From mrp@mrp.net Wed Jan 1 03:20:27 2003 From: mrp@mrp.net (Mark Prior) Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 13:50:27 +1030 Subject: [6bone] Address management transfer proposal In-Reply-To: <20021231051559.GV13306@yeenoghu.progsoc.uts.edu.au> References: <20021231051559.GV13306@yeenoghu.progsoc.uts.edu.au> Message-ID: At 4:16 PM +1100 31/12/02, Anand Kumria wrote: >Transfer to RIRs: > >Pros: > - no single point of allocation > - delegation of e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa > >Cons: > - turns 3ffe::/16 into a service which requires payment There is no such thing as a free lunch and you should just get over it. Relying on the goodwill on an individual(s) to keep doing something for free when it clearly costs something to provide the service is a really bad idea. >Keeping existing system: > >Pros: > - no changes > >Cons: > - may induce volunteer burnout > - no e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa delegation > - doesn't excourage migration to production IPv6 addresses If people want a production service then they will search it out. If they just want to experiment then a sandbox is sufficient. Changing the way 6Bone addresses are assigned won't change this. >Some points I noted, my comments are under them: > >+ RIRs have no incentive to pull-in IPv4 and hand-out IPv6; I think this >will guarentee even slower IPv6 rollout This seems really bizarre to me. Why on earth would you want to try to force IPv6 down someone's throat like that? >It'd be nice if RIRs started to penalise their large transit/backbone >operator for requesting IPv4 space but not have/using IPv6 space. It'd >also be nice if pigs had wings too. Don't turn the RIRs into policemen ("you can't have more IPv4 space unless you show us that you are actively using that IPv6 space we leased to you"). It is relatively easy for a tier one to obtain the IPv6 address space and even perhaps deploy it but that doesn't mean customers will want to get access to it. I've worked at an ISP where we had IP multicast enabled across the backbone and while we used it there was no customer product and no demand to create one. If the customers started beating up their account managers asking for it then marketing would have come calling and something would have happened. Similarly with IPv6, if the customers want it (and are prepared to pay for it) then ISPs will see the revenue opportunity and do something about it. If the customers don't ask for it then why would an ISP waste resources deploying something that will get no return? >I'm not even sure if AS701 has IPv6 production addresses. Even worse is >that the other major backbone with Australia (AS7474) hasn't even got >any (6bone or production) IPv6 addresses. You forgot about Connect (AS2764, 2001:210::/35). Mark. From wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au Wed Jan 1 06:00:04 2003 From: wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au ('Anand Kumria') Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 17:00:04 +1100 Subject: [6bone] Address management transfer proposal In-Reply-To: <001201c2b0de$26bca240$210d640a@unfix.org> References: <20021231051559.GV13306@yeenoghu.progsoc.uts.edu.au> <001201c2b0de$26bca240$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <20030101060004.GW13306@yeenoghu.progsoc.uts.edu.au> On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 04:06:08PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > Anand Kumria wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Apparently comments about the proposed transfer are due in today, I've > > read most of the archive (most of the discussion took place > > in August) and > > here is my (completely biased) summary: > > > > Transfer to RIRs: > > > > Pros: > > - no single point of allocation > > - delegation of e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa > > > > Cons: > > - turns 3ffe::/16 into a service which requires payment > > Who/what says/defines that suddenly one has to 'pay' for 6bone space? It was part of the proposal, see 3.1 parts (c) and (d); note I didn't say "suddenly" but it will turn 6bone into a service which requires payment. Specifically from the APNIC 2001 annual report; they make USD$3620K revenue. At least USD$581K at directly attributable to IPv4 address space delegation. The USD$2472K earned from membership will be serverely reduced with widespread deployment of IPv6, since membership fees are based upon amount of address space held. Make no mistake that IPv6 represents a revenue threat to all RIRs. > > Keeping existing system: > > > > Pros: > > - no changes > > > > Cons: > > - may induce volunteer burnout > > - no e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa delegation > > - doesn't excourage migration to production IPv6 addresses > > This would eNcourage migration to production IPv6 as the 6bone > would be 'harmed' by the nonexistent ip6.arpa delegation. Perhaps, my current feeling is that there are more end-users using 6bone address space than IPv6 production space. I have no data to back up that feeling though. Those end-users of 6bone will eventually start to demand RIR IPv6 addresses. > Also many people are moving on to RIR space, at least I think > that is what you mean that with 'production' IPv6. Yes, I do; I'll use that term instead (IPv6 RIR space) instead. > > Some points I noted, my comments are under them: > > > > + RIRs have no incentive to pull-in IPv4 and hand-out IPv6; I > > think this will guarentee even slower IPv6 rollout > > I think you are quite wrong here; See > http://www.ripe.net/ipv6/v6allocs.html 404'd > or http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ A very useful tool! > IPv6 TLA's per country > Total number of countries: 49 > > The following prefixlengths are delegated by the RIR's: > 58x /24 > 56x /28 > 240x /32 > 55x /35 > > ripe: 140 > 6bone: 134 > apnic: 93 > arin: 42 > > Hmm 134 6bone TLA's and only 140+93+42 = 275 RIR TLA's... not enough? :) Interesting; and yet end-user IPv6 is still hard to find the world over. > Only the ARIN region is quite behind, but the others are growing > rapidly. Actually I'd say that APNIC is also. > > It'd be nice if RIRs started to penalise their large transit/backbone > > operator for requesting IPv4 space but not have/using IPv6 space. It'd > > also be nice if pigs had wings too. > > ISP's/Transit providers are BUSINESSES. They have to earn money. Yes, so you'd imagine that: lower fees for RIR IPv6 coupled with additional costs for RIR IPv4 would encourage migration. Most people on this list are technical and neglect to take into account that beancounters have a lot of sway also; demonstrate that IPv6 is less costly and perhaps more organisations will commence take up. Most beancounters that I've met are very happy if they can lower their OPEX [1] (operational expenditure) by a small amount of CAPEX [1] (captial expenditure). > > + having the delegation, as far as I can tell, depend on migrating > > address management to the RIRs will only slow down IPv6 adoption. > > > > I help out on various irc channels people setup their tunnels; the > > hardest thing for most of them is to get reverse DNS gonig. When they > > discover that they have to do it twice (for ip6.int and ip6.arpa) most > > of them don't bother -- even if the work isn't much. > > Give those people clue first and probably the only reason why they > want reverse is to 'look cool on irc'. Perhaps; personally I've not encountered that. But then I lead a sheltered irc existence. > That's not a reason to do IPv6. What is? What you mean is that you don't think it is a valid reason to deploy IPv6; I'm sure a clever ISP could start to make money form it though. Vanity can earn $$$ dollars. > > Having the RIRs not delegate e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa means that > > support will be > > in place in a lot of OS for ip6.int for many years to come. > > 6bone is a testbed it ain't that critical. True; however at the moment all software has to support both ip6.int and ip6.arpa; if hostmaster@ep.net decided to they could render a whole potion of future RIRs income stream irrelevant by delegating 1.0.0.2.ip6.int to the appropriate organisations. One would imagine that the RIRs would want to safeguard that but evidently they don't. *shrug* > > > + ARIN (at least) have waived fees for IPv6 space until today > > > > it may be worthwhile seeing which way they (all RIRs) jump on > > pricing (too high and it'll discourage ISPs from taking that service). > > 6bone isn't just "free IP space for all" > Every RIR can have their own policies for delegating address space. Hence I believe it'll be useful to see what action the RIRs take. > > + 6bone may not fall under the IETF IPv6 AD responsiblity; hence the > > desire to more it "somewhere approriate". > > Could you translate that? Apparently, from the archive I read, the genesis of this transfer was because the IETF IPv6 Area Director (Randy Bush?) was/is in the process of winding up the ipngwg; the 6bone project did not fit into the terms of reference of the next one. Thus the desire to find a another home. [[ Apologies if I've got this all wrong, clarifications welcome ]] > > + IPv6 is readily available, many people said "but I have native IPv6 > > already". > > > > Unfortunately even within APNIC's region getting IPv6 service is hard; > > my ISP has as it's upstream AS701 and AS1221. Only AS1221 has IPv6 > > production addresses (even that for only a year). Despite monthly > > emails and phone calls, the sales staff (both my ISP and AS1221's) > don't > > know what IPv6 is. > > Get another uplink if you are not content with them. > > > I'm not even sure if AS701 has IPv6 production addresses. > > Even worse is > > that the other major backbone with Australia (AS7474) hasn't even got > > any (6bone or production) IPv6 addresses. > > Convince them that they should; they will probably have one big and > fairly good argument: Pay us. Actually the AS7474 people said they hadn't seen much demand; so I've setup a tunnel broker and lo' 50% of the people taking up the service are within AS747. >From what I understand from my second hand hearing of things; they are now looking at their suppliers to see which support IPv6. Unfortunately it is a large organisation so those kinds of (re)evaluations can take time. > > I feel that transferring the address allocation to RIRs (merely for > > the DNS delegation) will lead to the hastened end of the 6bone. We all > > realise the 6bone will, and must, go but I think it is too > > early at the moment. > > I read this as "because I don't have ip6.arpa my irc doesn't work". Read it as "because ip6.arpa isn't delegated growth of IPv6 demand (from end users) is slowed". > The rest of your message has nothing to do with ip6.arpa Precisely because I'm giving my feedback on the proposed address transfer. You appear to have been sidetracked by one of the smaller issues I mentioned. Regards, Anand [1]: Widely used terms within Australia, not sure about the rest of the world. -- `` 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 wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au Wed Jan 1 06:48:12 2003 From: wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au (Anand Kumria) Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 17:48:12 +1100 Subject: connect.com.au bashing was: [6bone] Address management transfer proposal In-Reply-To: References: <20021231051559.GV13306@yeenoghu.progsoc.uts.edu.au> Message-ID: <20030101064812.GY13306@yeenoghu.progsoc.uts.edu.au> [ My apologies to Mark, they wasn't meant the bashing of a specific ] [ ISP but I've somewhat tired of the glib and pat answer I hear so ] [ often such as "move ISP" or "ask harder". I've done/do both, and over ] [ the course of the year I've become convinced that we need more sticks ] [ to move people to RIR IPv6 address space ] On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 01:50:27PM +1030, Mark Prior wrote: > At 4:16 PM +1100 31/12/02, Anand Kumria wrote: > >Transfer to RIRs: > > > >Pros: > > - no single point of allocation > > - delegation of e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa > > > >Cons: > > - turns 3ffe::/16 into a service which requires payment > > There is no such thing as a free lunch and you should just get over > it. You missed the point where I said this was a summary of the archive. That was the feeling of a number of people posting around August. > >Keeping existing system: > > > >Pros: > > - no changes > > > >Cons: > > - may induce volunteer burnout > > - no e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa delegation > > - doesn't excourage migration to production IPv6 addresses > > If people want a production service then they will search it out. If Indeed, see below. > >Some points I noted, my comments are under them: > > > >+ RIRs have no incentive to pull-in IPv4 and hand-out IPv6; I think this > >will guarentee even slower IPv6 rollout > > This seems really bizarre to me. Why on earth would you want to try > to force IPv6 down someone's throat like that? Sometimes change isn't just about the carrots that are available but the sticks you can avoid if you