mean, a big IPv4 network has to be divided in several > VLANs in order to lighten the available bandwidth (sometimes for > security reasons but it is not my interest in this case). And this > because broadcast messages are received and examined by all network > adapter. Thus comes my question: As there is no more broadcast messages > but only multicast messages in IPv6, is there still a need to divide a > big network in smaller networks (VLANs) ? I think it is still a good practice to divide a network into a smaller VLANs for several reasons: - different requirements for different part of the network - different security - efficient handling IPv6 multicast does not supported by the switches - most switches handle by pure broadcast. Regards, Janos Mohacsi 6NET project > > Thanks > > Thomas BEGIN > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > From pim@ipng.nl Mon Feb 24 13:30:38 2003 From: pim@ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:30:38 +0100 Subject: [6bone] ip6.arpa ... In-Reply-To: <3E560CEA.7010406@ripe.net> References: <200302202020.h1KKKRo17681@boreas.isi.edu> <3E560CEA.7010406@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20030224133037.GA26672@bfib.colo.bit.nl> Andrei, Bill, | >| The delegation for e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa is made by IANA to one of the | >| RIRs. Zone information for this space is produced by copying the | >| existing delegations in the e.f.f.3.ip6.int zone. Additional check is | >| done to ensure that the servers corresponding to the NS RR are also | >| authoritative in .arpa space. Zone information is updated whenever | >| changes are detected in the e.f.f.3.ip6.int zone. | > | | Our goal here is to reduce lameness in the zone. If people feel that the | goal of making data in both zones identical overweights, lameness check | can be removed. Bill wrote a 'thank you' when I pointed out that we might be deliberately creating a different tree in ip6.arpa by eliminating the lame delegations to those that do not (yet) have a set of servers for their delegation in the ip6.arpa tree. Naturally, as Andrei states here, if the community does not wish to see this check, RIPE must not do it and the net result would be an exact copy of the zone, but then with ip6.arpa in stead of ip6.int in the RRs. Nevertheless, I am in favor of the check in the parent tree (even also in the ip6.int tree!), because many deployments in the 6BONE are not resolving properly. I'm interrested in other people's opinion on this particular issue (lameness check in ip6.arpa tree). | The RIRs have the prototype running. We are happy to start working with | Bill regarding the zone transfers. This should not take long as I see no | real technical issues here. I would be happy with this also. I see no problems (at all!) in proceding to implement RIPE NCC's proposal. groet, Pim -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From pim@ipng.nl Mon Feb 24 13:33:02 2003 From: pim@ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:33:02 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Database and Web servers In-Reply-To: <20030224005702.GA23956@ping.be> References: <1046028953.4427.3.camel@hellraiser.ipv6peer.net> <20030223203344.GA23558@ping.be> <20030224000607.GR10589@geryon.progsoc.uts.edu.au> <20030224005702.GA23956@ping.be> Message-ID: <20030224133302.GB26672@bfib.colo.bit.nl> | > Is that merely to allow it to have IPv6 ACLs and sustain connections or | > is the inet type also modified to know about IPv6 as well? | | Currently it only allows ipv6 connection. This is cool :-) | The plan is either to have inet type support ipv6 too, or have an | inet6 type in the 7.4 release. See the discussions on the | pgsql-hackers archive. It should not have one type that understands two families, but rather two types (inet and inet6). And this should have been implemented ages ago when people started to use the inet type :) groet, Pim -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From bmthalha_in@hotmail.com Mon Feb 24 15:18:32 2003 From: bmthalha_in@hotmail.com (mohamed thalha) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 07:18:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] Windows 2003 Web servers In-Reply-To: <20030224133302.GB26672@bfib.colo.bit.nl> Message-ID: <20030224151832.64465.qmail@web14204.mail.yahoo.com> --0-12476970-1046099912=:63764 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi There, Iv'e been trying to setup a webserver using windows 2003 beta version. Im not sure how to create website using IPv6 address. has anyone tired on that. if u have any interesting answer please share with us and lets get the knowledge from ur experience. Thank you --thalha-- --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more --0-12476970-1046099912=:63764 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Hi There,

Iv'e been trying to setup a webserver using windows 2003 beta version. Im not sure how to create website using IPv6 address. has anyone tired on that. if u have any interesting answer please share with us and lets get the knowledge from ur experience.

Thank you

--thalha--


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more --0-12476970-1046099912=:63764-- From bob@thefinks.com Mon Feb 24 17:27:45 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:27:45 -0800 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224092334.025e5050@mail.addr.com> 6bone Folk, NECTEC-TH has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this will close 22 January 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. <http://www.ipv6.nectec.or.th> Thanks, Bob === >From: "NECTEC-IPv6" >To: >Subject: pTLA request >Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:33:40 +0700 > >Dear Mr. Bob Fink, > >This letter is being written on behalf of > Thailand's IPv6 Testbed Project , > Thai Social/Sciencetific Academic and Research Network , > National Electronics and Computer Technology Center of Thailand > >to request pTLA allocation. Being qualified with RFC2772, please >find details below : > >=============================================== >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 testbed's connected to 6bone and launched since 9 August 2002. > > 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?NECTEC-TH > > 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. > >=> BGP4+ peering with regional and domestic 6bone's backbone >sites : INET-TH, CERNET-CN, NBEN-TW, MIMOS-MY > > >sh bgp ipv6 sum >Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down >State/PfxRcd >3FFE:3200:1:1A::1 > 4 4538 12902 27646 19481 0 0 1d08h 16 >3FFE:3600:2000:888::3640:7 > 4 9681 29337 26177 19481 0 0 1d07h 236 >3FFE:400B:400B::8 > 4 4618 21510 23789 19481 0 0 1w0d 415 >3FFE:80D0:FFFC:10::42 > 4 2042 39314 17080 19481 0 0 1d19h 287 > >=> Router, ep.ipv6.nectec.or.th, IPv6 pingable. >PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 3ffe:8140:101:7::1 --> 3ffe:400b:400b::9 >16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:400b::9, icmp_seq=0 hlim=58 time=783.453 ms >16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:400b::9, icmp_seq=1 hlim=58 time=817.015 ms >16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:400b::9, icmp_seq=2 hlim=58 time=1435.44 ms >16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:400b::9, icmp_seq=3 hlim=58 time=838.53 ms >16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:400b::9, icmp_seq=4 hlim=58 time=1074.85 ms > >--- ep.ipv6.nectec.or.th ping6 statistics --- >5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss >round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 783.453/989.858/1435.441/245.416 ms > > c. Fully maintained DNS forward (AAAA) and reverse (ip6.int) > entries for the Applicant's router(s) and at least one host > system. > >=> The current DNS server is leo.ipv6.nectec.or.th maintaining both forward >and reverse entries for ep.ipv6.nectec.or.th (router) and >www.ipv6.nectec.or.th > >$ORIGIN ipv6.nectec.or.th. >@ 1D IN SOA leo root.leo ( > 2002101001 ; serial > 8H ; refresh > 2H ; retry > 1W ; expiry > 1D ) ; minimum > > 1D IN NS leo > >ep 1D IN AAAA 3ffe:400b:400b::9 > 1D IN A 203.185.132.158 >www 1D IN CNAME leo >leo 1D IN AAAA 3ffe:400b:6003::9 > 1D IN A 203.185.132.132 > >=> Reverse DNS Delegation : >$ dig -t any 3.0.0.6.b.0.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int @rns1.v6.inet.co.th > >; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> -t 3.0.0.6.b.0.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int @rns1.v6.inet.co.th >; (1 server found) >;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch >;; got answer: >;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6 >;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1 >;; QUERY SECTION: >;; 3.0.0.6.b.0.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int, type = ANY, class = IN > >;; AUTHORITY SECTION: >3.0.0.6.b.0.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. 12H IN NS leo.ipv6.nectec.or.th. > >;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: >leo.ipv6.nectec.or.th. 4h32m34s IN A 203.185.132.132 > >;; Total query time: 51 msec >;; FROM: leo.ipv6.nectec.or.th to SERVER: rns1.v6.inet.co.th 203.150.14.111 >;; WHEN: Fri Jan 31 11:26:55 2003 >;; MSG SIZE sent: 49 rcvd: 100 > > 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.ipv6.nectec.or.th --v4/v6 >accessible > >=> The result of ping6 www.ipv6.nectec.or.th >PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 3ffe:8140:101:7::1 --> 3ffe:400b:6003::9 >16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:6003::9, icmp_seq=0 hlim=57 time=679.311 ms >16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:6003::9, icmp_seq=1 hlim=57 time=1159.21 ms >16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:6003::9, icmp_seq=2 hlim=57 time=655.809 ms >16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:6003::9, icmp_seq=3 hlim=57 time=876.863 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. > >=> TB6-6BONE, > CC8-6BONE, > PT4-6BONE > > 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. > >=> ipv6@nectec.or.th > > 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. > >=> The Thailand's IPv6 Testbed project was formally established in October >2001, under the management of Thai Social/Science Academic and Research > Network (ThaiSARN-3) project > (http://www.thaisarn.net.th), > National Electronics and Computer Technology Center >(http://www.nectec.or.th). >With a mission to promote the next generation Internet in the country, >this project is proposed in order to establish national IPv6 gateway and >provide IPv6 testing services to support research and experimentally >operational activities towards development of IPv6-related technologies >and IPv6-ready networks for all Thai public. > > 4. The pTLA Applicant MUST commit to abide by the current 6Bone > operational rules and policies as they exist at time of its > application, and agree to abide by future 6Bone backbone > operational rules and policies as they evolve by consensus of the > 6Bone backbone and user community. > >=> We commit to abide by present and future operational rules and policies > of 6Bone backbone and user community. > > When an Applicant seeks to receive a pTLA allocation, it will apply > to the 6Bone Operations Group (see section 8 below) by providing to > the Group information in support of its claims that it meets the > criteria above. > >=================== > >Thank you >Thailand's IPv6 Testbed From akarnik@cs.ucf.edu Mon Feb 24 19:40:57 2003 From: akarnik@cs.ucf.edu (Abhishek Karnik) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:40:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: [6bone] Setting up a machine for IPv6 ? Message-ID: hi all, I have a router which I have configured for IPv6 and intend to set up a tunnel from the router elsewhere. This tunnel is mainly to connect to our internal subnet . I require to set up IPv6 on the machines on this internal subnet. Could someone please guide me on what kind of a set up will be required . I am pretty new at this . I plan on using SuSe Linux as of now . Would there be a preffered OS (FreeBSD or OpeBSD etc...) Also where can I find documentation on how to set up this machine for IPv6. Thanking you, Abhishek From jeroen@unfix.org Mon Feb 24 21:11:26 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:11:26 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Setting up a machine for IPv6 ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c2dc49$4c932430$210d640a@unfix.org> Abhishek Karnik wrote: > hi all, > I have a router which I have configured for IPv6 and intend > to set up a > tunnel from the router elsewhere. This tunnel is mainly to > connect to our > internal subnet . I require to set up IPv6 on the machines on this > internal subnet. Could someone please guide me on what kind > of a set up > will be required . I am pretty new at this . I plan on using > SuSe Linux as > of now . * How do I configure my machine to setup the IPv6 in IPv4 tunnel to the SixXS POP? http://www.sixxs.net/faq/?faq=ossetup * How do I give connectivity to other hosts on my subnet? http://www.sixxs.net/faq/?faq=usingsubnet Note that both of these ofcourse apply to any tunnelbroker system. You prolly also want to read Peter's excelent Linux+IPv6 HOWTO which can be found at: http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Linux+IPv6-HOWTO/ and ofcourse is also linked in those faq's. > Would there be a preffered OS (FreeBSD or OpeBSD etc...) Also > where can I find documentation on how to set up this machine for IPv6. OS choices all depends on 'taste' mostly, I tend to pick the best OS for that specific circumenstence. One good thing about variation is that one can learn about it, which is also one of the goals of the 6bone ;) *BSD, Solaris etc is also documented on the above URL's. Greets, Jeroen From kim@tac.nyc.ny.us Mon Feb 24 22:29:55 2003 From: kim@tac.nyc.ny.us (Kimmo Suominen) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:29:55 -0500 Subject: [6bone] Setting up a machine for IPv6 ? In-Reply-To: from Abhishek Karnik on Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:40:57 -0500 References: Message-ID: <20030224222955.A07B87E4B@beowulf.gw.com> The NetBSD Documentation includes a pretty thorough IPv6 FAQ: http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/network/ipv6/ Regards, + Kim | From: Abhishek Karnik | Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:40:57 -0500 | | | hi all, | I have a router which I have configured for IPv6 and intend to set up a | tunnel from the router elsewhere. This tunnel is mainly to connect to our | internal subnet . I require to set up IPv6 on the machines on this | internal subnet. Could someone please guide me on what kind of a set up | will be required . I am pretty new at this . I plan on using SuSe Linux as | of now . Would there be a preffered OS (FreeBSD or OpeBSD etc...) Also | where can I find documentation on how to set up this machine for IPv6. | Thanking you, | Abhishek | | _______________________________________________ | 6bone mailing list | 6bone@mailman.isi.edu | http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone | From robson.oliveira@ipv6dobrasil.com.br Mon Feb 24 23:00:34 2003 From: robson.oliveira@ipv6dobrasil.com.br (Robson Oliveira) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:00:34 -0300 Subject: [6bone] IPv6 world costs Message-ID: Hi all, Are there any place where I can find involved IPv6 cost? $$$ estimate costs? Is very important to make companies trust those IPv6 trend. Show IPv6 in numbers $. Cheers, Robson Oliveira From cfaber@fpsn.net Mon Feb 24 23:44:52 2003 From: cfaber@fpsn.net (Colin Faber) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:44:52 -0700 Subject: [6bone] IPv6 world costs References: Message-ID: <3E5AAE74.F1B1FBA6@fpsn.net> I'm also very interested in such numbers. Might I suggest to companies currently deploying IPv6 on their networks to factor in administrative costs along with hardware, software, and bandwidth. Thanks. Robson Oliveira wrote: > > Hi all, > > Are there any place where I can find involved IPv6 cost? $$$ estimate costs? > > Is very important to make companies trust those IPv6 trend. Show IPv6 in > numbers $. > > Cheers, > Robson Oliveira > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone -- Colin Faber (303) 736-5160 fpsn.net, Inc. * Black holes are where God divided by zero. * -> SPAM TRAP ADDRESS - DO NOT EMAIL <- cfaber.signature@mysqlfaqs.com -> SPAM TRAP ADDRESS - DO NOT EMAIL <- From pim@ipng.nl Tue Feb 25 07:50:37 2003 From: pim@ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:50:37 +0100 Subject: [6bone] IPv6 world costs In-Reply-To: <3E5AAE74.F1B1FBA6@fpsn.net> References: <3E5AAE74.F1B1FBA6@fpsn.net> Message-ID: <20030225075037.GA1384@bfib.colo.bit.nl> On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 04:44:52PM -0700, Colin Faber wrote: | I'm also very interested in such numbers. Might I suggest to companies | currently deploying IPv6 on their networks to