move. > >It'd be nice if RIRs started to penalise their large transit/backbone > >operator for requesting IPv4 space but not have/using IPv6 space. It'd > >also be nice if pigs had wings too. > > Don't turn the RIRs into policemen Huh? They are already. > ("you can't have more IPv4 space > unless you show us that you are actively using that IPv6 space we > leased to you"). It is relatively easy for a tier one to obtain the > IPv6 address space Yes, look at AS2764 - they've had theirs since '99. > and even perhaps deploy it Ha! Again look as AS2764 for deployment. > but that doesn't mean customers will want to get access to it. Garbage. I'm a current customer of AS2764 and I've had no end of run arounds from both technical people and account managers. > I've worked at an ISP where we had IP multicast enabled across the > backbone and while we used it there was no customer product and no > demand to create one. One of my routers is from said ISP and their technical people still haven't figured out how to get multicast going on it. Perhaps AS2764's backbone operators knew what they are doing but certainly their customer facing engineers don't. > If the customers started beating up their account managers asking for it Rubbish. I did this. > then marketing would have come calling and something would have > happened. Nothing happened. > Similarly with IPv6, if the customers want it (and are > prepared to pay for it) then ISPs will see the revenue opportunity > and do something about it. If the customers don't ask for it then why > would an ISP waste resources deploying something that will get no > return? What, if I may ask, was the justification for IPv4 multicast within Connect then? > >I'm not even sure if AS701 has IPv6 production addresses. Even worse is > >that the other major backbone with Australia (AS7474) hasn't even got > >any (6bone or production) IPv6 addresses. > > You forgot about Connect (AS2764, 2001:210::/35). Not at all, having dealt with them all year on various technical (and account related issues) it become clear to me that whatever technical ability they once had they have managed to junk it. Here is a proposed motto for AS2764 - "Three years and proudly not announcing". Sorry if I'm seeming to pick on your ex-employer but your theory on how they operate doesn't match my experience as a customer. 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 mrp@mrp.net Wed Jan 1 09:03:09 2003 From: mrp@mrp.net (Mark Prior) Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 19:33:09 +1030 Subject: connect.com.au bashing was: [6bone] Address management transfer proposal In-Reply-To: <20030101064812.GY13306@yeenoghu.progsoc.uts.edu.au> References: <20021231051559.GV13306@yeenoghu.progsoc.uts.edu.au> <20030101064812.GY13306@yeenoghu.progsoc.uts.edu.au> Message-ID: At 5:48 PM +1100 1/1/03, Anand Kumria wrote: > > Similarly with IPv6, if the customers want it (and are >> prepared to pay for it) then ISPs will see the revenue opportunity >> and do something about it. If the customers don't ask for it then why >> would an ISP waste resources deploying something that will get no >> return? > >What, if I may ask, was the justification for IPv4 multicast within >Connect then? Internally we used it for the standard MBONE conferencing between offices. >Sorry if I'm seeming to pick on your ex-employer but your theory on how >they operate doesn't match my experience as a customer. > Well I worked for a Connect customer last year and we had a IPv6 prefix issued by Connect and were using it. If their 6Bone link is broken now then I guess noone has complained after I left. Mark. From koch@tiscali.net Wed Jan 1 11:02:10 2003 From: koch@tiscali.net (Alexander Koch) Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 12:02:10 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Address management transfer proposal In-Reply-To: <001201c2b0de$26bca240$210d640a@unfix.org> References: <20021231051559.GV13306@yeenoghu.progsoc.uts.edu.au> <001201c2b0de$26bca240$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <20030101110210.GA22116@shekinah.ip.tiscali.net> On Tue, 31 December 2002 16:06:08 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > - turns 3ffe::/16 into a service which requires payment > > Who/what says/defines that suddenly one has to 'pay' for 6bone space? Jeroen, there have been some ppl here receiving an AS number for IPv6 multi- homing (ouch, man!) which can still be done without being a RIPE LIR. Those ppl will surely not get a /32 from RIPE for free, therefore they need to pay the money. Although honestly I do not know what we will lose if this happened, if anything at all. > Also many people are moving on to RIR space, at least I think > that is what you mean that with 'production' IPv6. This is correct. I believe that as soon as we do standard filtering on 6bone space we get ugly AS paths with all tunnels under it with terrible round- trip- times. I see more and more ppl saying 'ah, we need to migrate it to these RIPE addresses' and some are even getting the point that self- made tunnels are pointless if someone two hops down the road has its backbone in Europe and the US on IPv6 completely... > Give those people clue first and probably the only reason why they > want reverse is to 'look cool on irc'. That's not a reason to do IPv6. > One can IRC quite well with IPv4 too, but then those people will > complain as they don't have I.am.the.ipv6.rular.net or similar crap. I could not have put it into words better than this. Regards, Alexander -- Alexander Koch / ako4-ripe Network Engineer, Tiscali International Network Robert-Bosch-Strasse 32, D-63303 Dreieich, Germany Phone +49 6103 916 480, Fax +49 6103 916 464 From jeroen@unfix.org Wed Jan 1 13:25:43 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 14:25:43 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Address management transfer proposal In-Reply-To: <20030101060004.GW13306@yeenoghu.progsoc.uts.edu.au> Message-ID: <000b01c2b199$4ab8e8a0$210d640a@unfix.org> 'Anand Kumria' [mailto:wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au] wrote: > On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 04:06:08PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > Who/what says/defines that suddenly one has to 'pay' for > 6bone space? > > It was part of the proposal, see > http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-ipv6/archive/2002/08/ms > g00000.html> > > 3.1 parts (c) and (d); note I didn't say "suddenly" but it will turn > 6bone into a service which requires payment. Quote from 3.1d: 8<------------------- fees will be waived for 6bone address services provided by RIRs to 6bone members (but not for other services 6bone members may require), until 1 year after this agreement starts. After this time each RIR may charge an administration fee to cover each allocation made. This fee simply covers registration and maintenance, rather than the full allocation process for standard RIR members. ----------------->8 Waived -> No Payment for the first year. After that only 'setup' costs. And that for something that is just like 'the real thing' (RIR space) and for a less cost. Organisations (not individuals) that have a good enough backbone won't really worry about a small fee like that. > Specifically from the APNIC 2001 annual report; they make USD$3620K > revenue. At least USD$581K at directly attributable to IPv4 address > space delegation. Those numbers have nothing to do with 6bone, also those are membership fees and other numbers coming from different sources. > Make no mistake that IPv6 represents a revenue threat to all RIRs. "Revenue", the RIR's are *NOT* in it for making money but for providing a *SERVICE* to their members. Again, 'money' has nothing to do with 6bone. > > > Keeping existing system: > > > > > > Pros: > > > - no changes > > > > > > Cons: > > > - may induce volunteer burnout > > > - no e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa delegation > > > - doesn't excourage migration to production IPv6 addresses > > > > This would eNcourage migration to production IPv6 as the 6bone > > would be 'harmed' by the nonexistent ip6.arpa delegation. > > Perhaps, my current feeling is that there are more end-users > using 6bone address space than IPv6 production space. I have no data to > back up that feeling though. Are those users 'testing' or using it 'production' ? If they are using the second they should be using RIR space anyways. And again, : 8<--------- ripe: 140 6bone: 134 apnic: 93 arin: 42 Hmm 134 6bone TLA's and only 140+93+42 = 275 RIR TLA's... --------->8 275 RIR TLA's is the double of 6bone and you can expect them to be used too as people are paying for the *REGISTRATION* and companies DO need to produce revenue. > Those end-users of 6bone will eventually start to demand RIR IPv6 > addresses. Indeed and that is *GOOD* as they will harrash the marketing departments of their uplink and then it will become production IPv6. > > Also many people are moving on to RIR space, at least I think > > that is what you mean that with 'production' IPv6. > > Yes, I do; I'll use that term instead (IPv6 RIR space) instead. > > > > Some points I noted, my comments are under them: > > > > > > + RIRs have no incentive to pull-in IPv4 and hand-out IPv6; I > > > think this will guarentee even slower IPv6 rollout > > > > I think you are quite wrong here; See > > http://www.ripe.net/ipv6/v6allocs.html > > 404'd http://www.ripe.net/ipv6/ipv6allocs.html Never type URL's from the head... > > or http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ > > A very useful tool! And it will be showing bogon's quite soon too, be warned abusers ;) > > Hmm 134 6bone TLA's and only 140+93+42 = 275 RIR TLA's... > not enough? :) > > Interesting; and yet end-user IPv6 is still hard to find the > world over. What do you mean with "end-user IPv6" ? You probably mean "IPv6 where people pay for" and there is enough of that in the APNIC region, you can even get IPv6 dedicated lines ;) > > Only the ARIN region is quite behind, but the others are growing > > rapidly. > > Actually I'd say that APNIC is also. APNIC region is much smaller then the RIPE region, covering europe, most part of africa and russia. Also an ISP only needs one /32 to fullfill most of it's needs currently an ISP will most of the time have multiple IPv4 /19's. These are IPv6 /32's with which you can address 2^(128-32) IP's. Which should be enough for 90% of the biggest ISP's around the globe. > > > It'd be nice if RIRs started to penalise their large > transit/backbone > > > operator for requesting IPv4 space but not have/using > IPv6 space. It'd > > > also be nice if pigs had wings too. > > > > ISP's/Transit providers are BUSINESSES. They have to earn money. > > Yes, so you'd imagine that: lower fees for RIR IPv6 coupled with > additional costs for RIR IPv4 would encourage migration. No it won't as there still is no DEMAND for IPv6. It's the same as what philips tried to do here in .nl: Make the "widescreen" (16:9 ratio) TV's cheap and the "standard" (4:3) more expensive, but that didn't make TV-stations broadcast any 16:9 programs. The only use is watching DVD's (imho 1m^2 screens are still to small though ;) > Most people on this list are technical and neglect to take > into account that beancounters have a lot of sway also; demonstrate that > IPv6 is less costly and perhaps more organisations will commence take up. > > Most beancounters that I've met are very happy if they can lower their > OPEX [1] (operational expenditure) by a small amount of CAPEX > [1] (captial expenditure). Those beancounters also say that they are doing "badly" when they didn't make the money they expected to be making even though everything is up up up and they had doubled their profits etc. They are mostly in it for the stockmarket, not for the technical savvy. > > > + having the delegation, as far as I can tell, depend on migrating > > > address management to the RIRs will only slow down IPv6 adoption. > > > > > > I help out on various irc channels people setup their tunnels; the > > > hardest thing for most of them is to get reverse DNS gonig. When they > > > discover that they have to do it twice (for ip6.int and ip6.arpa) most > > > of them don't bother -- even if the work isn't much. > > > > Give those people clue first and probably the only reason why they > > want reverse is to 'look cool on irc'. > > Perhaps; personally I've not encountered that. But then I lead a > sheltered irc existence. > > > That's not a reason to do IPv6. > > What is? What you mean is that you don't think it is a valid reason to > deploy IPv6; I'm sure a clever ISP could start to make money form it > though. Vanity can earn $$$ dollars. Vanity IRC hostnames is not a reason to do IPv6. Even though for most people it is apparently. And Vanity earns loads of money, seeing a 'free email' company having 1500 domains (.nl that is), good money for SIDN :) > > > Having the RIRs not delegate e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa means that > > > support will be > > > in place in a lot of OS for ip6.int for many years to come. > > > > 6bone is a testbed it ain't that critical. > > True; however at the moment all software has to support both > ip6.int and ip6.arpa; Is that *that* hard, it has been that way for almost two years now. Most (if not all) software understands it. > > > + 6bone may not fall under the IETF IPv6 AD > responsiblity; hence the > > > desire to more it "somewhere approriate". > > > > Could you translate that? > > Apparently, from the archive I read, the genesis of this transfer was > because the IETF IPv6 Area Director (Randy Bush?) was/is in > the process of winding up the ipngwg; the 6bone project did not fit into the terms > of reference of the next one. Thus the desire to find a another home. > > [[ Apologies if I've got this all wrong, clarifications welcome ]] That is indeed correct as ngtrans has become ipv6ops, because IPv6 is 'operational' and that 'testing' has been concluded. But as 6bone is quite broadly used they are seeking a nice way of restricting it and forcing it into the RIR's. Which is a good thing. Current 6bone TLA holders will end their actual 'productional' use of the 6bone and move to RIR space also wrapping up the endless fullmeshed tunneling. 