factor in administrative | costs along with hardware, software, and bandwidth. The costs for my (medium-sized) ISP were negligable. We have decided to roll out our latest generation network with Juniper boxes, which are technically sound and financially not much more of a burdon. IPv6 is still being deployed in overtime around here. Many engineers spend their spare time running it, so factoring in costs are extremely difficult. Some of us at BIT write software .. and most of them are somewhat IPv6 aware in terms of getaddrinfo and protocol independent implementations. I can't give an estimate at all what we spent 'on IPv6', but can tell you that it has been a high-weight decisionmaking tool since approximately March 2002. This means: if it does not do decent IPv6, and some competitor does, we no longer buy it. groet, Pim -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From johann@broadpark.no Tue Feb 25 11:19:26 2003 From: johann@broadpark.no (Janine C.Buorditez) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:19:26 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Basic IPv6 on FreeBSD Message-ID: <20030225121926.1ba6d6fd.johann@broadpark.no> Hello. Is there any document describing a basic setup of an IPv6 tunnel on FreeBSD, both through commands, rc.conf and possibly other scripts? It's been a long time since I attempted setting up IPv6, and my tunnel is still active. I'd like to do something with it. Thanks. From jeroen@unfix.org Tue Feb 25 13:57:42 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:57:42 +0100 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, closes 17Jan0 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030117074602.020a8c88@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <000401c2dcd5$deab0590$534510ac@cyan> Bob Fink wrote the 17th of January 2003: > 6bone Folk, > > The two weeks has gone by on the notice of intent to reclaim > unused pTLAs. I have received replies from several sites (list below) and I > believe we should let them keep their pTLAs as they are actively trying to do > something with them. > The remainder I will try to contact once more, individually, > noting in the > pTLA list that this process is ongoing, but their pTLA will not be > reclaimed at this time. > > > 3ffe:e00::/24 IFB/GB > > 3ffe:1900::/24 6COM/US-CA > > 3ffe:1a00::/24 CAIRN/US > > 3ffe:1b00::/24 UL/PT > > 3ffe:2300::/24 INFN-CNAF/IT > > 3ffe:2700::/24 ERA/SE > > 3ffe:8180::/28 TIAI/US > If you have better info on the lists above, please let me know. > > Stay tuned :-) Of the above list TIAI/US and ERA/SE where already returned. Are there any updates about the ones left over? UL/PT is active again since the 19th of February 2003, at least it's seen in the BGP tables (*) again. Also 3ffe:d00::/24 (ANSNET/US-DC) and 3ffe:82e0::/28 (LDCOM/FR) are still not available, any information about those? Greets, Jeroen * = http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/all/?prefix=3ffe:1b00::/24 From Daniel Austin" Hello, Does anyone allow the RIPE exchange point blocks in their filters? RIPE allocate all exchange points from their 2001:7f8::/32 block with a /48 to each exchange point as follows: 2001:7f8::/48 is DECIX, DE 2001:7f8:1::/48 is AMS-IX, NL 2001:7f8:2::/48 is UK6X, UK 2001:7f8:3::/48 is Xchangepoint, UK 2001:7f8:4::/48 is LINX, UK 2001:7f8:5::/48 is LIPEX exchange, UK 2001:7f8:6::/48 is BGIX, BG 2001:7f8:7::/48 is FICIX, FI 2001:7f8:8::/48 is BLNX, DE 2001:7f8:9::/48 is MANAP, UK 2001:7f8:a::/48 is GIGAPIX, PT 2001:7f8:b::/48 is MIX, IT 2001:7f8:c::/48 is CHTIX, CH 2001:7f8:d::/48 is NODIX, SE 2001:7f8:e::/48 is NDIX, NL 2001:7f8:f::/48 is ESPANIX, ES 2001:7f8:10::/48 is NAMEX6, IT 2001:7f8:11::/48 is LIX, LU 2001:7f8:12::/48 is NIX1/NIX2, NO 2001:7f8:13::/48 is NLSIX, NL 2001:7f8:14::/48 is NIX, CZ 2001:7f8:15::/48 is TIX, EE I've just started a transit feed to LIPEX (2001:7f8:5::/48), but getting people to accept the prefix seems difficult! I just wondered how many people's filters would accept this prefix? With Thanks, Daniel Austin, Managing Director, Kewlio.net Limited. From nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net Tue Feb 25 15:00:35 2003 From: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net (Nicolas DEFFAYET) Date: 25 Feb 2003 16:00:35 +0100 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, closes 17Jan0 In-Reply-To: <000401c2dcd5$deab0590$534510ac@cyan> References: <000401c2dcd5$deab0590$534510ac@cyan> Message-ID: <1046185235.24018.11213.camel@w1-2-lev.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 14:57, Jeroen Massar wrote: > Bob Fink wrote the 17th of January 2003: > Also 3ffe:d00::/24 (ANSNET/US-DC) and 3ffe:82e0::/28 (LDCOM/FR) are > still not available, any information about those? We work with LDCOM, they will announce their pTLA very soon. -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NDSoftware NOC: http://noc.ndsoftwarenet.com/ FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/ EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ From gert@space.net Tue Feb 25 15:18:04 2003 From: gert@space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:18:04 +0100 Subject: [6bone] RIPE Exchange Points In-Reply-To: <019d01c2dcda$1505d440$6ea0fea9@DanLaptop>; from daniel@kewlio.net on Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 02:27:51PM -0000 References: <019d01c2dcda$1505d440$6ea0fea9@DanLaptop> Message-ID: <20030225161804.N15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 02:27:51PM -0000, Daniel Austin wrote: > Does anyone allow the RIPE exchange point blocks in their filters? The RIPE policy explicitely discourages announcing and routing those networks. It should be used for the peering mesh, and not for anything else. If you need globally routed address space for additional service, the current recommendation is "use upstream space from one of your members who will provide transit". [..] > I've just started a transit feed to LIPEX (2001:7f8:5::/48), but getting people to accept the prefix seems difficult! > I just wondered how many people's filters would accept this prefix? Right now, our filters will accept this, but it is to be expected that global visibilty for those prefixes might not work. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57147 (56285) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From Daniel Austin" <20030225161804.N15927@Space.Net> Message-ID: <025401c2dce1$5b4cb020$6ea0fea9@DanLaptop> Thanks Gert, I've been pointed to the correct RIPE docs now also. With Thanks, Daniel Austin, Managing Director, Kewlio.net Limited. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gert Doering" To: "Daniel Austin" Cc: <6bone@mailman.isi.edu>; Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:18 PM Subject: Re: [6bone] RIPE Exchange Points > Hi, > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 02:27:51PM -0000, Daniel Austin wrote: > > Does anyone allow the RIPE exchange point blocks in their filters? > > The RIPE policy explicitely discourages announcing and routing those > networks. It should be used for the peering mesh, and not for anything > else. > > If you need globally routed address space for additional service, the > current recommendation is "use upstream space from one of your members > who will provide transit". > > [..] > > I've just started a transit feed to LIPEX (2001:7f8:5::/48), but getting people to accept the prefix seems difficult! > > I just wondered how many people's filters would accept this prefix? > > Right now, our filters will accept this, but it is to be expected > that global visibilty for those prefixes might not work. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57147 (56285) > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 > > From bob@thefinks.com Tue Feb 25 15:58:37 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:58:37 -0800 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, closes 17Jan0 In-Reply-To: <000401c2dcd5$deab0590$534510ac@cyan> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030117074602.020a8c88@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030225072146.0200c630@mail.addr.com> Jeroen, At 02:57 PM 2/25/2003 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: >Bob Fink wrote the 17th of January 2003: > > > 6bone Folk, > > > > The two weeks has gone by on the notice of intent to reclaim > > unused pTLAs. I have received replies from several sites (list below) >and I > > believe we should let them keep their pTLAs as they are actively >trying to do > > something with them. > > > > > The remainder I will try to contact once more, individually, > > noting in the > > pTLA list that this process is ongoing, but their pTLA will not be > > reclaimed at this time. > > > > > > 3ffe:e00::/24 IFB/GB > > > > 3ffe:1900::/24 6COM/US-CA > > > > 3ffe:1a00::/24 CAIRN/US > > > > 3ffe:1b00::/24 UL/PT > > > > 3ffe:2300::/24 INFN-CNAF/IT > > > > 3ffe:2700::/24 ERA/SE > > > > 3ffe:8180::/28 TIAI/US > > > If you have better info on the lists above, please let me know. > > > > Stay tuned :-) > >Of the above list TIAI/US and ERA/SE where already returned. >Are there any updates about the ones left over? > >UL/PT is active again since the 19th of February 2003, >at least it's seen in the BGP tables (*) again. > >Also 3ffe:d00::/24 (ANSNET/US-DC) and 3ffe:82e0::/28 (LDCOM/FR) are >still not available, any information about those? I have been plodding along on these, slowly asking for their return in a more detailed way from individual contacts. As of this moment, ANSNET and 6COM are returned and CAIRN is reclaimed. I've just updated the list for these. I will continue to update the list as I plod along. Meanwhile, anything that is in question is marked so anyone concerned can simply not peer until it is clarified. Can someone remind me what the "never" last seen status time is? Thanks, Bob From tvo@enterzone.net Tue Feb 25 16:31:19 2003 From: tvo@enterzone.net (John Fraizer) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:31:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [6bone] RIPE Exchange Points In-Reply-To: <019d01c2dcda$1505d440$6ea0fea9@DanLaptop> Message-ID: I allow them in but, we tag anything that breaks the aggregation as no-export so, we don't redistribute. --- John Fraizer | High-Security Datacenter Services | President | Dedicated circuits 64k - 155M OC3 | EnterZone, Inc | Virtual, Dedicated, Colocation | http://www.enterzone.net/ | Network Consulting Services | On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Daniel Austin wrote: > Hello, > > Does anyone allow the RIPE exchange point blocks in their filters? > > RIPE allocate all exchange points from their 2001:7f8::/32 block with a /48 to each exchange point as follows: > > 2001:7f8::/48 is DECIX, DE > 2001:7f8:1::/48 is AMS-IX, NL > 2001:7f8:2::/48 is UK6X, UK > 2001:7f8:3::/48 is Xchangepoint, UK > 2001:7f8:4::/48 is LINX, UK > 2001:7f8:5::/48 is LIPEX exchange, UK > 2001:7f8:6::/48 is BGIX, BG > 2001:7f8:7::/48 is FICIX, FI > 2001:7f8:8::/48 is BLNX, DE > 2001:7f8:9::/48 is MANAP, UK > 2001:7f8:a::/48 is GIGAPIX, PT > 2001:7f8:b::/48 is MIX, IT > 2001:7f8:c::/48 is CHTIX, CH > 2001:7f8:d::/48 is NODIX, SE > 2001:7f8:e::/48 is NDIX, NL > 2001:7f8:f::/48 is ESPANIX, ES > 2001:7f8:10::/48 is NAMEX6, IT > 2001:7f8:11::/48 is LIX, LU > 2001:7f8:12::/48 is NIX1/NIX2, NO > 2001:7f8:13::/48 is NLSIX, NL > 2001:7f8:14::/48 is NIX, CZ > 2001:7f8:15::/48 is TIX, EE > > I've just started a transit feed to LIPEX (2001:7f8:5::/48), but getting people to accept the prefix seems difficult! > I just wondered how many people's filters would accept this prefix? > > > With Thanks, > > Daniel Austin, > Managing Director, > Kewlio.net Limited. > > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > From jeroen@unfix.org Tue Feb 25 16:32:50 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:32:50 +0100 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, closes 17Jan0 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030225072146.0200c630@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <001201c2dceb$8a357660$534510ac@cyan> Bob Fink [mailto:bob@thefinks.com] wrote: > Jeroen, > > At 02:57 PM 2/25/2003 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > >Bob Fink wrote the 17th of January 2003: > As of this moment, ANSNET and 6COM are returned and CAIRN is > reclaimed. > I've just updated the list for these. > I will continue to update the list as I plod along. > Meanwhile, anything > that is in question is marked so anyone concerned can simply > not peer until > it is clarified. > > Can someone remind me what the "never" last seen status time is? "Never" means: "didn't get a route for this prefix in any of the routing tables since the 1st of December 2002 when this measurement tool was started" Unfortunatly that is not a very long while, maybe if someone has old tables laying around they can contribute them so I can match up the dates? I've added the above sentence on the page to clarify this a bit. Greets, Jeroen From bob@thefinks.com Tue Feb 25 18:06:27 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:06:27 -0800 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, closes 17Jan0 In-Reply-To: <001201c2dceb$8a357660$534510ac@cyan> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030225072146.0200c630@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030225090734.0260d190@mail.addr.com> At 05:32 PM 2/25/2003 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: >Bob Fink [mailto:bob@thefinks.com] wrote: > > > Jeroen, > > > > At 02:57 PM 2/25/2003 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > >Bob Fink wrote the 17th of January 2003: > > > As of this moment, ANSNET and 6COM are returned and CAIRN is > > reclaimed. > > I've just updated the list for these. > > > > I will continue to update the list as I plod along. > > Meanwhile, anything > > that is in question is marked so anyone concerned can simply > > not peer until > > it is clarified. > > > > Can someone remind me what the "never" last seen status time is? > >"Never" means: >"didn't get a route for this prefix in any of the routing tables > since the 1st of December 2002 when this measurement tool was started" > >Unfortunatly that is not a very long while, maybe if someone has old >tables laying around they can contribute them so I can match up the >dates? >I've added the above sentence on the page to clarify this a bit. Thanks for the clarification. Bob From dr@cluenet.de Tue Feb 25 23:35:55 2003 From: dr@cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:35:55 +0100 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, closes 17Jan0 In-Reply-To: <1046185235.24018.11213.camel@w1-2-lev.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com>; from nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net on Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 04:00:35PM +0100 References: <000401c2dcd5$deab0590$534510ac@cyan> <1046185235.24018.11213.camel@w1-2-lev.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Message-ID: <20030226003555.A30607@homebase.cluenet.de> On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 04:00:35PM +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 14:57, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > Bob Fink wrote the 17th of January 2003: > > > Also 3ffe:d00::/24 (ANSNET/US-DC) and 3ffe:82e0::/28 (LDCOM/FR) are > > still not available, any information about those? > > We work with LDCOM, they will announce their pTLA very soon. Route announcements are a 10-second-job. Will they actually _use_ the space or just "trick around" to make an announcement visible? This is exactly what I meant is flawed about giving weeks and months of grace time. For many, you only give them time to make an "alibi announcement" visibile. IMNSHO, if someone doesn't announce a block for months, they _don't_use_it_. This means, if they actually care again of _using_ it, they can reapply for a new block and obtain new addresses quite quickly. With current, up-to-date contact information etc. But then again, if this is what 6bone regards as being acceptable, then who am I to complain. :-) Just my unimportant ?0.02 ;-) Best regards, Daniel From jeroen@unfix.org Wed Feb 26 00:45:53 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 01:45:53 +0100 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, closes 17Jan0 In-Reply-To: <20030226003555.A30607@homebase.