6bone TLA holders that actually are really using their space for testing will continue to do so. But it should all go away. > > Convince them that they should; they will probably have one big and > > fairly good argument: Pay us. > > Actually the AS7474 people said they hadn't seen much demand; so I've > setup a tunnel broker and lo' 50% of the people taking up the service > are within AS747. Show the stats to AS7474 then, possibly letting them run a tunnelbroker for their endusers. This is actually why Pim and me have setup SixXS: ISP wants to give their endusers IPv6 connectivity, but they don't have the proper hardware in place to get IPv6 to their endusers. Thus they: - Get a RIR delegation. - Build a tunnelbox (simple PC or similar) - Install the SixXS software. Et tada, they can provide their users (or a specific set of prefixes etc) with IPv6 without having to go through the 'problem' of buying/upgrading their existing infrastructure. Some places (*DSL etc) simply cannot be upgraded easily or if they can it is not in the budget of that ISP. Every ISP should be able to spare a simple PC with a NIC though. > From what I understand from my second hand hearing of things; they are > now looking at their suppliers to see which support IPv6. > Unfortunately it is a large organisation so those kinds of > (re)evaluations can take time. Politics... yuck ;) > > > I feel that transferring the address allocation to RIRs > (merely for > > > the DNS delegation) will lead to the hastened end of the > 6bone. We all > > > realise the 6bone will, and must, go but I think it is too > > > early at the moment. > > > > I read this as "because I don't have ip6.arpa my irc doesn't work". > > Read it as "because ip6.arpa isn't delegated growth of IPv6 > demand (from end users) is slowed". Reverse DNS doesn't impose any problems on HTTP,SSH,Mail, actually *any* other protocol except IRC (and maybe some log programs). But still, most resolvers understand both ip6.int. and ip6.arpa. > [1]: Widely used terms within Australia, not sure about the > rest of the world. Not something one will find in non-native-english speaking at least ;) Greets, Jeroen From bob@thefinks.com Thu Jan 2 02:29:25 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 18:29:25 -0800 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021205175957.0328aed0@imap2.es.net> 6bone Folk, This is a notice of intent to reclaim pTLAs that have not been in use for quite a while (at least several months). Please review the list below. These pTLAs will be returned to the pool, pending comments to me or the list, at the end of two weeks. Please reply to me or the list prior to close of business 17 January 2003. Thanks, Bob === 3ffe:d00::/24 ANSNET/US-DC --- 3ffe:e00::/24 IFB/GB --- 3ffe:1400::/24 UNI-C/DK --- 3ffe:1700::/24 MREN/US-IL --- 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:4002::/32 MOTOROLA-LABS/US --- 3ffe:400e::/32 ECITY/IT --- 3ffe:80f0::/28 ZAMA/US --- 3ffe:8180::/28 TIAI/US --- 3ffe:82e0::/28 LDCOM/FR --- -end From jorgen@hovland.cx Thu Jan 2 14:39:40 2003 From: jorgen@hovland.cx (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen_Hovland?=) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 15:39:40 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Deallocation of 3ffe:82b0::/28 References: <005201c202b5$36be4310$0103010a@lnet.fr.ndsoftwaregroup.com> Message-ID: <018701c2b26c$c974ead0$1b29b3d5@hera> Hi folks WebOnline would like to return their 6bone prefix, 3ffe:82b0::/28 We are going to switch entirely to our subTLA. The prefix should be unadvertised within the day. We are still solving some minor issues with a few dsl-users. If it hadnt been for 6bone, we would never have got this far as we have come now. Thanks a lot. ps: When clearing up the 6bone registry I werent able to delete 1 inet6num cause of wrong password. I will try to solve this. Sincerly, WebOnline AS Joergen Hovland From bob@thefinks.com Thu Jan 2 16:07:05 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 08:07:05 -0800 Subject: [6bone] Deallocation of 3ffe:82b0::/28 In-Reply-To: <018701c2b26c$c974ead0$1b29b3d5@hera> References: <005201c202b5$36be4310$0103010a@lnet.fr.ndsoftwaregroup.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030102080456.02554478@mail.addr.com> Jørgen, At 03:39 PM 1/2/2003 +0100, Jørgen Hovland wrote: >Hi folks > > >WebOnline would like to return their 6bone prefix, 3ffe:82b0::/28 >We are going to switch entirely to our subTLA. >The prefix should be unadvertised within the day. We are still solving some >minor issues with a few dsl-users. >If it hadnt been for 6bone, we would never have got this far as we have come >now. >Thanks a lot. Thankyou for voluntarily returning your pTLA. I will mark the allocation as returned. >ps: When clearing up the 6bone registry I werent able to delete 1 inet6num >cause of wrong password. I will try to solve this. I can delete it for you if you wish. Thanks again, Bob From rogerj@student.uit.no Thu Jan 2 22:54:12 2003 From: rogerj@student.uit.no (Roger Jorgensen) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 23:54:12 +0100 (CET) Subject: [6bone] Deallocation of 3ffe:82b0::/28 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030102080456.02554478@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Bob Fink wrote: > At 03:39 PM 1/2/2003 +0100, Jørgen Hovland wrote: > >ps: When clearing up the 6bone registry I werent able to delete 1 inet6num > >cause of wrong password. I will try to solve this. > > I can delete it for you if you wish. I just deleted the last object, it should be all gone now. (I had forgot to tell Jorgen the new pw for the mnt, sorry) -- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | IRC: James_B rogerj@stud.cs.uit.no | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no ------------------------------------------------------- From nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net Fri Jan 3 00:17:03 2003 From: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net (Nicolas DEFFAYET) Date: 03 Jan 2003 01:17:03 +0100 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021205175957.0328aed0@imap2.es.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021205175957.0328aed0@imap2.es.net> Message-ID: <1041553023.1015.871.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 03:29, Bob Fink wrote: Bob, > This is a notice of intent to reclaim pTLAs that have not been in use for > quite a while (at least several months). Please review the list below. > > These pTLAs will be returned to the pool, pending comments to me or the > list, at the end of two weeks. Please reply to me or the list prior to > close of business 17 January 2003. Many pTLA owner don't read the 6bone mailing-list. I think that it can be a good idea to add them in Cc. Best Regards, -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NOC Website: http://noc.ndsoftwarenet.com/ FNIX6: http://www.fnix6.net/ From bob@thefinks.com Fri Jan 3 01:23:11 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 17:23:11 -0800 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <1041553023.1015.871.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021205175957.0328aed0@imap2.es.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205175957.0328aed0@imap2.es.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030102171928.01d728a0@mail.addr.com> Nicolas, At 01:17 AM 1/3/2003 +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: >On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 03:29, Bob Fink wrote: >Bob, > > > This is a notice of intent to reclaim pTLAs that have not been in use for > > quite a while (at least several months). Please review the list below. > > > > These pTLAs will be returned to the pool, pending comments to me or the > > list, at the end of two weeks. Please reply to me or the list prior to > > close of business 17 January 2003. > >Many pTLA owner don't read the 6bone mailing-list. I think that it can >be a good idea to add them in Cc. It is a requirement that they do per section 8. of RFC 2772. Also, many of the contacts I have tried have not worked (I'll admit I haven't tried all), or I have gotten no response. So, my feeling is that if pTLA holders aren't willing to read the 6bone list, they aren't serious about their pTLA and the 6bone. Thanks, Bob From bob@thefinks.com Fri Jan 3 01:23:16 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 17:23:16 -0800 Subject: [6bone] Deallocation of 3ffe:82b0::/28 In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030102080456.02554478@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030102171613.01d2b460@mail.addr.com> At 11:54 PM 1/2/2003 +0100, Roger Jorgensen wrote: >On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Bob Fink wrote: > > At 03:39 PM 1/2/2003 +0100, Jørgen Hovland wrote: > > > >ps: When clearing up the 6bone registry I werent able to delete 1 inet6num > > >cause of wrong password. I will try to solve this. > > > > I can delete it for you if you wish. > >I just deleted the last object, it should be all gone now. >(I had forgot to tell Jorgen the new pw for the mnt, sorry) Thanks, Bob From johann@broadpark.no Fri Jan 3 18:43:57 2003 From: johann@broadpark.no (Janine C.Buorditez) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 19:43:57 +0100 Subject: [6bone] IPv6 configuration in FreeBSD Message-ID: <20030103194357.25479fc6.johann@broadpark.no> Hello. I was just wondering whether someone could take a look at my config files available at http://www.terrabionic.com/ipv6 and tell me where I lost track. When I connect to IRC f:ex, the end prefix ::1200 (as in my configuration files) doesn't exist. Also, the reverse doesn't work. Yes, I know, I should be reading day and night and set things right by myself. But it's kind of hard when the real life needs you and you need it. Thank you. -- Johann From Q@ping.be Fri Jan 3 18:46:13 2003 From: Q@ping.be (Kurt Roeckx) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 19:46:13 +0100 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030102171928.01d728a0@mail.addr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021205175957.0328aed0@imap2.es.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205175957.0328aed0@imap2.es.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030102171928.01d728a0@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <20030103184613.GA12333@ping.be> On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 05:23:11PM -0800, Bob Fink wrote: > > It is a requirement that they do per section 8. of RFC 2772. Also, many of > the contacts I have tried have not worked (I'll admit I haven't tried all), > or I have gotten no response. I'd like to point out that I once, and I think I heard the same of others, were for some reason no longer subscribed once. I resubscribed because I found it strange not to get any mail from the list for a long period of time. Kurt From Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca Fri Jan 3 21:04:53 2003 From: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca (Marc Blanchet) Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 16:04:53 -0500 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030102171928.01d728a0@mail.addr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021205175957.0328aed0@imap2.es.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205175957.0328aed0@imap2.es.