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <001301c2dd30$6b7873e0$210d640a@unfix.org> Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 04:00:35PM +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > > On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 14:57, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > Bob Fink wrote the 17th of January 2003: > > > > > Also 3ffe:d00::/24 (ANSNET/US-DC) and 3ffe:82e0::/28 > (LDCOM/FR) are > > > still not available, any information about those? > > > > We work with LDCOM, they will announce their pTLA very soon. > > Route announcements are a 10-second-job. Will they actually _use_ the > space or just "trick around" to make an announcement visible? > > This is exactly what I meant is flawed about giving weeks and months > of grace time. For many, you only give them time to make an "alibi > announcement" visibile. IMNSHO, if someone doesn't announce a block > for months, they _don't_use_it_. This means, if they actually > care again of _using_ it, they can reapply for a new block and obtain > new addresses quite quickly. With current, up-to-date contact information etc. Not even talking about the fact that they apparently didn't try and contact Bob yet, nor make a public statement about the status. Then again, there is another side to the story that one could be allocated address space (or ASN's etc) just for the sake that: 'whenever we peer with another party we know that it is globally unique' Though one could quite easily state that and we haven't seen that yet either... Maybe a 'intention of use' clause could be put into the still to be renewed signup draft? Greets, Jeroen From nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net Wed Feb 26 01:11:02 2003 From: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net (Nicolas DEFFAYET) Date: 26 Feb 2003 02:11:02 +0100 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, closes 17Jan0 In-Reply-To: <20030226003555.A30607@homebase.cluenet.de> References: <000401c2dcd5$deab0590$534510ac@cyan> <1046185235.24018.11213.camel@w1-2-lev.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> <20030226003555.A30607@homebase.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <1046221861.24041.11928.camel@w1-2-lev.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 00:35, Daniel Roesen wrote: > This is exactly what I meant is flawed about giving weeks and months > of grace time. For many, you only give them time to make an "alibi > announcement" visibile. IMNSHO, if someone doesn't announce a block > for months, they _don't_use_it_. This means, if they actually care again > of _using_ it, they can reapply for a new block and obtain new addresses > quite quickly. With current, up-to-date contact information etc. It's not quick to get a pTLA: 15 days when you are lucky, 1 month when people troll on your request... pTLA review is not useful, many pTLA have been allocated without respect RFC2772 (with only one contact, with reserved ASN,...) What do you think about the last allocated pTLA ? HP/US 3FFE:4015::/32 [22Jan03] Wed Feb 26 01:52:26 CET 2003 route-server.ndsoftwarenet.net> show ipv6 bgp 3FFE:4015::/32 % Network not in table route-server.ndsoftwarenet.net> 1 month after the allocation, this pTLA had never been announced ! -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NDSoftware NOC: http://noc.ndsoftwarenet.com/ FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/ EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ From Emanuele.Logalbo@TILAB.COM Wed Feb 26 09:15:25 2003 From: Emanuele.Logalbo@TILAB.COM (Lo Galbo Emanuele) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:15:25 +0100 Subject: [6bone] vic&rat ov ipv6 multicast Message-ID: <9620749A0C40FB49B72994B11B077C5DD25CDD@EXC2K01A.cselt.it> Hi all, I have configured a multicast ipv6 testbed using freebsd 4.7 routers.Now I would like to try using vic rat for multicast.One of the things I must care about them is ths PC must be in IPv6 DNS.I would like to use these tools in a LAN and I don't have a DNS server so what do I need? Another question.I don't understand how I can manage multicast IPv6 group:in windows 2000 I tried to assign to my hosts multicast addresses and unicast addresses to the same interface but it is not possible.So How can I proceede fixing and managing multicast groups for vic and rat applications? I hope you will help me. Thanks in advance and Best Regards. ==================================================================== CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by replying to MailAdmin@tilab.com. Thank you ==================================================================== From David.Gavarret@ldcom.fr Wed Feb 26 14:09:47 2003 From: David.Gavarret@ldcom.fr (Gavarret, David) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:09:47 +0100 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, closes 17Ja n0 Message-ID: <417CBD1413A1D411BD3200306E00C18C032274A6@lcopar21.ldcom.fr> > Daniel Roesen wrote: <...> > > > > Also 3ffe:d00::/24 (ANSNET/US-DC) and 3ffe:82e0::/28 > > (LDCOM/FR) are > > > > still not available, any information about those? > > > <...> > Not even talking about the fact that they apparently didn't try > and contact Bob yet, nor make a public statement about the status. Hi all, I answered on January, 6th to the 6Bone list to the notice Bob send with all the details concerning our IPv6 experimentation. I managed to get my dedicated router back, with all the cards needed. I still need to make a trick on tuesday morning on the router to get it working. I am actually alone to do all of this job, as the IPv6 experimentation is still considered by my bosses as a secondary plan task when I have to select prioritary tasks. I try to do my best to do as fast as possible. We managed to get our initial platform up during nearly one full year. And we still have the will to get back on the 6Bone and to improve our ipv6 network. Regards, David Gavarret LDCOM Networks From Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org Wed Feb 26 19:48:47 2003 From: Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org (Ronald van der Pol) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:48:47 +0100 Subject: [6bone] meeting at SFO? Message-ID: <20030226194847.GB24267@rvdp.org> Bob, I think you were thinking about a 6BONE lunch meeting at SFO, but I cannot find the message anymore. I think we should set a date before everybody's slots are filled. rvdp From pfs@cisco.com Thu Feb 27 01:44:01 2003 From: pfs@cisco.com (Philip Smith) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:44:01 +1000 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224092334.025e5050@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030227113545.03c2bdd0@pfs-pc.cisco.com> I'm generally curious why organisations which are members of the various RIRs are still coming to request 6BONE address space. Global IPv6 address space is global IPv6 address space, whether it comes from the 6bone, or in this case, from APNIC, so I'm wondering why NECTEC feel that it is necessary to comply with the 6bone rules rather than simply requesting their IPv6 address block from APNIC under their existing APNIC membership. Both address spaces will work on a testbed, the benefit of the RIR space being that it is real, not experimental, and is unlikely to be withdrawn when the 6bone experiment finishes in the future. philip -- At 09:27 24/02/2003 -0800, Bob Fink wrote: >6bone Folk, > >NECTEC-TH has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully >compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this will close 22 >January 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. > ><http://www.ipv6.nectec.or.th> > > >Thanks, > >Bob > >=== >>From: "NECTEC-IPv6" >>To: >>Subject: pTLA request >>Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:33:40 +0700 >> >>Dear Mr. Bob Fink, >> >>This letter is being written on behalf of >> Thailand's IPv6 Testbed Project , >> Thai Social/Sciencetific Academic and Research Network , >> National Electronics and Computer Technology Center of Thailand >> >>to request pTLA allocation. Being qualified with RFC2772, please >>find details below : >> >>=============================================== >>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 testbed's connected to 6bone and launched since 9 August 2002. >> >> 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?NECTEC-TH >> >> 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. >> >>=> BGP4+ peering with regional and domestic 6bone's backbone >>sites : INET-TH, CERNET-CN, NBEN-TW, MIMOS-MY >> >> >sh bgp ipv6 sum >>Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down >>State/PfxRcd >>3FFE:3200:1:1A::1 >> 4 4538 12902 27646 19481 0 0 1d08h 16 >>3FFE:3600:2000:888::3640:7 >> 4 9681 29337 26177 19481 0 0 1d07h 236 >>3FFE:400B:400B::8 >> 4 4618 21510 23789 19481 0 0 1w0d 415 >>3FFE:80D0:FFFC:10::42 >> 4 2042 39314 17080 19481 0 0 1d19h 287 >> >>=> Router, ep.ipv6.nectec.or.th, IPv6 pingable. >>PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 3ffe:8140:101:7::1 --> 3ffe:400b:400b::9 >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:400b::9, icmp_seq=0 hlim=58 time=783.453 ms >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:400b::9, icmp_seq=1 hlim=58 time=817.015 ms >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:400b::9, icmp_seq=2 hlim=58 time=1435.44 ms >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:400b::9, icmp_seq=3 hlim=58 time=838.53 ms >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:400b::9, icmp_seq=4 hlim=58 time=1074.85 ms >> >>--- ep.ipv6.nectec.or.th ping6 statistics --- >>5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss >>round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 783.453/989.858/1435.441/245.416 ms >> >> c. Fully maintained DNS forward (AAAA) and reverse (ip6.int) >> entries for the Applicant's router(s) and at least one host >> system. >> >>=> The current DNS server is leo.ipv6.nectec.or.th maintaining both forward >>and reverse entries for ep.ipv6.nectec.or.th (router) and >>www.ipv6.nectec.or.th >> >>$ORIGIN ipv6.nectec.or.th. >>@ 1D IN SOA leo root.leo ( >> 2002101001 ; serial >> 8H ; refresh >> 2H ; retry >> 1W ; expiry >> 1D ) ; minimum >> >> 1D IN NS leo >> >>ep 1D IN AAAA 3ffe:400b:400b::9 >> 1D IN A 203.185.132.158 >>www 1D IN CNAME leo >>leo 1D IN AAAA 3ffe:400b:6003::9 >> 1D IN A 203.185.132.132 >> >>=> Reverse DNS Delegation : >>$ dig -t any 3.0.0.6.b.0.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int @rns1.v6.inet.co.th >> >>; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> -t 3.0.0.6.b.0.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int @rns1.v6.inet.co.th >>; (1 server found) >>;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch >>;; got answer: >>;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6 >>;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1 >>;; QUERY SECTION: >>;; 3.0.0.6.b.0.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int, type = ANY, class = IN >> >>;; AUTHORITY SECTION: >>3.0.0.6.b.0.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. 12H IN NS leo.ipv6.nectec.or.th. >> >>;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: >>leo.ipv6.nectec.or.th. 4h32m34s IN A 203.185.132.132 >> >>;; Total query time: 51 msec >>;; FROM: leo.ipv6.nectec.or.th to SERVER: rns1.v6.inet.co.th 203.150.14.111 >>;; WHEN: Fri Jan 31 11:26:55 2003 >>;; MSG SIZE sent: 49 rcvd: 100 >> >> 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.ipv6.nectec.or.th --v4/v6 >>accessible >> >>=> The result of ping6 www.ipv6.nectec.or.th >>PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 3ffe:8140:101:7::1 --> 3ffe:400b:6003::9 >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:6003::9, icmp_seq=0 hlim=57 time=679.311 ms >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:6003::9, icmp_seq=1 hlim=57 time=1159.21 ms >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:6003::9, icmp_seq=2 hlim=57 time=655.809 ms >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:6003::9, icmp_seq=3 hlim=57 time=876.863 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. >> >>=> TB6-6BONE, >> CC8-6BONE, >> PT4-6BONE >> >> 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. >> >>=> ipv6@nectec.or.th >> >> 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. >> >>=> The Thailand's IPv6 Testbed project was formally established in October >>2001, under the management of Thai Social/Science Academic and Research >> Network (ThaiSARN-3) project >> (http://www.thaisarn.net.th), >> National Electronics and Computer Technology Center >>(http://www.nectec.or.th). >>With a mission to promote the next generation Internet in the country, >>this project is proposed in order to establish national IPv6 gateway and >>provide IPv6 testing services to support research and experimentally >>operational activities towards development of IPv6-related technologies >>and IPv6-ready networks for all Thai public. >> >> 4. The pTLA Applicant MUST commit to abide by the current 6Bone >> operational rules and policies as they exist at time of its >> application, and agree to abide by future 6Bone backbone >> operational rules and policies as they evolve by consensus of the >> 6Bone backbone and user community. >> >>=> We commit to abide by present and future operational rules and policies >> of 6Bone backbone and user community. >> >> When an Applicant seeks to receive a pTLA allocation, it will apply >> to the 6Bone Operations Group (see section 8 below) by providing to >> the Group information in support of its claims that it meets the >> criteria above. >> >>=================== >> >>Thank you >>Thailand's IPv6 Testbed > >_______________________________________________ >6bone mailing list >6bone@mailman.isi.edu >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From bmanning@ISI.EDU Thu Feb 27 01:58:57 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:58:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030227113545.03c2bdd0@pfs-pc.cisco.com> from Philip Smith at "Feb 27, 3 11:44:01 am" Message-ID: <200302270158.h1R1wwU08527@boreas.isi.edu> one reason is that is is much easier to delineate experimental activities from things that may be more persistant. % I'm generally curious why organisations which are members of the various % RIRs are still coming to request 6BONE address space. Global IPv6 address % space is global IPv6 address space, whether it comes from the 6bone, or in % this case, from APNIC, so I'm wondering why NECTEC feel that it is % necessary to comply with the 6bone rules rather than simply requesting % their IPv6 address block from APNIC under their existing APNIC membership. % Both address spaces will work on a testbed, the benefit of the RIR space % being that it is real, not experimental, and is unlikely to be withdrawn % when the 6bone experiment finishes in the future. % % philip % -- % % At 09:27 24/02/2003 -0800, Bob Fink wrote: % >6bone Folk, % > % >NECTEC-TH has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully % >compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this will close 22 % >January 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. % > % ><http://www.ipv6.nectec.or.th> % > % > % >Thanks, % > % >Bob % > % >=== % >>From: "NECTEC-IPv6" % >>To: % >>Subject: pTLA request % >>Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:33:40 +0700 % >> % >>Dear Mr. Bob Fink, % >> % >>This letter is being written on behalf of % >> Thailand's IPv6 Testbed Project , % >> Thai Social/Sciencetific Academic and Research Network , % >> National Electronics and Computer Technology Center of Thailand % >> % >>to request pTLA allocation. Being qualified with RFC2772, please % >>find details below : % >> % >>=============================================== % >>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 testbed's connected to 6bone and launched since 9 August 2002. % >> % >> 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?NECTEC-TH % >> % >> 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. % >> % >>=> BGP4+ peering with regional and domestic 6bone's backbone % >>sites : INET-TH, CERNET-CN, NBEN-TW, MIMOS-MY % >> % >> >sh bgp ipv6 sum % >>Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down % >>State/PfxRcd % >>3FFE:3200:1:1A::1 % >> 4 4538 12902 27646 19481 0 0 1d08h 16 % >>3FFE:3600:2000:888::3640:7 % >> 4 9681 29337 26177 19481 0 0 1d07h 236 % >>3FFE:400B:400B::8 % >> 4 4618 21510 23789 19481 0 0 1w0d 415 % >>3FFE:80D0:FFFC:10::42 % >> 4 2042 39314 17080 19481 0 0 1d19h 287 % >> % >>=> Router, ep.ipv6.nectec.or.th, IPv6 pingable. % >>PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 3ffe:8140:101:7::1 --> 3ffe:400b:400b::9 % >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:400b::9, icmp_seq=0 hlim=58 time=783.453 ms % >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:400b::9, icmp_seq=1 hlim=58 time=817.015 ms % >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:400b::9, icmp_seq=2 hlim=58 time=1435.44 ms % >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:400b::9, icmp_seq=3 hlim=58 time=838.53 ms % >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:400b::9, icmp_seq=4 hlim=58 time=1074.85 ms % >> % >>--- ep.ipv6.nectec.or.th ping6 statistics --- % >>5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss % >>round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 783.453/989.858/1435.441/245.416 ms % >> % >> c. Fully maintained DNS forward (AAAA) and reverse (ip6.int) % >> entries for the Applicant's router(s) and at least one host % >> system. % >> % >>=> The current DNS server is leo.ipv6.nectec.or.th maintaining both forward % >>and reverse entries for ep.ipv6.nectec.or.th (router) and % >>www.ipv6.nectec.or.th % >> % >>$ORIGIN ipv6.nectec.or.th. % >>@ 1D IN SOA leo root.leo ( % >> 2002101001 ; serial % >> 8H ; refresh % >> 2H ; retry % >> 1W ; expiry % >> 1D ) ; minimum % >> % >> 1D IN NS leo % >> % >>ep 1D IN AAAA 3ffe:400b:400b::9 % >> 1D IN A 203.185.132.158 % >>www 1D IN CNAME leo % >>leo 1D IN AAAA 3ffe:400b:6003::9 % >> 1D IN A 203.185.132.132 % >> % >>=> Reverse DNS Delegation : % >>$ dig -t any 3.0.0.6.b.0.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int @rns1.v6.inet.co.th % >> % >>; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> -t 3.0.0.6.b.0.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int @rns1.v6.inet.co.th % >>; (1 server found) % >>;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch % >>;; got answer: % >>;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6 % >>;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1 % >>;; QUERY SECTION: % >>;; 3.0.0.6.b.0.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int, type = ANY, class = IN % >> % >>;; AUTHORITY SECTION: % >>3.0.0.6.b.0.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. 12H IN NS leo.ipv6.nectec.or.th. % >> % >>;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: % >>leo.ipv6.nectec.or.th. 4h32m34s IN A 203.185.132.132 % >> % >>;; Total query time: 51 msec % >>;; FROM: leo.ipv6.nectec.or.th to SERVER: rns1.v6.inet.co.th 203.150.14.111 % >>;; WHEN: Fri Jan 31 11:26:55 2003 % >>;; MSG SIZE sent: 49 rcvd: 100 % >> % >> 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.ipv6.nectec.or.th --v4/v6 % >>accessible % >> % >>=> The result of ping6 www.ipv6.nectec.or.th % >>PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 3ffe:8140:101:7::1 --> 3ffe:400b:6003::9 % >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:6003::9, icmp_seq=0 hlim=57 time=679.311 ms % >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:6003::9, icmp_seq=1 hlim=57 time=1159.21 ms % >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:6003::9, icmp_seq=2 hlim=57 time=655.809 ms % >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:6003::9, icmp_seq=3 hlim=57 time=876.863 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. % >> % >>=> TB6-6BONE, % >> CC8-6BONE, % >> PT4-6BONE % >> % >> 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. % >> % >>=> ipv6@nectec.or.th % >> % >> 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. % >> % >>=> The Thailand's IPv6 Testbed project was formally established in October % >>2001, under the management of Thai Social/Science Academic and Research % >> Network (ThaiSARN-3) project % >> (http://www.thaisarn.net.th), % >> National Electronics and Computer Technology Center % >>(http://www.nectec.or.th). % >>With a mission to promote the next generation Internet in the country, % >>this project is proposed in order to establish national IPv6 gateway and % >>provide IPv6 testing services to support research and experimentally % >>operational activities towards development of IPv6-related technologies % >>and IPv6-ready networks for all Thai public. % >> % >> 4. The pTLA Applicant MUST commit to abide by the current 6Bone % >> operational rules and policies as they exist at time of its % >> application, and agree to abide by future 6Bone backbone % >> operational rules and policies as they evolve by consensus of the % >> 6Bone backbone and user community. % >> % >>=> We commit to abide by present and future operational rules and policies % >> of 6Bone backbone and user community. % >> % >> When an Applicant seeks to receive a pTLA allocation, it will apply % >> to the 6Bone Operations Group (see section 8 below) by providing to % >> the Group information in support of its claims that it meets the % >> criteria above. % >> % >>=================== % >> % >>Thank you % >>Thailand's IPv6 Testbed % > % >_______________________________________________ % >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 % -- --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). From itojun@iijlab.net Thu Feb 27 02:11:15 2003 From: itojun@iijlab.net (itojun@iijlab.net) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:11:15 +0900 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 In-Reply-To: bmanning's message of Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:58:57 PST. <200302270158.h1R1wwU08527@boreas.isi.edu> Message-ID: <20030227021115.95C624B24@coconut.itojun.org> >% I'm generally curious why organisations which are members of the various >% RIRs are still coming to request 6BONE address space. Global IPv6 address >% space is global IPv6 address space, whether it comes from the 6bone, or in >% this case, from APNIC, so I'm wondering why NECTEC feel that it is >% necessary to comply with the 6bone rules rather than simply requesting >% their IPv6 address block from APNIC under their existing APNIC membership. >% Both address spaces will work on a testbed, the benefit of the RIR space >% being that it is real, not experimental, and is unlikely to be withdrawn >% when the 6bone experiment finishes in the future. > one reason is that is is much easier to delineate experimental > activities from things that may be more persistant. apnic announced that they've reserved /29 block for experimental use (1-year period, renewal required). NECTEC-TH could get the block from the block. itojun From bob@thefinks.com Thu Feb 27 02:27:38 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:27:38 -0800 Subject: [6bone] meeting at SFO? In-Reply-To: <20030226194847.GB24267@rvdp.org> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226180938.00b907c8@mail.addr.com> Ronald, At 08:48 PM 2/26/2003 +0100, Ronald van der Pol wrote: >Bob, > >I think you were thinking about a 6BONE lunch meeting at SFO, but >I cannot find the message anymore. I think we should set a date >before everybody's slots are filled. I had asked for a 6bone planning BOF agenda slot weeks ago, which Randy approved, but the secretariat has failed to get it on the agenda yet for some reason I don't know. I will hold a lunchtime meeting if it misses the official agenda. Assuming I'm not getting on the agenda, does anyone have a preference? Thanks, Bob From matrix@miracle1.net Thu Feb 27 02:29:13 2003 From: matrix@miracle1.net (Jeremy) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:29:13 -0600 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030227113545.03c2bdd0@pfs-pc.cisco.com>; from pfs@cisco.com on Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:44:01AM +1000 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224092334.025e5050@mail.addr.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030227113545.03c2bdd0@pfs-pc.cisco.com> Message-ID: <20030226202913.A9483@miracle1.net> philip, Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe requesting an sTLA from APNIC would come at a substantial cost to NECTEC just for testing.. upwards of 10,000 if APNIC is anything like ARIN is... Yes, it would, $2,500 - $5,000 according to the APNIC fee schedule per year. Thanks, Jeremy VLINK Internet Systems, US On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:44:01AM +1000, Philip Smith wrote: > I'm generally curious why organisations which are members of the various > RIRs are still coming to request 6BONE address space. Global IPv6 address > space is global IPv6 address space, whether it comes from the 6bone, or in > this case, from APNIC, so I'm wondering why NECTEC feel that it is > necessary to comply with the 6bone rules rather than simply requesting > their IPv6 address block from APNIC under their existing APNIC membership. > Both address spaces will work on a testbed, the benefit of the RIR space > being that it is real, not experimental, and is unlikely to be withdrawn > when the 6bone experiment finishes in the future. > > philip > -- > > At 09:27 24/02/2003 -0800, Bob Fink wrote: > >6bone Folk, > > > >NECTEC-TH has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully > >compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this will close 22 > >January 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. > > > ><http://www.ipv6.nectec.or.th> > > > > > >Thanks, > > > >Bob > > > >=== > >>From: "NECTEC-IPv6" > >>To: > >>Subject: pTLA request > >>Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:33:40 +0700 > >> > >>Dear Mr. Bob Fink, > >> > >>This letter is being written on behalf of > >> Thailand's IPv6 Testbed Project , > >> Thai Social/Sciencetific Academic and Research Network , > >> National Electronics and Computer Technology Center of Thailand > >> > >>to request pTLA allocation. Being qualified with RFC2772, please > >>find details below : > >> > >>=============================================== > >>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 testbed's connected to 6bone and launched since 9 August 2002. > >> > >> 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?NECTEC-TH > >> > >> 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. > >> > >>=> BGP4+ peering with regional and domestic 6bone's backbone > >>sites : INET-TH, CERNET-CN, NBEN-TW, MIMOS-MY > >> > >> >sh bgp ipv6 sum > >>Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down > >>State/PfxRcd > >>3FFE:3200:1:1A::1 > >> 4 4538 12902 27646 19481 0 0 1d08h 16 > >>3FFE:3600:2000:888::3640:7 > >> 4 9681 29337 26177 19481 0 0 1d07h 236 > >>3FFE:400B:400B::8 > >> 4 4618 21510 23789 19481 0 0 1w0d 415 > >>3FFE:80D0:FFFC:10::42 > >> 4 2042 39314 17080 19481 0 0 1d19h 287 > >> > >>=> Router, ep.ipv6.nectec.or.th, IPv6 pingable. > >>PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 3ffe:8140:101:7::1 --> 3ffe:400b:400b::9 > >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:400b::9, icmp_seq=0 hlim=58 time=783.453 ms > >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:400b::9, icmp_seq=1 hlim=58 time=817.015 ms > >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:400b::9, icmp_seq=2 hlim=58 time=1435.44 ms > >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:400b::9, icmp_seq=3 hlim=58 time=838.53 ms > >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:400b::9, icmp_seq=4 hlim=58 time=1074.85 ms > >> > >>--- ep.ipv6.nectec.or.th ping6 statistics --- > >>5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss > >>round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 783.453/989.858/1435.441/245.416 ms > >> > >> c. Fully maintained DNS forward (AAAA) and reverse (ip6.int) > >> entries for the Applicant's router(s) and at least one host > >> system. > >> > >>=> The current DNS server is leo.ipv6.nectec.or.th maintaining both forward > >>and reverse entries for ep.ipv6.nectec.or.th (router) and > >>www.ipv6.nectec.or.th > >> > >>$ORIGIN ipv6.nectec.or.th. > >>@ 1D IN SOA leo root.leo ( > >> 2002101001 ; serial > >> 8H ; refresh > >> 2H ; retry > >> 1W ; expiry > >> 1D ) ; minimum > >> > >> 1D IN NS leo > >> > >>ep 1D IN AAAA 3ffe:400b:400b::9 > >> 1D IN A 203.185.132.158 > >>www 1D IN CNAME leo > >>leo 1D IN AAAA 3ffe:400b:6003::9 > >> 1D IN A 203.185.132.132 > >> > >>=> Reverse DNS Delegation : > >>$ dig -t any 3.0.0.6.b.0.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int @rns1.v6.inet.co.th > >> > >>; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> -t 3.0.0.6.b.0.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int @rns1.v6.inet.co.th > >>; (1 server found) > >>;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch > >>;; got answer: > >>;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6 > >>;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1 > >>;; QUERY SECTION: > >>;; 3.0.0.6.b.0.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int, type = ANY, class = IN > >> > >>;; AUTHORITY SECTION: > >>3.0.0.6.b.0.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. 12H IN NS leo.ipv6.nectec.or.th. > >> > >>;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: > >>leo.ipv6.nectec.or.th. 4h32m34s IN A 203.185.132.132 > >> > >>;; Total query time: 51 msec > >>;; FROM: leo.ipv6.nectec.or.th to SERVER: rns1.v6.inet.co.th 203.150.14.111 > >>;; WHEN: Fri Jan 31 11:26:55 2003 > >>;; MSG SIZE sent: 49 rcvd: 100 > >> > >> 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.ipv6.nectec.or.th --v4/v6 > >>accessible > >> > >>=> The result of ping6 www.ipv6.nectec.or.th > >>PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 3ffe:8140:101:7::1 --> 3ffe:400b:6003::9 > >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:6003::9, icmp_seq=0 hlim=57 time=679.311 ms > >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:6003::9, icmp_seq=1 hlim=57 time=1159.21 ms > >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:6003::9, icmp_seq=2 hlim=57 time=655.809 ms > >>16 bytes from 3ffe:400b:6003::9, icmp_seq=3 hlim=57 time=876.863 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. > >> > >>=> TB6-6BONE, > >> CC8-6BONE, > >> PT4-6BONE > >> > >> 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. > >> > >>=> ipv6@nectec.or.th > >> > >> 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. > >> > >>=> The Thailand's IPv6 Testbed project was formally established in October > >>2001, under the management of Thai Social/Science Academic and Research > >> Network (ThaiSARN-3) project > >> (http://www.thaisarn.net.th), > >> National Electronics and Computer Technology Center > >>(http://www.nectec.or.th). > >>With a mission to promote the next generation Internet in the country, > >>this project is proposed in order to establish national IPv6 gateway and > >>provide IPv6 testing services to support research and experimentally > >>operational activities towards development of IPv6-related technologies > >>and IPv6-ready networks for all Thai public. > >> > >> 4. The pTLA Applicant MUST commit to abide by the current 6Bone > >> operational rules and policies as they exist at time of its > >> application, and agree to abide by future 6Bone backbone > >> operational rules and policies as they evolve by consensus of the > >> 6Bone backbone and user community. > >> > >>=> We commit to abide by present and future operational rules and policies > >> of 6Bone backbone and user community. > >> > >> When an Applicant seeks to receive a pTLA allocation, it will apply > >> to the 6Bone Operations Group (see section 8 below) by providing to > >> the Group information in support of its claims that it meets the > >> criteria above. > >> > >>=================== > >> > >>Thank you > >>Thailand's IPv6 Testbed > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 bob@thefinks.com Thu Feb 27 02:40:33 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:40:33 -0800 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030227113545.03c2bdd0@pfs-pc.cisco.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224092334.025e5050@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226182248.02003200@mail.addr.com> Philip, At 11:44 AM 2/27/2003 +1000, Philip Smith wrote: >I'm generally curious why organisations which are members of the various >RIRs are still coming to request 6BONE address space. Global IPv6 address >space is global IPv6 address space, whether it comes from the 6bone, or in >this case, from APNIC, so I'm wondering why NECTEC feel that it is >necessary to comply with the 6bone rules rather than simply requesting >their IPv6 address block from APNIC under their existing APNIC membership. >Both address spaces will work on a testbed, the benefit of the RIR space >being that it is real, not experimental, and is unlikely to be withdrawn >when the 6bone experiment finishes in the future. Before I put a pTLA request out for review I ask the requester why they aren't getting a production prefix. Generally it boils down to wanting to try IPv6 services without committing to a production prefix, sometime for cost reasons, sometimes for organizational reasons. If the reply seems plausible/reasonable to me, I then put the request out for review. In the case of NECTEC-TH, they replied: >1. Why are you not applying for a production IPv6 prefix from APNIC? >because our mission is to deploy IPv6 for testing purpose only. In fact, >NECTEC has another division named GITS, providing commercial services >for Thai goverment agencies. However, it is operated with their own >policy and NOC. Applying for production IPv6 address on behalf of all >NECTEC (not just Thailand's IPv6 testbed research project like us) must >be directly in charge of them as well. Yet they are still very new to >IPv6 and want us to help study and build up know-how. But at the same >time, we can't set our scope only to furnish IPv6 for GITS but also for >outside NECTEC, any domestic organizations with TESTING purposes >according to our project's goal. As an aside, I don't believe anyone would contend that recent pTLA holders (i.e., last several years) couldn't do what they wanted with a production prefix. Yet there does seem to be a need for other than production prefixes. As Itojun pointed out, there is also a plan for RIR delegated experimental prefixes, at least from APNIC. This might work for some folk as well. Bob From michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us Thu Feb 27 03:03:34 2003 From: michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:03:34 -0800 Subject: [6bone] meeting at SFO? Message-ID: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F5BA85@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> Bob, > Bob Fink wrote: > I had asked for a 6bone planning BOF agenda slot weeks ago, > which Randy approved, but the secretariat has failed to get > it on the agenda yet for some reason I don't know. > I will hold a lunchtime meeting if it misses the official > agenda. Assuming I'm not getting on the agenda, does anyone > have a preference? Nope, but please let me know a little in advance if I have to provide the projector like I did in Atlanta. Michel. From pfs@cisco.com Thu Feb 27 03:48:10 2003 From: pfs@cisco.com (Philip Smith) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:48:10 +1000 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 In-Reply-To: <200302270158.h1R1wwU08527@boreas.isi.edu> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030227113545.03c2bdd0@pfs-pc.cisco.