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030102171928.01d728a0@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <1517700000.1041627893@classic.viagenie.qc.ca> -- jeudi, janvier 02, 2003 17:23:11 -0800 Bob Fink wrote/a écrit: > Nicolas, > > At 01:17 AM 1/3/2003 +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: >> On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 03:29, Bob Fink wrote: >> Bob, >> >> > This is a notice of intent to reclaim pTLAs that have not been in use >> > for quite a while (at least several months). Please review the list >> > below. >> > >> > These pTLAs will be returned to the pool, pending comments to me or the >> > list, at the end of two weeks. Please reply to me or the list prior to >> > close of business 17 January 2003. >> >> Many pTLA owner don't read the 6bone mailing-list. I think that it can >> be a good idea to add them in Cc. > > It is a requirement that they do per section 8. of RFC 2772. Also, many > of the contacts I have tried have not worked (I'll admit I haven't tried > all), or I have gotten no response. > > So, my feeling is that if pTLA holders aren't willing to read the 6bone > list, they aren't serious about their pTLA and the 6bone. Bob, I agree, but at the same time, we are talking about loosing the use of a large address space. Care should be taken to make sure that the owner has the chance to respond. To me, 2 weeks email sent to a mailing list is not fair. Because: - one might watch the 6bone mailing list once a while - he might be on vacation. (Many continue to read personal email but would delay any mailing list emails during vacation) - ... So I think should give them more time (1 month?) and send the email to all the contacts attached to the 6bone object in the registry. Regards, Marc. > > > Thanks, > > Bob > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > From wmaton@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca Fri Jan 3 21:25:38 2003 From: wmaton@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca (William F. Maton) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:25:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <1517700000.1041627893@classic.viagenie.qc.ca> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021205175957.0328aed0@imap2.es.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205175957.0328aed0@imap2.es.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030102171928.01d728a0@mail.addr.com> <1517700000.1041627893@classic.viagenie.qc.ca> Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Marc Blanchet wrote: > > So, my feeling is that if pTLA holders aren't willing to read the 6bone > > list, they aren't serious about their pTLA and the 6bone. > > Bob, I agree, but at the same time, we are talking about loosing the use of > a large address space. Care should be taken to make sure that the owner has > the chance to respond. I agree. > So I think should give them more time (1 month?) and send the email to all > the contacts attached to the 6bone object in the registry. Hmmm...given that holidays of somewhat long duration can happen, aside from indiustry turbulence, how about 6 weeks from the initial notice and have a second notice 3 weeks into that? wfms From jeroen@unfix.org Fri Jan 3 22:20:50 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 23:20:50 +0100 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <1517700000.1041627893@classic.viagenie.qc.ca> Message-ID: <003401c2b376$5fc9f8e0$210d640a@unfix.org> Marc Blanchet wrote: > Bob, I agree, but at the same time, we are talking about > loosing the use of > a large address space. Care should be taken to make sure that > the owner has > the chance to respond. Check http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/6bone. All the prefixes Bob has put up for reclaim have not been announced for at least a month now. And most of them have been known for not being announced before that either. Apparently none of the multiple contact are available for reading either the 6bone list and/or their private mailboxes. Also there is this nice requirement that a pTLA holder should respond in a timely fashion and 1 month is not a timely fashion. Greets, Jeroen From dr@cluenet.de Fri Jan 3 22:43:46 2003 From: dr@cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 23:43:46 +0100 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <1517700000.1041627893@classic.viagenie.qc.ca>; from Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca on Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 04:04:53PM -0500 References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021205175957.0328aed0@imap2.es.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205175957.0328aed0@imap2.es.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030102171928.01d728a0@mail.addr.com> <1517700000.1041627893@classic.viagenie.qc.ca> Message-ID: <20030103234346.A16394@homebase.cluenet.de> On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 04:04:53PM -0500, Marc Blanchet wrote: > Bob, I agree, but at the same time, we are talking about loosing the use of > a large address space. Care should be taken to make sure that the owner has > the chance to respond. If the netblock was not announced for many months, it obviously wasn't used. The holder may re-apply at any time for a new block. If he/she has use for it, they will comply again (or not). Too much poking around provokes mostly a single thing: that people start announcing the route so their allocations doesn't get withdrawn ("we might need it sometime in the remote future" effect). I'd vote for an auto-withdrawl after x months of non-visibility of the announcement. For my taste, x<=3. It's up to the holder to be active, not to 6bone to run after them... Just my 0.02? Regards, Daniel From Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca Fri Jan 3 23:07:01 2003 From: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca (Marc Blanchet) Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 18:07:01 -0500 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <003401c2b376$5fc9f8e0$210d640a@unfix.org> References: <003401c2b376$5fc9f8e0$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <1622910000.1041635221@classic.viagenie.qc.ca> -- vendredi, janvier 03, 2003 23:20:50 +0100 Jeroen Massar wrote/a écrit: > Marc Blanchet wrote: > >> Bob, I agree, but at the same time, we are talking about >> loosing the use of >> a large address space. Care should be taken to make sure that >> the owner has >> the chance to respond. > > Check http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/6bone. > > All the prefixes Bob has put up for reclaim have not been announced > for at least a month now. And most of them have been known for not > being announced before that either. Apparently none of the multiple > contact are available for reading either the 6bone list and/or their > private mailboxes. I do agree that probably most if not all of the prefix on the list are "dead". Again, I think it is just more fair to make sure they have enough chance to respond. Marc. > > Also there is this nice requirement that a pTLA holder should respond > in a timely fashion and 1 month is not a timely fashion. > > Greets, > Jeroen > ------------------------------------------ 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 ajs@labs.mot.com Fri Jan 3 23:26:50 2003 From: ajs@labs.mot.com (Aron Silverton) Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 17:26:50 -0600 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 References: <003401c2b376$5fc9f8e0$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <3E161C3A.3070507@labs.mot.com> Jeroen Massar wrote: > Marc Blanchet wrote: > > >>Bob, I agree, but at the same time, we are talking about >>loosing the use of >>a large address space. Care should be taken to make sure that >>the owner has >>the chance to respond. > > > Check http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/6bone. > > All the prefixes Bob has put up for reclaim have not been announced > for at least a month now. And most of them have been known for not > being announced before that either. Apparently none of the multiple > contact are available for reading either the 6bone list and/or their > private mailboxes. How did you come to this conclusion that none of the contacts are available and that they do not read the 6bone list and/or their private mailboxes? Some of those contacts do read the list regularly, correspond off-list with other list members, check their personal email daily, and have contacted Bob Fink regarding the matter at hand. Please do not make generalizations that include me until you have tried to send me an email or seen me blatantly ignore a request directed specifically to me on the list. > > Also there is this nice requirement that a pTLA holder should respond > in a timely fashion and 1 month is not a timely fashion. I responded within minutes to Bob, and per his request, will provide status to the list in the near future. > > Greets, > Jeroen > Regards, Aron -- Aron J. Silverton Senior Staff Research Engineer Motorola Laboratories, Networks and Infrastructure Research Motorola, Inc. From jeroen@unfix.org Fri Jan 3 23:35:53 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 00:35:53 +0100 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <3E161C3A.3070507@labs.mot.com> Message-ID: <003e01c2b380$dbfde2f0$210d640a@unfix.org> Aron Silverton [mailto:ajs@labs.mot.com] wrote: > Jeroen Massar wrote: > > Marc Blanchet wrote: > > > > > >>Bob, I agree, but at the same time, we are talking about > >>loosing the use of > >>a large address space. Care should be taken to make sure that > >>the owner has > >>the chance to respond. > > > > > > Check http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/6bone. > > > > All the prefixes Bob has put up for reclaim have not been announced > > for at least a month now. And most of them have been known for not > > being announced before that either. Apparently none of the multiple > > contact are available for reading either the 6bone list and/or their > > private mailboxes. > > How did you come to this conclusion that none of the contacts are > available and that they do not read the 6bone list and/or > their private mailboxes? Some of those contacts do read the list regularly, > correspond off-list with other list members, check their > personal email daily, and have contacted Bob Fink regarding the matter at > hand. Please do not make generalizations that include me until you have > tried to send me an email or seen me blatantly ignore a request directed > specifically to me on the list. Whoa.... you are taking this personal now are you? If you have contacted Bob, you don't have nothing to 'worry' about. Bob was contacted by some of the TLA holders, apparently that includes you. > > Also there is this nice requirement that a pTLA holder should respond > > in a timely fashion and 1 month is not a timely fashion. > > I responded within minutes to Bob, and per his request, will provide > status to the list in the near future. Perfect! Then there should be no problem whatsoever. :) Also I remember something concerning the Motorola Labs prefix being used internally etc, at least something like that passed these lists a couple of months ago. Greets, Jeroen From dr@cluenet.de Fri Jan 3 23:46:06 2003 From: dr@cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 00:46:06 +0100 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <1622910000.1041635221@classic.viagenie.qc.ca>; from Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca on Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 06:07:01PM -0500 References: <003401c2b376$5fc9f8e0$210d640a@unfix.org> <1622910000.1041635221@classic.viagenie.qc.ca> Message-ID: <20030104004606.A16890@homebase.cluenet.de> On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 06:07:01PM -0500, Marc Blanchet wrote: > I do agree that probably most if not all of the prefix on the list > are "dead". Again, I think it is just more fair to make sure they > have enough chance to respond. What what you take as an (for 6BONE, not you personally) acceptable reply which would lead to non-reclaiming? "Oh, we forgot about it"? "Oops, we had a misconfig thus it was not announced... Fixed now"? "We didn't need it [anymore] but might need it sometime in the future"? [please add your own variants, the above ones were just off my head] Again, we are speaking about prefixes not being announced for _months_. Regards, Daniel From matrix@miracle1.net Sat Jan 4 00:37:55 2003 From: matrix@miracle1.net (phrost) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 18:37:55 -0600 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <20030104004606.A16890@homebase.cluenet.de>; from dr@cluenet.de on Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 12:46:06AM +0100 References: <003401c2b376$5fc9f8e0$210d640a@unfix.org> <1622910000.1041635221@classic.viagenie.qc.ca> <20030104004606.A16890@homebase.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <20030103183755.A33502@miracle1.net> I would accept a reply of "We are having physical connection problems and are unable to advertise our prefix at the current time". But thats just me, if it truly won't be used or has been neglected then I can see reclaiming it. -Jeremy VLINK On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 12:46:06AM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 06:07:01PM -0500, Marc Blanchet wrote: > > I do agree that probably most if not all of the prefix on the list > > are "dead". Again, I think it is just more fair to make sure they > > have enough chance to respond. > > What what you take as an (for 6BONE, not you personally) acceptable > reply which would lead to non-reclaiming? > > "Oh, we forgot about it"? > "Oops, we had a misconfig thus it was not announced... Fixed now"? > "We didn't need it [anymore] but might need it sometime in the future"? > > [please add your own variants, the above ones were just off my head] > > Again, we are speaking about prefixes not being announced for _months_. > > > Regards, > Daniel > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From bob@thefinks.com Sat Jan 4 01:27:33 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 17:27:33 -0800 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <1517700000.1041627893@classic.viagenie.qc.ca> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030102171928.01d728a0@mail.addr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205175957.0328aed0@imap2.es.