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030227134118.00b25768@pfs-pc.cisco.com> At 17:58 26/02/2003 -0800, Bill Manning wrote: > one reason is that is is much easier to delineate experimental > activities from things that may be more persistant. I'm curious to know what feature of 3ffe::/16 space makes it suitable for experiments and makes 2001::/16 not suitable for experiments. Both are globally routable, aren't they? Or are we thinking of disconnecting the IPv6 experimental testbed (the 6bone) from the part of the IPv6 Internet which is using 2001::/16 space? Can't folks just use filters if they don't want the experimental bits to leak out into the rest of the net? :-) philip -- >% I'm generally curious why organisations which are members of the various >% RIRs are still coming to request 6BONE address space. Global IPv6 address >% space is global IPv6 address space, whether it comes from the 6bone, or in >% this case, from APNIC, so I'm wondering why NECTEC feel that it is >% necessary to comply with the 6bone rules rather than simply requesting >% their IPv6 address block from APNIC under their existing APNIC membership. >% Both address spaces will work on a testbed, the benefit of the RIR space >% being that it is real, not experimental, and is unlikely to be withdrawn >% when the 6bone experiment finishes in the future. From pfs@cisco.com Thu Feb 27 03:58:11 2003 From: pfs@cisco.com (Philip Smith) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:58:11 +1000 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226182248.02003200@mail.addr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030227113545.03c2bdd0@pfs-pc.cisco.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224092334.025e5050@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030227134924.06776e98@pfs-pc.cisco.com> Hi Bob, At 18:40 26/02/2003 -0800, Bob Fink wrote: >Before I put a pTLA request out for review I ask the requester why they >aren't getting a production prefix. Generally it boils down to wanting to >try IPv6 services without committing to a production prefix, sometime for >cost reasons, sometimes for organizational reasons. I can see there being a cost implication for a non-RIR member, but for an existing RIR member? I'm just wondering if the RIRs maybe need to do more publicity to their membership about the availability of production v6 space (I somehow doubt this), or, as I just mentioned to Bill, there is something special about 3ffe::/16 which can't be satisfied by production space. BTW, I am definitely not suggesting denying NECTEC their request, just curious to understand what technical differences exist between 3ffe::/16 and 2001::/16 space which causes them as an APNIC member to not simply get their space from APNIC. APNIC allows people to return production space (as they do for IPv4 space), and production space can be used for trying things out (as we know in IPv4-land). philip -- From bmanning@ISI.EDU Thu Feb 27 04:55:48 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:55:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 In-Reply-To: <20030227021115.95C624B24@coconut.itojun.org> from "itojun@iijlab.net" at "Feb 27, 3 11:11:15 am" Message-ID: <200302270455.h1R4tmI20657@boreas.isi.edu> % >% Both address spaces will work on a testbed, the benefit of the RIR space % >% being that it is real, not experimental, and is unlikely to be withdrawn % >% when the 6bone experiment finishes in the future. % > one reason is that is is much easier to delineate experimental % > activities from things that may be more persistant. % % apnic announced that they've reserved /29 block for experimental use % (1-year period, renewal required). NECTEC-TH could get the block % from the block. true. on inspection however, its fairly easy to discriminate btwn: 3ffe:: 2001:0dxx:zzzz:: as experimental or production nee "real" (I hate that term...:) --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). From bmanning@ISI.EDU Thu Feb 27 05:28:16 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:28:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030227134118.00b25768@pfs-pc.cisco.com> from Philip Smith at "Feb 27, 3 01:48:10 pm" Message-ID: <200302270528.h1R5SGU02970@boreas.isi.edu> % At 17:58 26/02/2003 -0800, Bill Manning wrote: % > one reason is that is is much easier to delineate experimental % > activities from things that may be more persistant. % % I'm curious to know what feature of 3ffe::/16 space makes it suitable for % experiments and makes 2001::/16 not suitable for experiments. Both are % globally routable, aren't they? Or are we thinking of disconnecting the % IPv6 experimental testbed (the 6bone) from the part of the IPv6 Internet % which is using 2001::/16 space? Can't folks just use filters if they don't % want the experimental bits to leak out into the rest of the net? % % :-) % % philip % -- answers: yes not even yes counter-question: which bits of 2001::/16 are experimental in nature? on simple examinination, its not nearly as easy to discriminate the commodity bits vs experimental delegations w/o a great deal more local RIR knowledge. (witness the lack of understanding about the APNIC documentation prefix from the rest of the world) however even the most expert can determine the difference between a route that starts w/ 2001 vs a route that starts with 3ffe. filters on that level are arguably easier to maintain. --bill --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). From Alvaro Vives" Message-ID: <00a601c2de42$63262fd0$3300000a@consulintel.es> Hi Emanuele, Maybe you can try your question on the M6Bone mailing list (M states for Multicast). https://listes.renater.fr/wws If I'm not wrong you have to send "sub m6bone" (without quotes) to sympa@ml.renater.fr , does enybody knows if It's right? Regards, Alvaro. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lo Galbo Emanuele" To: <6bone@ISI.EDU> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:15 AM Subject: [6bone] vic&rat ov ipv6 multicast > Hi all, > I have configured a multicast ipv6 testbed using freebsd 4.7 routers.Now I would like to try using vic rat for multicast.One of the things I must care about them is ths PC must be in IPv6 DNS.I would like to use these tools in a LAN and I don't have a DNS server so what do I need? > Another question.I don't understand how I can manage multicast IPv6 group:in windows 2000 I tried to assign to my hosts multicast addresses and unicast addresses to the same interface but it is not possible.So How can I proceede fixing and managing multicast groups for vic and rat applications? > I hope you will help me. > Thanks in advance and Best Regards. > > > ==================================================================== > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons > above and may contain confidential information. If you have received > the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof > is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete > the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by > replying to MailAdmin@tilab.com. Thank you > ==================================================================== > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > ********************************* Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit 12-14 May 2003 - Pre-register at: http://www.ipv6-es.com Interested in participating or sponsoring ? Contact us at ipv6@consulintel.es From mele@cartel-securite.fr Thu Feb 27 14:04:44 2003 From: mele@cartel-securite.fr (Laurent Mele) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:04:44 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030227134118.00b25768@pfs-pc.cisco.com> Message-ID: Hi there, See from my side, I ask for a pTLA instead of a sTLA because of RIPE Allocation and Assignement policy for IPV6. Actually I try to promote ipv6 to my customers but i am not sure that (at least) 200 customers will take me a /48 allocation in the 2 years. As I still need many /48 (and a full bgp peering with more than 2 peers that I'll start as soon as I have an allocation), I ask for a pTLA. I wan't to build a serious V6 network but I am not big enough (Or not liar enough ( I do not charge anybody !!!)) to fullfill Ripe criterias. I want to be sure before asking Ripe for a sTLA. Regards, My english is bad, I know it :-) -----Message d'origine----- De : 6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu [mailto:6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu] De la part de Philip Smith Envoyé : jeudi 27 février 2003 04:48 À : Bill Manning Cc : bob@thefinks.com; 6bone@ISI.EDU; ipv6@nectec.or.th Objet : Re: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 At 17:58 26/02/2003 -0800, Bill Manning wrote: > one reason is that is is much easier to delineate experimental > activities from things that may be more persistant. I'm curious to know what feature of 3ffe::/16 space makes it suitable for experiments and makes 2001::/16 not suitable for experiments. Both are globally routable, aren't they? Or are we thinking of disconnecting the IPv6 experimental testbed (the 6bone) from the part of the IPv6 Internet which is using 2001::/16 space? Can't folks just use filters if they don't want the experimental bits to leak out into the rest of the net? :-) philip -- >% I'm generally curious why organisations which are members of the various >% RIRs are still coming to request 6BONE address space. Global IPv6 address >% space is global IPv6 address space, whether it comes from the 6bone, or in >% this case, from APNIC, so I'm wondering why NECTEC feel that it is >% necessary to comply with the 6bone rules rather than simply requesting >% their IPv6 address block from APNIC under their existing APNIC membership. >% Both address spaces will work on a testbed, the benefit of the RIR space >% being that it is real, not experimental, and is unlikely to be withdrawn >% when the 6bone experiment finishes in the future. _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list 6bone@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net Thu Feb 27 14:35:53 2003 From: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net (Nicolas DEFFAYET) Date: 27 Feb 2003 15:35:53 +0100 Subject: [6bone] vic&rat ov ipv6 multicast In-Reply-To: <00a601c2de42$63262fd0$3300000a@consulintel.es> References: <9620749A0C40FB49B72994B11B077C5DD25CDD@EXC2K01A.cselt.it> <00a601c2de42$63262fd0$3300000a@consulintel.es> Message-ID: <1046356552.22429.147.camel@w1-2-lev.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 10:27, Alvaro Vives wrote: Hi Alvaro, > Maybe you can try your question on the M6Bone mailing list (M states for > Multicast). > > https://listes.renater.fr/wws https://listes.renater.fr/wws/info/m6bone > If I'm not wrong you have to send "sub m6bone" (without quotes) to > sympa@ml.renater.fr , does enybody knows if It's right? It's not "sub m6bone" (without quotes), it's "subscribe m6bone" (without quotes). You can subscribe with the web interface: https://listes.renater.fr/wws/subrequest/m6bone Best Regards, ---------------------------------------------------------- French reader: don't forget the IPv6 FRnOG meeting ! (Vendredi 28 Février 2003 (14h00-17h00) à Paris) URL (in french): http://www.frnog.org/meetings.php?lang=en&page=programme ---------------------------------------------------------- -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NDSoftware NOC: http://noc.ndsoftwarenet.com/ FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/ EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ From bob@thefinks.com Thu Feb 27 16:24:36 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:24:36 -0800 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030227134924.06776e98@pfs-pc.cisco.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226182248.02003200@mail.addr.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030227113545.03c2bdd0@pfs-pc.cisco.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224092334.025e5050@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030227081034.02134498@mail.addr.com> Philip, At 01:58 PM 2/27/2003 +1000, Philip Smith wrote: >Hi Bob, > >At 18:40 26/02/2003 -0800, Bob Fink wrote: >>Before I put a pTLA request out for review I ask the requester why they >>aren't getting a production prefix. Generally it boils down to wanting to >>try IPv6 services without committing to a production prefix, sometime for >>cost reasons, sometimes for organizational reasons. > >I can see there being a cost implication for a non-RIR member, but for an >existing RIR member? I'm just wondering if the RIRs maybe need to do more >publicity to their membership about the availability of production v6 >space (I somehow doubt this), or, as I just mentioned to Bill, there is >something special about 3ffe::/16 which can't be satisfied by production space. There are differences between the RIRs and what and how they charge. There isn't anything different about the 3FFE prefix these days (now that production prefixes are available) other than they can be gotten for early trials and for free. This is not to undercut the RIRs (this has all existed for 7 years now, well before the RIRs handed out v6 prefixes) rather to make sure there is an early environment for trying out (often called testing and experimentation) IPv6. We all too often focus on this being free to the pTLA holder, but the greater reality is the no cost method it provides to the downstream users of these pTLAs. That is, there are many thousands of user end-sites, and some intermediate networks, that are able to try out IPv6 without having to search out a production IPv6 vendor (and there are still very few), make a contract with them, and pay real money that is often not available at this stage. A good example of this are the various automatic tunnelling sites (like Viagenie et al) that serve many many users with no special arrangements or costs other than setting up the service for the user. These uses are meritorious at this very early stage of IPv6. When it is reasonable to end the 6bone service is being determined as we speak through the 6bone phaseout planning discussions. It does need to end sometime, but we want to make sure it doesn't go away until it isn't needed during the early deployment stage (that we are at now). >BTW, I am definitely not suggesting denying NECTEC their request, just >curious to understand what technical differences exist between 3ffe::/16 >and 2001::/16 space which causes them as an APNIC member to not simply get >their space from APNIC. APNIC allows people to return production space (as >they do for IPv4 space), and production space can be used for trying >things out (as we know in IPv4-land). Can't comment on that. Thanks, Bob From bob@thefinks.com Thu Feb 27 22:01:50 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:01:50 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 6bone transitions planning BOF in San Francisco Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030227094453.021218d8@mail.addr.com> 6bone Folk, Looks like we are on the official agenda for a one hour 6bone transition planning BOF on Tuesday, March 18, 1700-1800 Afternoon Sessions IV. Note that we are somewhat constrained to the agenda below as the 6bone doesn't fit the IETF model for a BOF unless there is some new activity. I.e., we aren't being given this hour to discuss operational problems, changes to our operating procedures, etc., rather to discuss the plan for our transitions. The agenda I provided to the IESG for approval, and the one that was accepted, is: === BOF FULL NAME: 6bone Transitions Planning (6bone) AREA: Operations - Randy Bush CHAIR: Jordi Palet Martinez FULL DESCRIPTION: The 6bone, the IPv6 testbed network developed under the aegis of the IETF in 1996, is now discussing two important transition topics that need to be discussed further in a session at IETF-56. The transfer of 6bone address management responsibilities to RIRs has been under discussion during 2002 and there now needs to be some closure on the topic. An open meeting at IETF-56 will facilitate this. Also, the planning for the phaseout of the 6bone started in January 2003 and thus needs its first open discussion at IETF-56. AGENDA: Status and discussion of the proposal for the "transfer of 6bone address management responsibilities to RIRs" - Bob Fink and appropriate RIR folk, 30 minutes Presentation of the 6bone phaseout plan - Bob Hinden, 10 mins Discussion of the 6bone phaseout plan - 20 mins === My thanks to Jordi for chairing and Bob Hinden for presenting on phaseout planning as the IESG wanted me to not be the chair and the only speaker. Thanks, Bob From todd@fries.net Thu Feb 27 22:49:07 2003 From: todd@fries.net (Todd T. Fries) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:49:07 -0600 Subject: [6bone] 6bone transitions planning BOF in San Francisco In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030227094453.021218d8@mail.addr.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030227094453.021218d8@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <20030227224907.GB21770@fries.net> I cannot be there, but I find it disturbing that in 3 short years I will no longer be able to connect to the 6bone. I presume that by that time tunnel providers (such as www.freenet6.net) will have migrated their users over to real addresses? Or do I really need to start pressuring my upstreams to provide ipv6 connectivity? -- Todd Fries .. todd@fries.net I'm available for hire! http://todd.fries.net/resume.html (last updated 2003/01/02 02:08:59) Penned by Bob Fink on Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:01:50PM -0800, we have: | 6bone Folk, | | Looks like we are on the official agenda for a one hour 6bone transition | planning BOF on Tuesday, March 18, 1700-1800 Afternoon Sessions IV. | | Note that we are somewhat constrained to the agenda below as the 6bone | doesn't fit the IETF model for a BOF unless there is some new activity. | I.e., we aren't being given this hour to discuss operational problems, | changes to our operating procedures, etc., rather to discuss the plan for | our transitions. | | The agenda I provided to the IESG for approval, and the one that was | accepted, is: | | === | BOF FULL NAME: 6bone Transitions Planning (6bone) | | AREA: Operations - Randy Bush | | CHAIR: Jordi Palet Martinez | | FULL DESCRIPTION: | | The 6bone, the IPv6 testbed network developed under the aegis of the IETF | in 1996, is now discussing two important transition topics that need to be | discussed further in a session at IETF-56. The transfer of 6bone address | management responsibilities to RIRs has been under discussion during 2002 | and there now needs to be some closure on the topic. An open meeting at | IETF-56 will facilitate this. Also, the planning for the phaseout of the | 6bone started in January 2003 and thus needs its first open discussion at | IETF-56. | | AGENDA: | | Status and discussion of the proposal for the "transfer of 6bone address | management responsibilities to RIRs" - Bob Fink and appropriate RIR folk, | 30 minutes | | | Presentation of the 6bone phaseout plan - Bob Hinden, 10 mins | | | Discussion of the 6bone phaseout plan - 20 mins | === | | My thanks to Jordi for chairing and Bob Hinden for presenting on phaseout | planning as the IESG wanted me to not be the chair and the only speaker. | | | | Thanks, | | Bob | | _______________________________________________ | 6bone mailing list | 6bone@mailman.isi.edu | http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From dan@reeder.name Thu Feb 27 23:13:39 2003 From: dan@reeder.name (Dan Reeder) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:13:39 +1000 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226182248.02003200@mail.addr.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030227113545.03c2bdd0@pfs-pc.cisco.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224092334.025e5050@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030227081034.02134498@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <001e01c2deb5$e169a840$0200a8c0@elf> > When it is reasonable to end the 6bone service is being determined as we > speak through the 6bone phaseout planning discussions. It does need to end > sometime, but we want to make sure it doesn't go away until it isn't needed > during the early deployment stage (that we are at now). That raises the question: are we able to force the RIRs to offer globally routable FREE production space for the purposes of testing? If not, would there be any incentive for carriers / ISPs to offer their clients free testing space? If not then i think 3ffe will remain around for a much longer time than we had all hoped. Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Fink" To: "Philip Smith" Cc: "6BONE List" <6bone@mailman.isi.edu>; "NECTEC-IPv6" Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 2:24 AM Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 > Philip, > > At 01:58 PM 2/27/2003 +1000, Philip Smith wrote: > >Hi Bob, > > > >At 18:40 26/02/2003 -0800, Bob Fink wrote: > >>Before I put a pTLA request out for review I ask the requester why they > >>aren't getting a production prefix. Generally it boils down to wanting to > >>try IPv6 services without committing to a production prefix, sometime for > >>cost reasons, sometimes for organizational reasons. > > > >I can see there being a cost implication for a non-RIR member, but for an > >existing RIR member? I'm just wondering if the RIRs maybe need to do more > >publicity to their membership about the availability of production v6 > >space (I somehow doubt this), or, as I just mentioned to Bill, there is > >something special about 3ffe::/16 which can't be satisfied by production space. > > There are differences between the RIRs and what and how they charge. > > There isn't anything different about the 3FFE prefix these days (now that > production prefixes are available) other than they can be gotten for early > trials and for free. This is not to undercut the RIRs (this has all existed > for 7 years now, well before the RIRs handed out v6 prefixes) rather to > make sure there is an early environment for trying out (often called > testing and experimentation) IPv6. We all too often focus on this being > free to the pTLA holder, but the greater reality is the no cost method it > provides to the downstream users of these pTLAs. > > That is, there are many thousands of user end-sites, and some intermediate > networks, that are able to try out IPv6 without having to search out a > production IPv6 vendor (and there are still very few), make a contract with > them, and pay real money that is often not available at this stage. A good > example of this are the various automatic tunnelling sites (like Viagenie > et al) that serve many many users with no special arrangements or costs > other than setting up the service for the user. These uses are meritorious > at this very early stage of IPv6. > > When it is reasonable to end the 6bone service is being determined as we > speak through the 6bone phaseout planning discussions. It does need to end > sometime, but we want to make sure it doesn't go away until it isn't needed > during the early deployment stage (that we are at now). > > > >BTW, I am definitely not suggesting denying NECTEC their request, just > >curious to understand what technical differences exist between 3ffe::/16 > >and 2001::/16 space which causes them as an APNIC member to not simply get > >their space from APNIC. APNIC allows people to return production space (as > >they do for IPv4 space), and production space can be used for trying > >things out (as we know in IPv4-land). > > Can't comment on that. > > > Thanks, > > Bob > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From bob@thefinks.com Thu Feb 27 23:10:46 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:10:46 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 6bone transitions planning BOF in San Francisco In-Reply-To: <20030227224907.GB21770@fries.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030227094453.021218d8@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030227094453.021218d8@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030227150807.026d0be0@mail.addr.com> Todd, At 04:49 PM 2/27/2003 -0600, Todd T. Fries wrote: >I cannot be there, but I find it disturbing that in 3 short years I will >no longer be able to connect to the 6bone. I presume that by that time >tunnel providers (such as www.freenet6.net) will have migrated their >users over to real addresses? > >Or do I really need to start pressuring my upstreams to provide ipv6 >connectivity? Presumably talking to the 6bone isn't your issue (if it's gone anyway), rather talking to real IPv6 sites. Yes, you should pressure your ISPs for IPv6 service. Please give me your opinion of a phaseout schedule for the 6bone if you don't like the one published. We are doing this to get input, not to declare a done deal. Thanks, Bob From dan@reeder.name Thu Feb 27 23:37:35 2003 From: dan@reeder.name (Dan Reeder) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:37:35 +1000 Subject: [6bone] small time bgp testing References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226182248.02003200@mail.addr.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030227113545.03c2bdd0@pfs-pc.cisco.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224092334.025e5050@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030227081034.02134498@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <002201c2deb9$38bc3650$0200a8c0@elf> 6bone folk; I have been wondering of late (probably due to unemployment) what options there may be of profiteering from IPv6 at this stage in its development. It seems that everything I've seen on this list has been related to relatively large corporations, at least as far as BGP is concerned. Now I had the idea of doign something like independant consulting for companies wanting to migrate to v6 and whatnot. Understandably I need to learn as much as I can about the v6 routing operations (eg Zebra), but as I see it I can't get any operational experience at all with it in my current situation... unless there was a facility somewhere in the v6 world for me to obtain a private ASN (for free) from a vendor with multiple pops around the world, and some address space (free) so that I can get a relatively small yet for all intents and purposes operational BGP setup going. Does this sound ok, or too outrageous? Does anyone know of any v6 providors offering this? Once again I have to stress that it this would be for experimental testing and self education purposes only. regards, Dan From bob@thefinks.com Fri Feb 28 00:01:32 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:01:32 -0800 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 In-Reply-To: <001e01c2deb5$e169a840$0200a8c0@elf> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226182248.02003200@mail.addr.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030227113545.03c2bdd0@pfs-pc.cisco.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224092334.025e5050@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030227081034.02134498@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030227160010.026ff7e8@mail.addr.com> Dan, At 09:13 AM 2/28/2003 +1000, Dan Reeder wrote: > > When it is reasonable to end the 6bone service is being determined as we > > speak through the 6bone phaseout planning discussions. It does need to end > > sometime, but we want to make sure it doesn't go away until it isn't >needed > > during the early deployment stage (that we are at now). > >That raises the question: are we able to force the RIRs to offer globally >routable FREE production space for the purposes of testing? If not, would >there be any incentive for carriers / ISPs to offer their clients free >testing space? > >If not then i think 3ffe will remain around for a much longer time than we >had all hoped. Presumably any prefix from the RIRs, testing or otherwise, is globally routable. The harder issue is who will peer with you (6bone or RIR prefix). Bob From gert@space.net Fri Feb 28 00:32:00 2003 From: gert@space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:32:00 +0100 Subject: [6bone] 6bone transitions planning BOF in San Francisco In-Reply-To: <20030227224907.GB21770@fries.net>; from todd@fries.net on Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:49:07PM -0600 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030227094453.021218d8@mail.addr.com> <20030227224907.GB21770@fries.net> Message-ID: <20030228013200.I15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:49:07PM -0600, Todd T. Fries wrote: > Or do I really need to start pressuring my upstreams to provide ipv6 > connectivity? Please do so. We have just recently turned down an upstream offering (with a good price) because they are neither offering multicast nor IPv6. That's just not acceptable anymore. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57147 (56285) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From gert@space.net Fri Feb 28 00:35:26 2003 From: gert@space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:35:26 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 In-Reply-To: <001e01c2deb5$e169a840$0200a8c0@elf>; from dan@reeder.name on Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:13:39AM +1000 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226182248.02003200@mail.addr.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030227113545.03c2bdd0@pfs-pc.cisco.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224092334.025e5050@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030227081034.02134498@mail.addr.com> <001e01c2deb5$e169a840$0200a8c0@elf> Message-ID: <20030228013526.J15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:13:39AM +1000, Dan Reeder wrote: > That raises the question: are we able to force the RIRs to offer globally > routable FREE production space for the purposes of testing? If not, would > there be any incentive for carriers / ISPs to offer their clients free > testing space? As soon as IPv6 connectivity is a commodity item (hopefully soon) this point seems moot to me. If you just can connect to any upstream of your choice and get IPv6 in addition to IPv4 (and as it's a /48 by default, which is "large enough for even extensive tests") I don't see much need for special "test address space". (Besides this there *is* a policy in RIPE and APNIC land that you can get address space for testing from them. The duration is limited, and you need a good reason, but it's there). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57147 (56285) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From pekkas@netcore.fi Fri Feb 28 06:06:24 2003 From: pekkas@netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:06:24 +0200 (EET) Subject: [6bone] 6bone transitions planning BOF in San Francisco In-Reply-To: <20030227224907.GB21770@fries.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Todd T. Fries wrote: > Or do I really need to start pressuring my upstreams to provide ipv6 > connectivity? You should have started a long time ago. If you don't ask for it, you're never (or in a reasonable time at least) going to get it, that's how the market works. -- 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 xuemei09@yahoo.co.uk Fri Feb 28 09:29:28 2003 From: xuemei09@yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?xuemei=20bp?=) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:29:28 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [6bone] How to route for both native IPv6 and IPv4 internet? Message-ID: <20030228092928.57852.qmail@web14811.mail.yahoo.com> --0-289901187-1046424568=:56732 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi all, Thanks for any hints on my problem! Here is my problem. I have a 6To4 linux PC. I would like to have the access to both native IPv6 and IPv4 Internet for this PC. I used: route -A inet6 add 2002::/16 dev sit0 and route -A inet6 add 2001::/16 via 192.88.99.1 dev eth0 (p.s. I am not happy to use this command, because the PC can only access prefix 2001 native IPv6). However it did not work. Is there anybody with the experiences to do the IPv6 and IPv4 routing for a 6To4 linux PC? Please, help. Xuemei --------------------------------- With Yahoo! Mail you can get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs --0-289901187-1046424568=:56732 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi all,

Thanks for any hints on my problem!

Here is my problem. I have a 6To4 linux PC. I would like to have the access to both native IPv6 and IPv4 Internet for this PC. I used: route -A inet6 add 2002::/16 dev sit0 and route -A inet6 add 2001::/16 via 192.88.99.1 dev eth0 (p.s. I am not happy to use this command, because the PC can only access prefix 2001 native IPv6). However it did not work.

Is there anybody with the experiences to do the IPv6 and IPv4 routing for a 6To4 linux PC? Please, help.