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205175957.0328aed0@imap2.es.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030102171928.01d728a0@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030103171718.01d43ad0@mail.addr.com> Marc, and others responding on this point, Let's wait for the two weeks and see who replies. I will make an attempt in each no-reply case to notify the listed contacts before a final action. I appreciate both sides of this: being considerate of 6bone pTLA holders, and holding a reasonable standard of compliance to our rules. Thanks, Bob === At 04:04 PM 1/3/2003 -0500, Marc Blanchet wrote: >-- jeudi, janvier 02, 2003 17:23:11 -0800 Bob Fink >wrote/a écrit: > > > Nicolas, > > > > At 01:17 AM 1/3/2003 +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > >> On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 03:29, Bob Fink wrote: > >> Bob, > >> > >> > This is a notice of intent to reclaim pTLAs that have not been in use > >> > for quite a while (at least several months). Please review the list > >> > below. > >> > > >> > These pTLAs will be returned to the pool, pending comments to me or the > >> > list, at the end of two weeks. Please reply to me or the list prior to > >> > close of business 17 January 2003. > >> > >> Many pTLA owner don't read the 6bone mailing-list. I think that it can > >> be a good idea to add them in Cc. > > > > It is a requirement that they do per section 8. of RFC 2772. Also, many > > of the contacts I have tried have not worked (I'll admit I haven't tried > > all), or I have gotten no response. > > > > So, my feeling is that if pTLA holders aren't willing to read the 6bone > > list, they aren't serious about their pTLA and the 6bone. > >Bob, I agree, but at the same time, we are talking about loosing the use of >a large address space. Care should be taken to make sure that the owner has >the chance to respond. > >To me, 2 weeks email sent to a mailing list is not fair. Because: >- one might watch the 6bone mailing list once a while >- he might be on vacation. (Many continue to read personal email but would >delay any mailing list emails during vacation) >- ... > >So I think should give them more time (1 month?) and send the email to all >the contacts attached to the 6bone object in the registry. > >Regards, Marc. > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bob > > _______________________________________________ > > 6bone mailing list > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > From dr@cluenet.de Sat Jan 4 02:13:27 2003 From: dr@cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 03:13:27 +0100 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <20030103183755.A33502@miracle1.net>; from matrix@miracle1.net on Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 06:37:55PM -0600 References: <003401c2b376$5fc9f8e0$210d640a@unfix.org> <1622910000.1041635221@classic.viagenie.qc.ca> <20030104004606.A16890@homebase.cluenet.de> <20030103183755.A33502@miracle1.net> Message-ID: <20030104031327.A17865@homebase.cluenet.de> On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 06:37:55PM -0600, phrost wrote: > I would accept a reply of "We are having physical connection > problems and are unable to advertise our prefix at the current time". How would that be in compliance with RFC2772, Section 7, point 2? "The pTLA Applicant MUST have the ability and intent to provide "production-quality" 6Bone backbone service." Someone not announcing the route for several months obviously neither intends nor is able to provide any backbone service, let alone "production-quality". I'm actually quite curious what the outcome of this discussion will be... Regards, Daniel From Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca Sat Jan 4 02:16:05 2003 From: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca (Marc Blanchet) Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 21:16:05 -0500 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030103171718.01d43ad0@mail.addr.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030102171928.01d728a0@mail.addr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205175957.0328aed0@imap2.es.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205175957.0328aed0@imap2.es.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030102171928.01d728a0@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030103171718.01d43ad0@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <1769030000.1041646565@classic.viagenie.qc.ca> -- vendredi, janvier 03, 2003 17:27:33 -0800 Bob Fink wrote/a écrit: > Marc, and others responding on this point, > > Let's wait for the two weeks and see who replies. I will make an attempt > in each no-reply case to notify the listed contacts before a final action. great. > > I appreciate both sides of this: being considerate of 6bone pTLA holders, > and holding a reasonable standard of compliance to our rules. I know you are and always been. Thanks, Marc. > > > Thanks, > > Bob > > > === > At 04:04 PM 1/3/2003 -0500, Marc Blanchet wrote: > > >> -- jeudi, janvier 02, 2003 17:23:11 -0800 Bob Fink >> wrote/a écrit: >> >> > Nicolas, >> > >> > At 01:17 AM 1/3/2003 +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: >> >> On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 03:29, Bob Fink wrote: >> >> Bob, >> >> >> >> > This is a notice of intent to reclaim pTLAs that have not been in >> >> > use for quite a while (at least several months). Please review the >> >> > list below. >> >> > >> >> > These pTLAs will be returned to the pool, pending comments to me or >> >> > the list, at the end of two weeks. Please reply to me or the list >> >> > prior to close of business 17 January 2003. >> >> >> >> Many pTLA owner don't read the 6bone mailing-list. I think that it can >> >> be a good idea to add them in Cc. >> > >> > It is a requirement that they do per section 8. of RFC 2772. Also, many >> > of the contacts I have tried have not worked (I'll admit I haven't >> > tried all), or I have gotten no response. >> > >> > So, my feeling is that if pTLA holders aren't willing to read the 6bone >> > list, they aren't serious about their pTLA and the 6bone. >> >> Bob, I agree, but at the same time, we are talking about loosing the use >> of a large address space. Care should be taken to make sure that the >> owner has the chance to respond. >> >> To me, 2 weeks email sent to a mailing list is not fair. Because: >> - one might watch the 6bone mailing list once a while >> - he might be on vacation. (Many continue to read personal email but >> would delay any mailing list emails during vacation) >> - ... >> >> So I think should give them more time (1 month?) and send the email to >> all the contacts attached to the 6bone object in the registry. >> >> Regards, Marc. >> >> > >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Bob >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 6bone mailing list >> > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu >> > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone >> > > ------------------------------------------ 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 jeroen@unfix.org Sat Jan 4 02:41:20 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 03:41:20 +0100 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030103171718.01d43ad0@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <000b01c2b39a$c49093a0$210d640a@unfix.org> Bob Fink wrote: > Marc, and others responding on this point, > > Let's wait for the two weeks and see who replies. I will make > an attempt in each no-reply case to notify the listed contacts before a > final action. > > I appreciate both sides of this: being considerate of 6bone > pTLA holders, and holding a reasonable standard of compliance to our rules. It doesn't matter if it takes two weeks or two months. The prefixes aren't causing any 'damage'. It's just 'sloppy' to have them around and some people could argue that they would have better things for that ip space. As this has been set in motion they will be cleansed, if it's two weeks or a month, doesn't matter that much. At least too me. The TLA holders who didn't reply at the final date simply show the community how much worth they give to 6bone ;( If they where causing harm though it would be a totally different matter. Greets, Jeroen From bob@thefinks.com Sat Jan 4 01:12:34 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 17:12:34 -0800 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <20030103184613.GA12333@ping.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030102171928.01d728a0@mail.addr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205175957.0328aed0@imap2.es.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021205175957.0328aed0@imap2.es.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20030102171928.01d728a0@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030103171204.01d96bd0@mail.addr.com> At 07:46 PM 1/3/2003 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: >On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 05:23:11PM -0800, Bob Fink wrote: > > > > It is a requirement that they do per section 8. of RFC 2772. Also, many of > > the contacts I have tried have not worked (I'll admit I haven't tried > all), > > or I have gotten no response. > >I'd like to point out that I once, and I think I heard the same >of others, were for some reason no longer subscribed once. I >resubscribed because I found it strange not to get any mail from >the list for a long period of time. Let's hope that's behind us and was only a function of the address list software change that happened. Bob From keshavaak@huawei.com Sat Jan 4 08:41:54 2003 From: keshavaak@huawei.com (Keshava Ayanur) Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 16:41:54 +0800 Subject: [6bone] DAD scope ?? Message-ID: <000201c2b3cd$22def5a0$68226e0a@HUAWEI.COM> I would like to know Duplicate Address detection (DAD) scope is only for link - for link local address Or it appilies even for site - for site local address global - for global unicast address. Thanks keshava From bmanning@ISI.EDU Sat Jan 4 10:07:24 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 02:07:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <20030104031327.A17865@homebase.cluenet.de> from Daniel Roesen at "Jan 4, 3 03:13:27 am" Message-ID: <200301041007.h04A7OQ06625@boreas.isi.edu> % On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 06:37:55PM -0600, phrost wrote: % > I would accept a reply of "We are having physical connection % > problems and are unable to advertise our prefix at the current time". % % How would that be in compliance with RFC2772, Section 7, point 2? % % "The pTLA Applicant MUST have the ability and intent to provide % "production-quality" 6Bone backbone service." % % Someone not announcing the route for several months obviously neither % intends nor is able to provide any backbone service, let alone % "production-quality". % % I'm actually quite curious what the outcome of this discussion % will be... % % % Regards, % Daniel For a number of pTLA holders, the delegations were made well prior to RFC 2772 being released. Historically, delegations (of any sort, including IPv4) were only bound by the rules in effect when the delegations were made. There have been, over the past 15 years, a number of instances where due to funding, internal direction, etc. organizations will place R&E and development projects on hold for months or years. This proposal, as I understand it) will remove delegations without recourse. Seems a bit heavy-handed to me, esp. given the large number of other choices available. --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 kni501ss@optushome.com.au Fri Jan 3 04:32:50 2003 From: kni501ss@optushome.com.au (Marco Grigull) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 14:32:50 +1000 Subject: [6bone] IPv6 Mini-Conference Update In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021224131839.01b43400@mail.iprimus.com.au> Message-ID: <20030103143250.3fa14d4b.kni501ss@optushome.com.au> On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 13:08:42 +0800 "Gav" wrote: > Hi Trent, > > I would have loved to go to this event but, having only recently moved > from the UK to Perth WA (September) and not having been able to > get any work yet, I am unable to afford the costs involved (even the Student > prices). See the local/organising linux/unix group about 'group?' tickets through the user group. Im not going, im on the other coast, but I went to last years LCA thru the local user group for about $60.... > I would only have gone on the 20th and not the other days involved. > > I wonder if maybe there would be a summary of events and lectures posted to > your web site some time after the event.? > I too, would be interested in these... Cheers, MArco From pekkas@netcore.fi Sat Jan 4 15:56:58 2003 From: pekkas@netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 17:56:58 +0200 (EET) Subject: [6bone] DAD scope ?? In-Reply-To: <000201c2b3cd$22def5a0$68226e0a@HUAWEI.COM> Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Keshava Ayanur wrote: > Duplicate Address detection (DAD) scope is only for > Or it appilies even for > > site - for site local address > global - for global unicast address. All. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords From bob@thefinks.com Sun Jan 5 01:10:26 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 17:10:26 -0800 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <200301041007.h04A7OQ06625@boreas.isi.edu> References: <20030104031327.A17865@homebase.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030104170237.01d55cb0@mail.addr.com> Bill, At 02:07 AM 1/4/2003 -0800, Bill Manning wrote: >... For a number of pTLA holders, the delegations were made > well prior to RFC 2772 being released. Historically, > delegations (of any sort, including IPv4) were only bound > by the rules in effect when the delegations were made. > > There have been, over the past 15 years, a number of instances > where due to funding, internal direction, etc. organizations will > place R&E and development projects on hold for months or years. > > This proposal, as I understand it) will remove delegations > without recourse. Seems a bit heavy-handed to me, esp. given > the large number of other choices available. Good points, though the "without recourse" is not so. Several have contacted me already with some reason or another as to why they aren't up at the moment, and my position is to let them make a proposal to the list as to what and when they intend to do. Let's wait to see what folks say. By the way, what did you mean when you say "other choices available"? Thanks, Bob From bmanning@ISI.EDU Sun Jan 5 02:27:17 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 18:27:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030104170237.01d55cb0@mail.addr.com> from Bob Fink at "Jan 4, 3 05:10:26 pm" Message-ID: <200301050227.h052RHI29049@boreas.isi.edu> % Bill, % % At 02:07 AM 1/4/2003 -0800, Bill Manning wrote: % >... For a number of pTLA holders, the delegations were made % > well prior to RFC 2772 being released. Historically, % > delegations (of any sort, including IPv4) were only bound % > by the rules in effect when the delegations were made. % > % > There have been, over the past 15 years, a number of instances % > where due to funding, internal direction, etc. organizations will % > place R&E and development projects on hold for months or years. % > % > This proposal, as I understand it) will remove delegations % > without recourse. Seems a bit heavy-handed to me, esp. given % > the large number of other choices available. % % Good points, though the "without recourse" is not so. Several have % contacted me already with some reason or another as to why they aren't up % at the moment, and my position is to let them make a proposal to the list % as to what and when they intend to do. Let's wait to see what folks say. % % By the way, what did you mean when you say "other choices available"? % Thanks, cleaning up the 6bone delegations is a noble and worthwhile effort, however the effect of just "abandoning in place" is almost simpler. If it was up to me, I'd stop doing delegations in the 3ffe:: space for the next 10 years. Then set up an periodic/quarterly "check", perhaps with the normal cidr reports to see which prefixes are still being used/announced. Encourage the RIRs to "remind" requestors of IPv6 space that they should withdraw 3ffe:: entries when the 2001:: entries are being used. Follow up in four/five years and fine out why there are still 3ffe:: prefixes in use. Persuade those that hold 3ffe:: space to consider moving the 3ffe:: addresses to only those delegations/assignments that reflect IPv6 tunnels over IPv4 infrastructure. (a pet project of mine) wrt other choices, here are a couple: 2002:: space "glbly unique" site locals link-local RIR - 2001:: space It is my humble opinon that its not worth the amount of effort that is being spent to kill off folk using 3ffe:: space. That energy could be better spent in other ways. --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 Sun Jan 5 02:35:18 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 18:35:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030104170237.01d55cb0@mail.addr.com> from Bob Fink at "Jan 4, 3 05:10:26 pm" Message-ID: <200301050235.h052ZI600750@boreas.isi.edu> % > There have been, over the past 15 years, a number of instances % > where due to funding, internal direction, etc. organizations will % > place R&E and development projects on hold for months or years. % > % > This proposal, as I understand it) will remove delegations % > without recourse. Seems a bit heavy-handed to me, esp. given % > the large number of other choices available. % % Good points, though the "without recourse" is not so. Several have % contacted me already with some reason or another as to why they aren't up % at the moment, and my position is to let them make a proposal to the list % as to what and when they intend to do. Let's wait to see what folks say. Hum. from my recollection, one entity with 3ffe space closed its development facility for two years before restarting it. In that period of time, you could not find -anyone- who would claim to speak authoritatively for the delegation. and unless all pTLA holders agree to be bound by RFC 2772 guidelines, they will have reason to complain (legally?) that their delegations are being withdrawn unfairly. (while it may not happen, in these litigious days, it is a distinct possibility) I hope that you can get all the effected parties to respond, on the list, with the queries made and potential responses/proposals. --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 bob@thefinks.com Sun Jan 5 02:41:24 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 18:41:24 -0800 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <200301050227.h052RHI29049@boreas.isi.edu> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030104170237.01d55cb0@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030104184050.00b5d188@mail.addr.com> Bill, At 06:27 PM 1/4/2003 -0800, Bill Manning wrote: >... >% By the way, what did you mean when you say "other choices available"? >% Thanks, > > cleaning up the 6bone delegations is a noble and worthwhile > effort, however the effect of just "abandoning in place" > is almost simpler. If it was up to me, I'd stop doing delegations > in the 3ffe:: space for the next 10 years. Then set up an > periodic/quarterly "check", perhaps with the normal cidr reports > to see > which prefixes are still being used/announced. Encourage the > RIRs to "remind" requestors of IPv6 space that they should > withdraw 3ffe:: entries when the 2001:: entries are being used. > Follow up in four/five years and fine out why there are still 3ffe:: > prefixes in use. > > Persuade those that hold 3ffe:: space to consider moving the > 3ffe:: addresses to only those delegations/assignments that reflect > IPv6 tunnels over IPv4 infrastructure. (a pet project of mine) > > wrt other choices, here are a couple: > > 2002:: space > "glbly unique" site locals > link-local > RIR - 2001:: space > > > It is my humble opinon that its not worth the amount of effort that > is being spent to kill off folk using 3ffe:: space. That energy could > be better spent in other ways. Thanks for your comments. Bob From michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us Sun Jan 5 02:58:08 2003 From: michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 18:58:08 -0800 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 Message-ID: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046405E545@server2000> 6boner, If my memory is correct, the purpose of a pTLA is to experiment being an IPv6 ISP, which includes having some "customers". If someone has not announced their prefix for months, it means they don't provide IPv6 connectivity to anybody and that tells me that they don't do enough in order to justify a pTLA. There have been too many people that got a pTLA as a placeholder for portable address space and I agree that we should reclaim pTLAs from people that don't use them. Michel. From bmanning@ISI.EDU Sun Jan 5 04:00:46 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 20:00:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046405E545@server2000> from Michel Py at "Jan 4, 3 06:58:08 pm" Message-ID: <200301050400.h0540kU22238@boreas.isi.edu> % 6boner, % % If my memory is correct, the purpose of a pTLA is to experiment being an % IPv6 ISP, which includes having some "customers". If someone has not % announced their prefix for months, it means they don't provide IPv6 % connectivity to anybody and that tells me that they don't do enough in % order to justify a pTLA. % % There have been too many people that got a pTLA as a placeholder for % portable address space and I agree that we should reclaim pTLAs from % people that don't use them. % % Michel. % Your memory does not match mine. A pTLA is for experimenting (getting comfortable) with IPv6. There was no intimation that these delegations required "ISPness". Your insinuations wrt folks that received pTLA delegations is disengenious at best. You might be wise to back your assertions with facts, on the list. --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 pim@ipng.nl Sun Jan 5 11:42:59 2003 From: pim@ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 12:42:59 +0100 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021205175957.0328aed0@imap2.es.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021205175957.0328aed0@imap2.es.net> Message-ID: <20030105114259.GF17943@bfib.colo.bit.nl> On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 06:29:25PM -0800, Bob Fink wrote: | 6bone Folk, | | This is a notice of intent to reclaim pTLAs that have not been in use for | quite a while (at least several months). Please review the list below. | | These pTLAs will be returned to the pool, pending comments to me or the | list, at the end of two weeks. Please reply to me or the list prior to | close of business 17 January 2003. Let me start by saying I commend you for taking measures to ensure the continued use of pTLA allocations by former applicants. Thanks! I do agree with Marc however that we should take caution and not return pTLAs for others if they do not (adequately) read the 6bone mailinglist. Allthough there's also something to say for simply revoking pTLAs if there is no response on the 6bone mailinglist (and make it a non-negotiatable and enforced rule). As a last measure, after say 1 month of inactivity, may I suggest we place a telephonecall to the ISP in question (contacts to be found via the AS number or IPv4 route objects) to see if there's anybody left at the site doing IPv6. -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From pim@ipng.nl Sun Jan 5 11:51:11 2003 From: pim@ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 12:51:11 +0100 Subject: [6bone] DAD scope ?? In-Reply-To: <000201c2b3cd$22def5a0$68226e0a@HUAWEI.COM> References: <000201c2b3cd$22def5a0$68226e0a@HUAWEI.COM> Message-ID: <20030105115111.GG17943@bfib.colo.bit.nl> On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 04:41:54PM +0800, Keshava Ayanur wrote: | I would like to know | | Duplicate Address detection (DAD) scope is only for | link - for link local address | Or it appilies even for | | site - for site local address | global - for global unicast address. Keshava, DAD is used by nodes on a local wire that can see each other (ie, they are link-local) to check if the address that they would like to use, is perhaps already in use by another device. It is pointless to try DAD in global address space at least, because the prefix that your router uses is guaranteed to be unique anyway. For site-local prefixes, I am almost certain that they are not checked with DAD. The answer to your question is thus: DAD is only for the linklocal scope. -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From pim@ipng.nl Sun Jan 5 11:52:13 2003 From: pim@ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 12:52:13 +0100 Subject: [6bone] DAD scope ?? In-Reply-To: References: <000201c2b3cd$22def5a0$68226e0a@HUAWEI.COM> Message-ID: <20030105115213.GH17943@bfib.colo.bit.nl> On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 05:56:58PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: | On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Keshava Ayanur wrote: | > Duplicate Address detection (DAD) scope is only for | > Or it appilies even for | > | > site - for site local address | > global - for global unicast address. | | All. How would I do DAD for a global scope address ? ICMPv6-ND does not seem appropriate and ICMPv6-echo is surely not what you want. groet, Pim -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From pekkas@netcore.fi Sun Jan 5 17:14:18 2003 From: pekkas@netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 19:14:18 +0200 (EET) Subject: [6bone] DAD scope ?? In-Reply-To: <20030105115213.GH17943@bfib.colo.bit.nl> Message-ID: On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Pim van Pelt wrote: > On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 05:56:58PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > | On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Keshava Ayanur wrote: > | > Duplicate Address detection (DAD) scope is only for > | > Or it appilies even for > | > > | > site - for site local address > | > global - for global unicast address. > | > | All. > > How would I do DAD for a global scope address ? The same as with link-local addresses. > ICMPv6-ND does not seem > appropriate and ICMPv6-echo is surely not what you want. There seems to be some confusion here. DAD is used to guarantee uniqueness of an address on a _link_ (or possibly on a subnet) -- the same for any kind of address, not uniqueness within a scope (e.g. DAD for a global address does not mean it's globally unique). Hope this clarifies. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords From michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us Sun Jan 5 20:18:03 2003 From: michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 12:18:03 -0800 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 Message-ID: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B04640BD5A7@server2000> > Bill Manning wrote: > Your insinuations wrt folks that received pTLA delegations > is disengenious at best. You might be wise to back your > assertions with facts, on the list. If you want to wash dirty laundry in public I strongly suggest you get Bob Fink's ok first. Michel. From michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us Sun Jan 5 20:25:25 2003 From: michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 12:25:25 -0800 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 Message-ID: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B04640BD5A8@server2000> > Bill Manning wrote: > Your memory does not match mine. A pTLA is for experimenting > (getting comfortable) with IPv6. There was no intimation that > these delegations required "ISPness". Maybe you could refresh your memory by re-reading RFC2772, Section 7, point 2 as quoted by Daniel yesterday: > "The pTLA Applicant MUST have the ability and intent to provide > "production-quality" 6Bone backbone service." "Provide service". That does not mean any ISPness, does it? Michel. From pim@ipng.nl Sun Jan 5 20:48:24 2003 From: pim@ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 21:48:24 +0100 Subject: [6bone] DAD scope ?? In-Reply-To: References: <20030105115213.GH17943@bfib.colo.bit.nl> Message-ID: <20030105204824.GA11592@bfib.colo.bit.nl> | > How would I do DAD for a global scope address ? | | The same as with link-local addresses. | | > ICMPv6-ND does not seem | > appropriate and ICMPv6-echo is surely not what you want. | | There seems to be some confusion here. DAD is used to guarantee | uniqueness of an address on a _link_ (or possibly on a subnet) -- the same | for any kind of address, not uniqueness within a scope (e.g. DAD for a | global address does not mean it's globally unique). DAD for a global address does not mean it's globally unique, but that the address is not in use by other devices on the link. I see your point. Taken that way, DAD is performed using the linklocal scope, but FOR any given scope. Makes sense :) -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us Mon Jan 6 03:24:58 2003 From: michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 19:24:58 -0800 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 Message-ID: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046405E546@server2000> >> phrost wrote: >> I would accept a reply of "We are having physical >> connection problems and are unable to advertise our prefix >> at the current time". > Daniel Roesen wrote: > How would that be in compliance with RFC2772, Section 7, > point 2? > "The pTLA Applicant MUST have the ability and intent to > provide "production-quality" 6Bone backbone service." > Someone not announcing the route for several months obviously > neither intends nor is able to provide any backbone service, > let alone "production-quality". I agree with Daniel. Being out a few days, can happen; backhoe fate, bozo fate, does happen. Several months, give me a break. How many pTLAs can seriously say they have been disconnected from their IPv4 service for several MONTHS? Gee, when my line goes down for more than 15 minutes I'm already screaming. Michel. From David.Gavarret@ldcom.fr Mon Jan 6 09:53:51 2003 From: David.Gavarret@ldcom.fr (Gavarret, David) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:53:51 +0100 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment pe riod closes 17 January 2003 Message-ID: <417CBD1413A1D411BD3200306E00C18C032272E6@lcopar21.ldcom.fr> 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_01C2B569.8434C6C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" 6bone Folk, further to the notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs Bob sent last week, here are some informations about our IPv6 platform here at LDCOM Networks (that has been attributed prefix 3FFE:82e0::/28 on Dec, 13 2001). Our work on IPv6 started in mid-2001 with a first platform, that grew up til July 2002. Besides, we started to build a new better-sized platform, that should have been ready for Q4 2002. But due to internal reorganization, planning has been delayed, and when the first platform encountered many problems in July 02, we have been forced to shut down it, without having a backup solution. However, I am a bit surprised because of the "Never Seen" status of our prefix in the SixXS Ghost Route board, as our prefix always been announced til the major problem in July (ok, that makes a very long time). Anyway, we should have finished everything needed to restart our platform before the end of the month. That is why we would like to ask you to give us a delay to let us announce again the prefix you attributed us, before taking any action (even if, I agree with that point, we did not entirely respect RFC2772). Regards, David Gavarret LDCOM Networks ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B569.8434C6C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment per= iod closes 17 January 2003

6bone Folk,

further to the notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs= Bob sent last week, here are some informations about our IPv6 platform h= ere at LDCOM Networks (that has been attributed prefix 3FFE:82e0::/28 on = Dec, 13 2001).

Our work on IPv6 started in mid-2001 with a first platf= orm, that grew up til July 2002. Besides, we started to build a new bette= r-sized platform, that should have been ready for Q4 2002. But due to int= ernal reorganization, planning has been delayed, and when the first platf= orm encountered many problems in July 02, we have been forced to shut dow= n it, without having a backup solution.

However, I am a bit surprised because of the "Neve= r Seen" status of our prefix in the SixXS Ghost Route board, as our = prefix always been announced til the major problem in July (ok, that make= s a very long time).

Anyway, we should have finished everything needed to re= start our platform before the end of the month. That is why we would like= to ask you to give us a delay to let us announce again the prefix you at= tributed us, before taking any action (even if, I agree with that point, = we did not entirely respect RFC2772).

Regards,

David Gavarret
LDCOM Networks

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B569.8434C6C0-- From keshavaak@huawei.com Mon Jan 6 11:06:26 2003 From: keshavaak@huawei.com (Keshava Ayanur) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 19:06:26 +0800 Subject: [6bone] NATPT prefix ... Message-ID: <000001c2b573$a89fb2e0$68226e0a@HUAWEI.COM> I have question about NAT-PT (RFC 2766). How does the hosts, routers in the IPV6 domain knows about the NATPT prefix that they should use when sending V6 packets to V4 network. NAT-PT router which resides in the border between V6 & V4 cloud should advertise this prefix. How ? Regards, keshava From Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org Mon Jan 6 14:06:14 2003 From: Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org (Ronald van der Pol) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 15:06:14 +0100 Subject: [6bone] 6bone routing stability improving? Message-ID: <20030106140614.GA1100@rvdp.org> I have used the MERIT 6bone routing reports to produce plots of some long term (several years) trends of some parameters. See: http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ipv6/measurements/index.en.html The first plot is the number of unique AS-es seen in the AS paths. It is increasing exponentially. The other plots are the number of announcements/withdraws per number of total routes. Would that be a good measure of routing stability? They have decreased significantly since about a year (these plots have logarithmic Y axes). Any suggestions for other useful plots? rvdp From jeroen@unfix.org Mon Jan 6 14:21:07 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 15:21:07 +0100 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment period closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <417CBD1413A1D411BD3200306E00C18C032272E6@lcopar21.ldcom.fr> Message-ID: <001301c2b58e$db0de6a0$210d640a@unfix.org> Gavarret, David wrote: > However, I am a bit surprised because of the "Never Seen" > status of our prefix in the SixXS Ghost Route board, as our > prefix always been announced til the major problem in July > (ok, that makes a very long time). Simple answer: the BGP prefix collection was only started just a bit before the beginning of December 2002. So indeed if it was there before that it wouldn't been "seen". > Anyway, we should have finished everything needed to restart > our platform before the end of the month. That is why we > would like to ask you to give us a delay to let us announce > again the prefix you attributed us, before taking any action > (even if, I agree with that point, we did not entirely respect RFC2772). A solid answer is always better than none. And if the intent is there to really use it for a good cause there should (IMHO!) be no problems for letting organisations capable of showing that in keeping their TLA. Not announcing a TLA is better than inserting bogus completely unadminstrated prefixes which could run rogue. Greets, Jeroen From bob@thefinks.com Mon Jan 6 17:48:00 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 09:48:00 -0800 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, comment pe riod closes 17 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <417CBD1413A1D411BD3200306E00C18C032272E6@lcopar21.ldcom.fr > Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030106094636.01879ab0@mail.addr.com> David, At 10:53 AM 1/6/2003 +0100, Gavarret, David wrote: >6bone Folk, > >further to the notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs Bob sent last >week, here are some informations about our IPv6 platform here at LDCOM >Networks (that has been attributed prefix 3FFE:82e0::/28 on Dec, 13 2001). > >Our work on IPv6 started in mid-2001 with a first platform, that grew up >til July 2002. Besides, we started to build a new better-sized platform, >that should have been ready for Q4 2002. But due to internal >reorganization, planning has been delayed, and when the first platform >encountered many problems in July 02, we have been forced to shut down it, >without having a backup solution. > >However, I am a bit surprised because of the "Never Seen" status of our >prefix in the SixXS Ghost Route board, as our prefix always been announced >til the major problem in July (ok, that makes a very long time). > >Anyway, we should have finished everything needed to restart our platform >before the end of the month. That is why we would like to ask you to give >us a delay to let us announce again the prefix you attributed us, before >taking any action (even if, I agree with that point, we did not entirely >respect RFC2772). I believe this is a reasonable plan. Please let the list know when you are up again. Thanks, Bob From bkhabs@nc.rr.com Mon Jan 6 18:35:25 2003 From: bkhabs@nc.rr.com (Brian Haberman) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 13:35:25 -0500 Subject: [6bone] Re: DAD scope ?? In-Reply-To: <3E19CBD4.2040704@iprg.nokia.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030105063655.0321a8b8@mail.windriver.com> <3E19CBD4.2040704@iprg.nokia.com> Message-ID: <3E19CC6D.8030705@nc.rr.com> Each ipv6-over-foo doc discusses modifications to ND, if necessary, for the particular link technology. For example, Section 5 of RFC 2023 (IPv6 over PPP) mentions that DAD is redundant and needn't be run. Regards, Brian Fred L. Templin wrote: > Margaret/others, > > Margaret Wasserman wrote: > >> DAD is a link-local mechanism (uses link-local multicast >> packets). So, while it checks all addresses, it only >> explicitly checks for duplicate addresses on the local link. > > > What about DAD for links that are unicast-only? Alternatives > I can imagine are: > > 1. specify some sort of unicast mechanism for DAD > 2. perform some sort of multicast emulation (e.g., MARS) > 3. avoid DAD alltogether when one can assume that addresses > are uniquely assigned within the site > > Thoughts? > > Fred Templin > ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > From ot@cisco.com Mon Jan 6 18:42:55 2003 From: ot@cisco.com (Ole Troan) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 18:42:55 +0000 Subject: [6bone] Re: DAD scope ?? In-Reply-To: <3E19CC6D.8030705@nc.rr.com> (Brian Haberman's message of "Mon, 06 Jan 2003 13:35:25 -0500") References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030105063655.0321a8b8@mail.windriver.com> <3E19CBD4.2040704@iprg.nokia.com> <3E19CC6D.8030705@nc.rr.com> Message-ID: <7t5el7q9l1s.fsf@mrwint.cisco.com> > Each ipv6-over-foo doc discusses modifications to ND, > if necessary, for the particular link technology. For > example, Section 5 of RFC 2023 (IPv6 over PPP) mentions > that DAD is redundant and needn't be run. my interpretation of IPv6 over PPP is different. DAD is redundant only for the link-local address, but needs to be run for all other addresses on the link. /ot > Fred L. Templin wrote: >> Margaret/others, >> Margaret Wasserman wrote: >> >>> DAD is a link-local mechanism (uses link-local multicast >>> packets). So, while it checks all addresses, it only >>> explicitly checks for duplicate addresses on the local link. >> What about DAD for links that are unicast-only? Alternatives >> I can imagine are: >> 1. specify some sort of unicast mechanism for DAD >> 2. perform some sort of multicast emulation (e.g., MARS) >> 3. avoid DAD alltogether when one can assume that addresses >> are uniquely assigned within the site >> Thoughts? >> Fred Templin >> ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------- From bkhabs@nc.rr.com Mon Jan 6 19:07:12 2003 From: bkhabs@nc.rr.com (Brian Haberman) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 14:07:12 -0500 Subject: [6bone] Re: DAD scope ?? In-Reply-To: <3E19D0ED.20602@iprg.nokia.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030105063655.0321a8b8@mail.windriver.com> <3E19CBD4.2040704@iprg.nokia.com> <3E19CC6D.8030705@nc.rr.com> <3E19D0ED.20602@iprg.nokia.com> Message-ID: <3E19D3E0.3050901@nc.rr.com> Fred L. Templin wrote: > Brian Haberman wrote: > > Each ipv6-over-foo doc discusses modifications to ND, > > if necessary, for the particular link technology. > > Can you point me to any text in the core architecture > documents (e.g., RFCs 2461, 2462) that allow this and > can be used as normative reference? The 2nd paragraph of the intro in 2461 begins with: Unless specified otherwise (in a document that covers operating IP over a particular link type) this document applies to all link types. So, it looks like the override is in the link-specific document and not in the core architecture documents. Brian From bkhabs@nc.rr.com Mon Jan 6 19:17:36 2003 From: bkhabs@nc.rr.com (Brian Haberman) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 14:17:36 -0500 Subject: [6bone] Re: DAD scope ?? In-Reply-To: <7t5el7q9l1s.fsf@mrwint.cisco.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030105063655.0321a8b8@mail.windriver.com> <3E19CBD4.2040704@iprg.nokia.com> <3E19CC6D.8030705@nc.rr.com> <7t5el7q9l1s.fsf@mrwint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <3E19D650.4020605@nc.rr.com> Ole Troan wrote: >>Each ipv6-over-foo doc discusses modifications to ND, >>if necessary, for the particular link technology. For >>example, Section 5 of RFC 2023 (IPv6 over PPP) mentions >>that DAD is redundant and needn't be run. > > > my interpretation of IPv6 over PPP is different. DAD is redundant only > for the link-local address, but needs to be run for all other > addresses on the link. The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph in Section 5 states: "Therefore it is recommended that for PPP links with the IPV6CP Interface-Token option enabled the default value of the DupAddrDetectTransmits autoconfiguration variable [3] be zero." If DupAddrDetectTransmits is set to zero, then DAD is not run on the interface since it is an interface variable. The only thing that implies that this only is for link-local addresses is the title of the section. Brian From sivav@qualcomm.com Mon Jan 6 21:20:07 2003 From: sivav@qualcomm.com (Siva Veerepalli) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 13:20:07 -0800 Subject: [6bone] Re: DAD scope ?? In-Reply-To: <3E19CC6D.8030705@nc.rr.com> References: <3E19CBD4.2040704@iprg.nokia.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030105063655.0321a8b8@mail.windriver.com> <3E19CBD4.2040704@iprg.nokia.com> Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20030106131308.01e60ef8@jittlov.qualcomm.com> True, that is recommended as the default value. However, if a PPP link is to support the privacy extensions RFC3041, wouldn't the node have to perform DAD when generating an address using an interface ID different from the one negotiated during IPv6CP? Of course, if one node on the PPP link does not support RFC3046 (i.e., does not generate additional interface IDs), then DAD could still be avoided. Regards, Siva At 01:35 PM 1/6/2003 -0500, Brian Haberman wrote: >Each ipv6-over-foo doc discusses modifications to ND, >if necessary, for the particular link technology. For >example, Section 5 of RFC 2023 (IPv6 over PPP) mentions >that DAD is redundant and needn't be run. > >Regards, >Brian > >Fred L. Templin wrote: >>Margaret/others, >>Margaret Wasserman wrote: >> >>>DAD is a link-local mechanism (uses link-local multicast >>>packets). So, while it checks all addresses, it only >>>explicitly checks for duplicate addresses on the local link. >> >>What about DAD for links that are unicast-only? Alternatives >>I can imagine are: >> 1. specify some sort of unicast mechanism for DAD >> 2. perform some sort of multicast emulation (e.g., MARS) >> 3. avoid DAD alltogether when one can assume that addresses >> are uniquely assigned within the site >>Thoughts? >>Fred Templin >>ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com >> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------- >>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 >>-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >_______________________________________________ >6bone mailing list >6bone@mailman.isi.edu >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From ot@cisco.com Mon Jan 6 21:33:35 2003 From: ot@cisco.com (Ole Troan) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 21:33:35 +0000 Subject: [6bone] Re: DAD scope ?? In-Reply-To: <3E19D650.4020605@nc.rr.com> (Brian Haberman's message of "Mon, 06 Jan 2003 14:17:36 -0500") References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030105063655.0321a8b8@mail.windriver.com> <3E19CBD4.2040704@iprg.nokia.com> <3E19CC6D.8030705@nc.rr.com> <7t5el7q9l1s.fsf@mrwint.cisco.com> <3E19D650.4020605@nc.rr.com> Message-ID: <7t54r8m9d5c.fsf@mrwint.cisco.com> >>>Each ipv6-over-foo doc discusses modifications to ND, >>>if necessary, for the particular link technology. For >>>example, Section 5 of RFC 2023 (IPv6 over PPP) mentions >>>that DAD is redundant and needn't be run. >> my interpretation of IPv6 over PPP is different. DAD is redundant >> only >> for the link-local address, but needs to be run for all other >> addresses on the link. > > The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph in Section 5 states: > > "Therefore it is recommended that for PPP links with > the IPV6CP Interface-Token option enabled the default > value of the DupAddrDetectTransmits autoconfiguration > variable [3] be zero." > > If DupAddrDetectTransmits is set to zero, then DAD is not run > on the interface since it is an interface variable. The only > thing that implies that this only is for link-local addresses > is the title of the section. agree the text needs to be clarified. it is as necessary to do DAD for all addresses (apart from the link-local) on PPP links as it is for Ethernet links. btw: since you are using the term "Interface-Token" are you referring to the old PPP RFC, and not RFC2472? /ot From tvo@EnterZone.Net Mon Jan 6 23:26:27 2003 From: tvo@EnterZone.Net (John Fraizer) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:26:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [6bone] Re: DAD scope ?? In-Reply-To: <7t5el7q9l1s.fsf@mrwint.cisco.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Ole Troan wrote: > > Each ipv6-over-foo doc discusses modifications to ND, > > if necessary, for the particular link technology. For > > example, Section 5 of RFC 2023 (IPv6 over PPP) mentions > > that DAD is redundant and needn't be run. > > my interpretation of IPv6 over PPP is different. DAD is redundant only > for the link-local address, but needs to be run for all other > addresses on the link. > > /ot Um, PPP stands for Point-to-point-Protocol. So, tell me... Which other addresses ARE there going to be on the link? --- John Fraizer | High-Security Datacenter Services | President | Dedicated circuits 64k - 155M OC3 | EnterZone, Inc | Virtual, Dedicated, Colocation | http://www.enterzone.net/ | Network Consulting Services | From keshavaak@huawei.com Tue Jan 7 02:34:04 2003 From: keshavaak@huawei.com (Keshava Ayanur) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 10:34:04 +0800 Subject: [6bone] RE: NATPT prefix ... In-Reply-To: <001801c2b5ee$52f2c140$b7cbdba8@daniel7209> Message-ID: <000001c2b5f5$3f1bd9c0$68226e0a@HUAWEI.COM> Hi Daniel, Of course NAT-PT router can advertise the prefix in RA. But there is no such option in RA, so that NAT-PT router can say if you want go across V4 (V6) cloud please use this prefix ? keshava -----Original Message----- From: Soohong Daniel Park [mailto:soohong.park@samsung.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 9:45 AM To: 'Keshava Ayanur'; 6bone@mailman.isi.edu; ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com Subject: RE: NATPT prefix ... -----Original Message----- From: owner-ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com [mailto:owner-ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com] On Behalf Of Keshava Ayanur Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 8:06 PM To: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu; ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com Cc: keshav Subject: NATPT prefix ... I have question about NAT-PT (RFC 2766). How does the hosts, routers in the IPV6 domain knows about the NATPT prefix that they should use when sending V6 packets to V4 network. should be received from RA, if not, addresses should be configured by manually configuration. NAT-PT router which resides in the border between V6 & V4 cloud should advertise this prefix. How ? general RA processing -Daniel Regards, keshava -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- From arnouten@bzzt.net Tue Jan 7 04:14:25 2003 From: arnouten@bzzt.net (Arnout Engelen) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 05:14:25 +0100 Subject: [6bone] NATPT prefix ... In-Reply-To: <000001c2b573$a89fb2e0$68226e0a@HUAWEI.COM> References: <000001c2b573$a89fb2e0$68226e0a@HUAWEI.COM> Message-ID: <20030107041425.GI31961@mintzer.sci.kun.nl> On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 07:06:26PM +0800, Keshava Ayanur wrote: > I have question about NAT-PT (RFC 2766). > > How does the hosts, routers in the IPV6 domain knows about the > NATPT prefix that they should use when sending V6 packets to V4 > network. > > NAT-PT router which resides in the border between V6 & V4 cloud > should advertise this prefix. How ? I think one part of what you're looking for is something like TOTd. see http://www.vermicelli.pasta.cs.uit.no/ipv6/software.html In short, it acts as some kind of dns proxy: for example if you use totd to resolve 'www.google.com', it will notice there is no AAAA-record for that name and produces the NAT-PT-prefixed version of the A-record as AAAA-record. As for the routers, I think you could use pTRTd, which implements TRT instead of NAT-PT, but my memory is rusty as to what the difference was again :) - anyway RFC's are 3142 and 2766, respectively. -- Arnout Engelen "If it sounds good, it /is/ good." -- Duke Ellington From ot@cisco.com Tue Jan 7 09:48:39 2003 From: ot@cisco.com (Ole Troan) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 09:48:39 +0000 Subject: [6bone] Re: DAD scope ?? In-Reply-To: (John Fraizer's message of "Mon, 6 Jan 2003 18:26:27 -0500 (EST)") References: Message-ID: <7t5adid8f48.fsf@mrwint.cisco.com> >> > Each ipv6-over-foo doc discusses modifications to ND, >> > if necessary, for the particular link technology. For >> > example, Section 5 of RFC 2023 (IPv6 over PPP) mentions >> > that DAD is redundant and needn't be run. >> >> my interpretation of IPv6 over PPP is different. DAD is redundant only >> for the link-local address, but needs to be run for all other >> addresses on the link. >> >> /ot > > Um, PPP stands for Point-to-point-Protocol. So, tell