Xuemei


With Yahoo! Mail you can get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs
--0-289901187-1046424568=:56732-- From todd@fries.net Fri Feb 28 11:55:04 2003 From: todd@fries.net (Todd T. Fries) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 05:55:04 -0600 Subject: [6bone] 6bone transitions planning BOF in San Francisco In-Reply-To: References: <20030227224907.GB21770@fries.net> Message-ID: <20030228115504.GZ704@fries.net> I asked for it when I first arrived in this area in June of 2000. I have made references to it since. I know my isp (a small number of staff) could be IPv6 capable, they use FreeBSD .. but sofar they choose not to be, I get the impression 'putting out fires' is about all they can manage. Their upstream, COX.net, has little interest in even getting my reverse IPv4 dns to work w/out me having to query their servers hourly to 'seed' them with my information, let alone doing IPv6. How much can I push, being an unemployed residential only customer (working on starting a consulting business) ? I guess I could start shopping around, seeing if _any_ ISP that terminates DSL in the area provides IPv6. -- Todd Fries .. todd@fries.net I'm available for hire! http://todd.fries.net/resume.html (last updated 2003/01/02 02:08:59) Penned by Pekka Savola on Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 08:06:24AM +0200, we have: | On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Todd T. Fries wrote: | > Or do I really need to start pressuring my upstreams to provide ipv6 | > connectivity? | | You should have started a long time ago. | | If you don't ask for it, you're never (or in a reasonable time at least) | going to get it, that's how the market works. | | -- | 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 Fri Feb 28 12:57:43 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:57:43 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Ghosts for 3ffe:1f00::/24 and 3ffe:3000::/24 - Check your routers Message-ID: <005601c2df28$fccc0470$210d640a@unfix.org> Hi, As per usual on http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ghosts/. 3ffe:3000::/24 has been retracted 4 days ago and is still lingering in the routing tables. 3ffe:1f00::/24 has been lingering for 1+ day now. Can people check up their _backbone_ routers and tell what they see about these prefixes? I am very interrested in knowing what people see coming in from SPRINT (AS6175), FIBERTEL (AS10318) and ATT-EMEA (AS5623) Also please submit your IPv6 traceroute's, lookingglasses, Route Servers and ASpaths tools to Jakub if you are maintaining an AS. See http://www.traceroute6.org for more information. Having these would make hunting down these ghosts so much easier. Greets, Jeroen From itojun@iijlab.net Fri Feb 28 13:11:14 2003 From: itojun@iijlab.net (itojun@iijlab.net) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 22:11:14 +0900 Subject: [6bone] 6bone transitions planning BOF in San Francisco In-Reply-To: todd's message of Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:49:07 CST. <20030227224907.GB21770@fries.net> Message-ID: <20030228131114.BCA574B22@coconut.itojun.org> >Or do I really need to start pressuring my upstreams to provide ipv6 >connectivity? yes. you should have done so yesterday (and make phone call every day). itojun From Daniel Austin" Message-ID: <011901c2df30$3fcd2b30$6ea0fea9@DanLaptop> We see both of these prefixes via AS1752 (BTexact over UK6X) and AS15703 (Trueserver BV over LIPEX). 2 paths to each. (our LG/traceroute is present on traceroute6.org) With Thanks, Daniel Austin, Managing Director, Kewlio.net Limited. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeroen Massar" To: <6bone@ISI.EDU>; Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 12:57 PM Subject: [6bone] Ghosts for 3ffe:1f00::/24 and 3ffe:3000::/24 - Check your routers > Hi, > > As per usual on http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ghosts/. > 3ffe:3000::/24 has been retracted 4 days ago and > is still lingering in the routing tables. > 3ffe:1f00::/24 has been lingering for 1+ day now. > > Can people check up their _backbone_ routers and tell > what they see about these prefixes? > > I am very interrested in knowing what people see coming > in from SPRINT (AS6175), FIBERTEL (AS10318) and ATT-EMEA (AS5623) > > Also please submit your IPv6 traceroute's, lookingglasses, > Route Servers and ASpaths tools to Jakub if you are maintaining an AS. > See http://www.traceroute6.org for more information. > Having these would make hunting down these ghosts so much easier. > > Greets, > Jeroen > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > From jguthrie@brokersys.com Fri Feb 28 13:59:48 2003 From: jguthrie@brokersys.com (Jonathan Guthrie) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:59:48 -0600 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 In-Reply-To: <20030228013526.J15927@Space.Net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226182248.02003200@mail.addr.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030227113545.03c2bdd0@pfs-pc.cisco.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224092334.025e5050@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030227081034.02134498@mail.addr.com> <001e01c2deb5$e169a840$0200a8c0@elf> <20030228013526.J15927@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20030228135948.GA17349@brokersys.com> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:35:26AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:13:39AM +1000, Dan Reeder wrote: > > That raises the question: are we able to force the RIRs to offer globally > > routable FREE production space for the purposes of testing? If not, would > > there be any incentive for carriers / ISPs to offer their clients free > > testing space? > As soon as IPv6 connectivity is a commodity item (hopefully soon) this > point seems moot to me. Well, from where I sit, it appears as if IPv6 is perhaps a decade away from being available and maybe two more from being a "commodity item". There is absolutely no evidence that I can find that ANYBODY is offering IPv6 Internet connectivity to end users. Perhaps the backbone providers have it on their routers and speak it to each other, but it sure hasn't filtered down to anybody else. -- Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) Sto pro veritate From Daniel Austin" <5.1.0.14.2.20030227113545.03c2bdd0@pfs-pc.cisco.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224092334.025e5050@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030227081034.02134498@mail.addr.com> <001e01c2deb5$e169a840$0200a8c0@elf> <20030228013526.J15927@Space.Net> <20030228135948.GA17349@brokersys.com> Message-ID: <016e01c2df33$7976cc30$6ea0fea9@DanLaptop> Hi, We just got offerred IPv6 production transit by NTT/Verio... but i'm not sure the world is ready to pay for it yet. We'll see what they say though. How many truly ipv6-enabled applications are out there and in use? How many ipv6-enable websites are there (that are not to do with the 6bone or NOC pages?). are there any *useful* ipv6 websites out there? We have ipv6-enabled our PHP and proftpd mirror sites, but i dont think i've seen a single person hit it from IPv6 other than myself. With Thanks, Daniel Austin, Managing Director, Kewlio.net Limited. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Guthrie" To: "Gert Doering" Cc: "Dan Reeder" ; "Bob Fink" ; <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 1:59 PM Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:35:26AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:13:39AM +1000, Dan Reeder wrote: > > > That raises the question: are we able to force the RIRs to offer globally > > > routable FREE production space for the purposes of testing? If not, would > > > there be any incentive for carriers / ISPs to offer their clients free > > > testing space? > > > As soon as IPv6 connectivity is a commodity item (hopefully soon) this > > point seems moot to me. > > Well, from where I sit, it appears as if IPv6 is perhaps a decade away > from being available and maybe two more from being a "commodity item". > > There is absolutely no evidence that I can find that ANYBODY is offering > IPv6 Internet connectivity to end users. Perhaps the backbone providers > have it on their routers and speak it to each other, but it sure hasn't > filtered down to anybody else. > -- > Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) > Sto pro veritate > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > From gert@space.net Fri Feb 28 14:38:17 2003 From: gert@space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:38:17 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 In-Reply-To: <20030228135948.GA17349@brokersys.com>; from jguthrie@brokersys.com on Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 07:59:48AM -0600 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226182248.02003200@mail.addr.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030227113545.03c2bdd0@pfs-pc.cisco.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224092334.025e5050@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030227081034.02134498@mail.addr.com> <001e01c2deb5$e169a840$0200a8c0@elf> <20030228013526.J15927@Space.Net> <20030228135948.GA17349@brokersys.com> Message-ID: <20030228153817.V15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 07:59:48AM -0600, Jonathan Guthrie wrote: > > As soon as IPv6 connectivity is a commodity item (hopefully soon) this > > point seems moot to me. > > Well, from where I sit, it appears as if IPv6 is perhaps a decade away > from being available and maybe two more from being a "commodity item". Ummm. It depends very much where you sit, indeed. I think Japan is nearly there. Europe is moving. The US is waiting for a flag day (or something). > There is absolutely no evidence that I can find that ANYBODY is offering > IPv6 Internet connectivity to end users. Perhaps the backbone providers > have it on their routers and speak it to each other, but it sure hasn't > filtered down to anybody else. We're offering it to all our customers, for no extra charge on top of what they pay for their IPv4 account. Admittedly we can't yet offer it on all products (some hardware vendors are just not there yet), but on the other hand the demand hasn't been overwhelming either... (Who's "we"? - We're a regional ISP in Germany. Overall, IPv6 support among the smaller ISPs in Germany and the whole european region is growing pretty quickly. It's not yet "omnipresent" - far from that - but I am pretty optimistic.) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57021 (57147) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From jguthrie@brokersys.com Fri Feb 28 15:35:17 2003 From: jguthrie@brokersys.com (Jonathan Guthrie) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:35:17 -0600 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 In-Reply-To: <20030228153817.V15927@Space.Net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226182248.02003200@mail.addr.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030227113545.03c2bdd0@pfs-pc.cisco.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224092334.025e5050@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030227081034.02134498@mail.addr.com> <001e01c2deb5$e169a840$0200a8c0@elf> <20030228013526.J15927@Space.Net> <20030228135948.GA17349@brokersys.com> <20030228153817.V15927@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20030228153517.GA28747@brokersys.com> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:38:17PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 07:59:48AM -0600, Jonathan Guthrie wrote: > > > As soon as IPv6 connectivity is a commodity item (hopefully soon) this > > > point seems moot to me. > > Well, from where I sit, it appears as if IPv6 is perhaps a decade away > > from being available and maybe two more from being a "commodity item". > Ummm. It depends very much where you sit, indeed. I think Japan is > nearly there. Europe is moving. The US is waiting for a flag day (or > something). So, IPv6 is almost ready for "commodity" status even though a substantial fraction of all Internet users don't have access to it and won't for some time? Isn't the Internet supposed to be about facilitating communications? Look, all I'm really trying to do is point out that the statements I keep reading about how the 6Bone is ready to be disbanded are perhaps not representative of the worldwide situation. I also suppose it depends on what you think the 6bone is. Is it a collection of people with pTLA's? Is it a collection of tunnels? Is it neither? Is it both? What does it mean to say that the 6bone is ended? > > There is absolutely no evidence that I can find that ANYBODY is offering > > IPv6 Internet connectivity to end users. Perhaps the backbone providers > > have it on their routers and speak it to each other, but it sure hasn't > > filtered down to anybody else. > We're offering it to all our customers, for no extra charge on top of > what they pay for their IPv4 account. Fine. Give me your POP number for Houston, TX, US, and I'll switch to your service. Telling me about what you give YOUR customers when it is not in any way, shape, or form available to me does not impress me at all about how close IPv6 is to being a "commodity" item. For what it's worth, I would expect IPv6 connectivity to be available along with IPv4 for no additional cost for a time and that the IPv4 connectivity will be eventually dropped or will be included as an additional cost item. (I expect that IPv4 will be around for decades after most everybody switches to something else, but it won't necessarily be routable on the Internet.) The only open question is about the timing. My analysis for how much I'm willing to pay right now for IPv6 access in addition to IPv4 access was intended to anticipate that someone would suggest using a commercial tunnel broker. (I expect that such things will exist even if they don't right now.) That is simply not an option at this time. > Admittedly we can't yet offer it > on all products (some hardware vendors are just not there yet), but on > the other hand the demand hasn't been overwhelming either... I use an Lucent Pipeline 75 to access the Internet. It talks to a Lucent Max TNT. Neither of those apparently has any support for IPv6. Now, apparently the Cisco AS 5[34]00 series equipment does, but I don't know anybody running that equipment. I HAVE been out of the loop fo a while on what people are using for their dial-in equipment. Perhaps someone could give some figures on how many dial-in lines in the world are on equipment that are capable of handling IPv6. Also, bear in mind that I am in a position to demand nothing from my upstream provider. "Give me IPv6 or I'll disconnect from the Internet" doesn't strike me as a credible threat. -- Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) Sto pro veritate From bmanning@ISI.EDU Fri Feb 28 15:40:22 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:40:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 In-Reply-To: <016e01c2df33$7976cc30$6ea0fea9@DanLaptop> from Daniel Austin at "Feb 28, 3 02:12:31 pm" Message-ID: <200302281540.h1SFeMc27123@boreas.isi.edu> Lucky you. I've asked them for this repeatedly and was told they dont offer this service in the market im in (Los Angeles)... ymmv % Hi, % % We just got offerred IPv6 production transit by NTT/Verio... but i'm not sure the world is ready to pay for it yet. We'll see what % they say though. % How many truly ipv6-enabled applications are out there and in use? % How many ipv6-enable websites are there (that are not to do with the 6bone or NOC pages?). are there any *useful* ipv6 websites out % there? % We have ipv6-enabled our PHP and proftpd mirror sites, but i dont think i've seen a single person hit it from IPv6 other than % myself. % % % With Thanks, % % Daniel Austin, % Managing Director, % Kewlio.net Limited. % % % ----- Original Message ----- % From: "Jonathan Guthrie" % To: "Gert Doering" % Cc: "Dan Reeder" ; "Bob Fink" ; <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> % Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 1:59 PM % Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 % % % > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:35:26AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: % > % > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:13:39AM +1000, Dan Reeder wrote: % > > > That raises the question: are we able to force the RIRs to offer globally % > > > routable FREE production space for the purposes of testing? If not, would % > > > there be any incentive for carriers / ISPs to offer their clients free % > > > testing space? % > % > > As soon as IPv6 connectivity is a commodity item (hopefully soon) this % > > point seems moot to me. % > % > Well, from where I sit, it appears as if IPv6 is perhaps a decade away % > from being available and maybe two more from being a "commodity item". % > % > There is absolutely no evidence that I can find that ANYBODY is offering % > IPv6 Internet connectivity to end users. Perhaps the backbone providers % > have it on their routers and speak it to each other, but it sure hasn't % > filtered down to anybody else. % > -- % > Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) % > Sto pro veritate % > _______________________________________________ % > 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 % -- --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). From Daniel Austin" Message-ID: <02b901c2df41$9fb0d630$6ea0fea9@DanLaptop> Hi Bill, They have a "press release" on their website saying they started their european ipv6 transit on 18th Feb 2003. Perhaps worth another check with them... With Thanks, Daniel Austin, Managing Director, Kewlio.net Limited. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Manning" To: Cc: ; ; ; ; <6bone@ISI.EDU> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 3:40 PM Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 > Lucky you. I've asked them for this repeatedly and was told they dont > offer this service in the market im in (Los Angeles)... ymmv > > > > % Hi, > % > % We just got offerred IPv6 production transit by NTT/Verio... but i'm not sure the world is ready to pay for it yet. We'll see what > % they say though. > % How many truly ipv6-enabled applications are out there and in use? > % How many ipv6-enable websites are there (that are not to do with the 6bone or NOC pages?). are there any *useful* ipv6 websites out > % there? > % We have ipv6-enabled our PHP and proftpd mirror sites, but i dont think i've seen a single person hit it from IPv6 other than > % myself. > % > % > % With Thanks, > % > % Daniel Austin, > % Managing Director, > % Kewlio.net Limited. > % > % > % ----- Original Message ----- > % From: "Jonathan Guthrie" > % To: "Gert Doering" > % Cc: "Dan Reeder" ; "Bob Fink" ; <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> > % Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 1:59 PM > % Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 > % > % > % > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:35:26AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > % > > % > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:13:39AM +1000, Dan Reeder wrote: > % > > > That raises the question: are we able to force the RIRs to offer globally > % > > > routable FREE production space for the purposes of testing? If not, would > % > > > there be any incentive for carriers / ISPs to offer their clients free > % > > > testing space? > % > > % > > As soon as IPv6 connectivity is a commodity item (hopefully soon) this > % > > point seems moot to me. > % > > % > Well, from where I sit, it appears as if IPv6 is perhaps a decade away > % > from being available and maybe two more from being a "commodity item". > % > > % > There is absolutely no evidence that I can find that ANYBODY is offering > % > IPv6 Internet connectivity to end users. Perhaps the backbone providers > % > have it on their routers and speak it to each other, but it sure hasn't > % > filtered down to anybody else. > % > -- > % > Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) > % > Sto pro veritate > % > _______________________________________________ > % > 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 > % > > > -- > --bill > > Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and > certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > From bmanning@ISI.EDU Fri Feb 28 16:32:37 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:32:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 In-Reply-To: <02b901c2df41$9fb0d630$6ea0fea9@DanLaptop> from Daniel Austin at "Feb 28, 3 03:53:49 pm" Message-ID: <200302281632.h1SGWbA01262@boreas.isi.edu> sure. Europe. Not the west coast of the US. % Hi Bill, % % They have a "press release" on their website saying they started their european ipv6 transit on 18th Feb 2003. Perhaps worth % another check with them... % % % With Thanks, % % Daniel Austin, % Managing Director, % Kewlio.net Limited. % % % ----- Original Message ----- % From: "Bill Manning" % To: % Cc: ; ; ; ; <6bone@ISI.EDU> % Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 3:40 PM % Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 % % % > Lucky you. I've asked them for this repeatedly and was told they dont % > offer this service in the market im in (Los Angeles)... ymmv % > % > % > % > % Hi, % > % % > % We just got offerred IPv6 production transit by NTT/Verio... but i'm not sure the world is ready to pay for it yet. We'll see % what % > % they say though. % > % How many truly ipv6-enabled applications are out there and in use? % > % How many ipv6-enable websites are there (that are not to do with the 6bone or NOC pages?). are there any *useful* ipv6 websites % out % > % there? % > % We have ipv6-enabled our PHP and proftpd mirror sites, but i dont think i've seen a single person hit it from IPv6 other than % > % myself. % > % % > % % > % With Thanks, % > % % > % Daniel Austin, % > % Managing Director, % > % Kewlio.net Limited. % > % % > % % > % ----- Original Message ----- % > % From: "Jonathan Guthrie" % > % To: "Gert Doering" % > % Cc: "Dan Reeder" ; "Bob Fink" ; <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> % > % Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 1:59 PM % > % Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 % > % % > % % > % > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:35:26AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: % > % > % > % > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:13:39AM +1000, Dan Reeder wrote: % > % > > > That raises the question: are we able to force the RIRs to offer globally % > % > > > routable FREE production space for the purposes of testing? If not, would % > % > > > there be any incentive for carriers / ISPs to offer their clients free % > % > > > testing space? % > % > % > % > > As soon as IPv6 connectivity is a commodity item (hopefully soon) this % > % > > point seems moot to me. % > % > % > % > Well, from where I sit, it appears as if IPv6 is perhaps a decade away % > % > from being available and maybe two more from being a "commodity item". % > % > % > % > There is absolutely no evidence that I can find that ANYBODY is offering % > % > IPv6 Internet connectivity to end users. Perhaps the backbone providers % > % > have it on their routers and speak it to each other, but it sure hasn't % > % > filtered down to anybody else. % > % > -- % > % > Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) % > % > Sto pro veritate % > % > _______________________________________________ % > % > 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 % > % % > % > % > -- % > --bill % > % > Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and % > certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). % > % > _______________________________________________ % > 6bone mailing list % > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu % > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone % > % -- --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). From Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca Fri Feb 28 17:04:39 2003 From: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca (Marc Blanchet) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:04:39 -0500 Subject: [6bone] Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "A Flexible Method for Managing the Assignment of Bytes of an IPv6 Address Block" (fwd) Message-ID: <21590000.1046451879@classic.viagenie.qc.ca> Hi, I'm cross posting this email to the 6bone list, since I received over time many emails and questions about the draft from people using it. However, I haven't kept those emails nor I don't know who is using it. the 6bone list is my best method to try to reach some of the people. could anyone who used, is using, are planning to use it send me an email so I can collect the people that are using it. Moreover, if you have anything to say about the publication of this draft as RFC, please feel free to send email to ipng mailing list. Thanks, Marc. ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Date: vendredi, février 21, 2003 10:43:12 -0500 From: Margaret Wasserman To: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com CC: Subject: Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "A Flexible Method for Managing the Assignment of Bytes of an IPv6 Address Block" Hi All, During the last call period for "A Flexible Method for Managing the Assignment of Bytes of an IPv6 Address Block", there was only one comment (attached). The comment did not raise any specific technical issues with the document, but it did question its usefulness. As I am sure many of you know, documents should only be forwarded to the IESG for approval when there is a consensus of the WG that the document is both technically sound and useful. One ambivalent comment is not sufficient input to demonstrate WG consensus for publishing this document. So, if there are people in the WG who do believe that this document is both technically sound and useful and should be sent to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC, could you please speak up? You can find the latest version of the document at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-ipaddressassign-06.txt Thanks, Margaret > To: Bob Hinden & Margaret Wasserman > cc: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com > Subject: Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "A Flexible Method for Managing the > Assignment of Bytes of an IPv6 Address Block" > > > On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Bob Hinden & Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments on advancing the > > following document as an Informational RFC: > > > > Title : A Flexible Method for Managing the Assignment of > > Bits of an IPv6 Address Block > > Author(s) : M. Blanchet > > Filename : draft-ietf-ipv6-ipaddressassign-06.txt > > Pages : 8 > > Date : 2003-1-6 > > > I don't have problems with this, though I'm not sure how useful this is > for most (but for some, certainly). > > > A point I've raised in the past is, most operators are not really > interested in optimizing the address assignments on a bit level (provided > that the number of customers is not so high it would be required). > Rather, here we do so with nibbles. Those are easier to calculate in the > head and work better with reverse DNS delegations too. > > > But I'm not sure whether this kind of "coarser approach for flexible > assignment" calls for some text or not. A mention at most, I think. > What do others feel? > > > -- > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- End Forwarded Message ---------- ------------------------------------------ Marc Blanchet Viagénie tel: +1-418-656-9254x225 ------------------------------------------ http://www.freenet6.net: IPv6 connectivity ------------------------------------------ http://www.normos.org: IETF(RFC,draft), IANA,W3C,... standards. ------------------------------------------ From gert@space.net Fri Feb 28 17:09:50 2003 From: gert@space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:09:50 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 In-Reply-To: <20030228153517.GA28747@brokersys.com>; from jguthrie@brokersys.com on Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:35:17AM -0600 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226182248.02003200@mail.addr.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030227113545.03c2bdd0@pfs-pc.cisco.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224092334.025e5050@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030227081034.02134498@mail.addr.com> <001e01c2deb5$e169a840$0200a8c0@elf> <20030228013526.J15927@Space.Net> <20030228135948.GA17349@brokersys.com> <20030228153817.V15927@Space.Net> <20030228153517.GA28747@brokersys.com> Message-ID: <20030228180950.B15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:35:17AM -0600, Jonathan Guthrie wrote: [..] > > > There is absolutely no evidence that I can find that ANYBODY is offering > > > IPv6 Internet connectivity to end users. Perhaps the backbone providers > > > have it on their routers and speak it to each other, but it sure hasn't > > > filtered down to anybody else. > > > We're offering it to all our customers, for no extra charge on top of > > what they pay for their IPv4 account. > > Fine. Give me your POP number for Houston, TX, US, and I'll switch to > your service. Telling me about what you give YOUR customers when it is > not in any way, shape, or form available to me does not impress me at all > about how close IPv6 is to being a "commodity" item. No need to get sarcastic here. You tell me that you can't find evidence that "ANYBODY" is offering IPv6 connectivity to end users. What I'm telling you is that this might be true for the US, but it's certainly not true for other parts of the world - there *are* offerings. It was not my intention to mock you. I just wanted to point out that other regions are indeed making progress here. > For what it's worth, I would expect IPv6 connectivity to be available > along with IPv4 for no additional cost for a time and that the IPv4 > connectivity will be eventually dropped or will be included as an > additional cost item. Yes. So do I. [..] > > Admittedly we can't yet offer it > > on all products (some hardware vendors are just not there yet), but on > > the other hand the demand hasn't been overwhelming either... > > I use an Lucent Pipeline 75 to access the Internet. It talks to a > Lucent Max TNT. Neither of those apparently has any support for IPv6. > Now, apparently the Cisco AS 5[34]00 series equipment does, but I don't > know anybody running that equipment. I HAVE been out of the loop fo > a while on what people are using for their dial-in equipment. Perhaps > someone could give some figures on how many dial-in lines in the world > are on equipment that are capable of handling IPv6. Right now, in US and EU, close to zero, as the big dial ISPs are fairly reluctant to upgrade their software (if the hardware could do it), and are mostly unwilling to replace their hardware. Dunno about AP. Leased line and DSL is much better - as it's easier for the ISPs to do the necessary upgrades. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57021 (57147) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us Fri Feb 28 17:21:06 2003 From: michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:21:06 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 6bone transitions planning BOF in San Francisco Message-ID: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F5BA94@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> Bob, > Bob Fink wrote: > Status and discussion of the proposal for the "transfer of > 6bone address management responsibilities to RIRs" - Bob > Fink and appropriate RIR folk, 30 minutes > > Presentation of the 6bone phaseout plan - Bob Hinden, 10 mins > I would tend to think that these two proposals are mutually incompatible. If we are to proceed with the phaseout plan with the proposed dates (and they appear to be what could reach consensus), what is the point of making the move towards the RIRs? I would take the most part of the remaining time between now and July 2004 to get all the paperwork pushed, and one might think that it is not worth the effort for just a few months of operations. I have supported the transfer to the RIRs and I still support it, but it would require a considerable extension of the phaseout dates, which I also proposed earlier (some recent postings seem to indicate that I am not the only one leaning in this direction). > CHAIR: Jordi Palet Martinez jordi.palet@consulintel.es I have great confidence that Jordi has what it takes to run this. Michel. From michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us Fri Feb 28 17:41:23 2003 From: michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:41:23 -0800 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 Message-ID: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F54C50@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> > So, IPv6 is almost ready for "commodity" status even though > a substantial fraction of all Internet users don't have access > to it and won't for some time? Isn't the Internet supposed > to be about facilitating communications? [I mostly agree with Jonathan and Todd's posts] "a substantial fraction of all Internet users don't have access" is an euphemism. It would be better to talk about the extremely small minority almost exclusively composed of computer geeks and cell phones that has access to IPv6, mostly with tunnels that make them switch back to IPv4 because it has way lower latency. "commodity" means general public. This is not the case as of today and will not be the case in a year either. No IPv6 yahoo, no IPv6 google, no IPv6 eBay, no IPv6 commodity. It is time for folks to understand that IPv6 can not be a commodity until an IPv6 multihoming solution is deployed. Michel. From rmk@arm.linux.org.uk Fri Feb 28 17:44:54 2003 From: rmk@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:44:54 +0000 Subject: IPv6 availability (was: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003) In-Reply-To: <20030228180950.B15927@Space.Net>; from gert@space.net on Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 06:09:50PM +0100 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030226182248.02003200@mail.addr.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030227113545.03c2bdd0@pfs-pc.cisco.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224092334.025e5050@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030227081034.02134498@mail.addr.com> <001e01c2deb5$e169a840$0200a8c0@elf> <20030228013526.J15927@Space.Net> <20030228135948.GA17349@brokersys.com> <20030228153817.V15927@Space.Net> <20030228153517.GA28747@brokersys.com> <20030228180950.B15927@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20030228174454.A10968@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 06:09:50PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > Leased line and DSL is much better - as it's easier for the ISPs to > do the necessary upgrades. Wish the same was true in the UK. When I mentioned the DSL situation to a guy from BT in January, there didn't appear to be any plans to make IPv6 available natively on DSL, so the only IPv6 DSL connectivity in the near future will be using tunnels. Having experienced the problems with PMTU discovery on IPv4 with sites blocking the ICMP fragmentation needed messages for "security reasons", I have little faith that any tunneled IP protocols have much value to end users. Of course, it may be different with IPv6, but I'd imagine that the same "security" rules will end up being imposed upon IPv6. -- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html From Michael.Sturtz@paccar.com Fri Feb 28 20:54:56 2003 From: Michael.Sturtz@paccar.com (Michael Sturtz) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:54:56 -0800 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 Message-ID: I have been listening to this discussion for a while now and believe there is a way to encourage ISPs and other entities to make the necessary investments in moving to IPv6. Unfortunately, in the US ARIN seems to be wanting to use the same IPv4 mentality with distributing V6 blocks of addresses. We (I mean the internet community.) should encourage the liberal distribution of v6 addresses to as many ISPs as possible by reducing the cost and required justifications. In addition, they should raise the price of current v4 address allocations to reflect their scarcity. Until, ISPs and companies who use current v4 address space have an economic reason to migrate they won't. We have the classic chicken and egg problem. Few people will write applications for which v6 is needed unless there are many people using v6 and people will wait until there is content which uses or is only available on v6 before they will migrate to and use it. It would greatly help if all v4 content were immediately available on the v6 network either via a dual protocol stack or via a 6to4 arrangement in the backbone routers and DNS infrastructure. If a machine with a only a v6 address received a DNS answer which contained a v4 address then it should send that (using the 2002 space) to the nearest router capable of translating (proxying) the v6 address into a v4 address. I would like to be able to use IPv6 natively however unfortunately, neither of my broadband providers will do IPv6 anytime soon. And, I don't see any dial up providers available in my area either. Michael Sturtz Computer Ease II From bmanning@ISI.EDU Fri Feb 28 21:14:34 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:14:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 In-Reply-To: from Michael Sturtz at "Feb 28, 3 12:54:56 pm" Message-ID: <200302282114.h1SLEYY04234@boreas.isi.edu> % investments in moving to IPv6. Unfortunately, in the US ARIN seems to be % wanting to use the same IPv4 mentality with distributing V6 blocks of % addresses. We (I mean the internet community.) should encourage the liberal % distribution of v6 addresses to as many ISPs as possible by reducing the % cost and required justifications. Have you checked recently on ARIN delegation policy wrt V6 delegations? I didn;t think so. The kicker is not address availablity. The next big hurdle is CASH. The opex/capex costs of providing IPv6 -WITHOUT- impacting the razor-thin margins that IPv4 demands (see SLA) are a bit high for most major ISPs. % Michael Sturtz % Computer Ease II --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). From cfaber@fpsn.net Fri Feb 28 22:56:34 2003 From: cfaber@fpsn.net (Colin Faber) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:56:34 -0700 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 References: <200302282114.h1SLEYY04234@boreas.isi.edu> Message-ID: <3E5FE922.52F8E828@fpsn.net> Bill Manning wrote: > > % investments in moving to IPv6. Unfortunately, in the US ARIN seems to be > % wanting to use the same IPv4 mentality with distributing V6 blocks of > % addresses. We (I mean the internet community.) should encourage the liberal > % distribution of v6 addresses to as many ISPs as possible by reducing the > % cost and required justifications. > > Have you checked recently on ARIN delegation policy wrt > V6 delegations? I didn;t think so. > > The kicker is not address availablity. The next big hurdle > is CASH. The opex/capex costs of providing IPv6 -WITHOUT- > impacting the razor-thin margins that IPv4 demands (see SLA) > are a bit high for most major ISPs. I would also like to point out that much of the existing software out there which drives the current internet market place does not yet support, or fully support the IPv6 address space. Of that most of the IPv4 supported software patched for IPv6 is still in an alpha or beta quality code state and is not yet ready for mission critical deployment. One other thing to keep in mind is that IPv4 wasn't rolled out over night and the ISPs didn't adopt it because it was the "neat" or "new" technology to use. They adopted it because it is what the consumer demanded. Michael be patient, IPv6 is coming however it's not going to happen over night. Should you really be interested in supporting "the cause" so to speak I suggest you contact companies such as Microsoft which are showing signs they are wavering from supporting the standard. Remind them that it's currently a lot cheaper to deploy it in the early stages than later on as things get more complicated. > > % Michael Sturtz > % Computer Ease II > > --bill > Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and > certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone -- Colin Faber (303) 736-5160 fpsn.net, Inc. * Black holes are where God divided by zero. * -> SPAM TRAP ADDRESS - DO NOT EMAIL <- cfaber.signature@mysqlfaqs.com -> SPAM TRAP ADDRESS - DO NOT EMAIL <- From Michael.Sturtz@paccar.com Fri Feb 28 23:01:09 2003 From: Michael.Sturtz@paccar.com (Michael Sturtz) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:01:09 -0800 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 Message-ID: I did check and although they seem to be currently waiving the fees until 12/31/03 that is only temporary and not long enough to spur increased investment. The lowest fee they have is 2,500 per year for a standard /32 address space. Also, they will not (from what I can tell) allocate address space to non-ISPs i.e. end user organizations such as mine so, we must wait until we can get it some other way. The company I work for has a class B IPv4 portable address block. If I am understanding ARIN's rules they will not allocate IPv6 address space to an end user organization. I personally would like to get a portable (globally routable) address block for my own personal use however there doesn't seem any way to do this easily. I will admit that I am somewhat ignorant of how this whole process works however it would seem that it would spur IPv6 adoption if end users could get portable address space on their own without being dependant on an ISP. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks Bill for responding! Thanks, Michael Sturtz From Daniel Austin" Message-ID: <019a01c2df7f$fefd9ef0$6ea0fea9@DanLaptop> Hi, We're in a similar position here. Our company is not large enough to request a /32 from RIPE (we cant allocate 200 customers ipv6 in the next 12 months, nor can i lie to RIPE to let them believe it!) We're not a RIPE LIR, so i cant even request it to be thrown out. But we're fully multihomed on PI ipv4 space.... It seems there's no similar position for us in ipv6 land. I have to rely on using static-routed IPv6 IP's from another provider which means i *CANT* offer a production service on ipv6.... but of course, this all goes back to the multihoming thread... With Thanks, Daniel Austin, Managing Director, Kewlio.net Limited. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Sturtz" To: <6bone@ISI.EDU> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 11:01 PM Subject: RE: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 > > > > I did check and although they seem to be currently waiving the fees until > 12/31/03 that is only temporary and not long enough to spur increased > investment. The lowest fee they have is 2,500 per year for a standard /32 > address space. Also, they will not (from what I can tell) allocate address > space to non-ISPs i.e. end user organizations such as mine so, we must wait > until we can get it some other way. The company I work for has a class B > IPv4 portable address block. If I am understanding ARIN's rules they will > not allocate IPv6 address space to an end user organization. I personally > would like to get a portable (globally routable) address block for my own > personal use however there doesn't seem any way to do this easily. I will > admit that I am somewhat ignorant of how this whole process works however it > would seem that it would spur IPv6 adoption if end users could get portable > address space on their own without being dependant on an ISP. Please > correct me if I am wrong. Thanks Bill for responding! > Thanks, > Michael Sturtz > > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone >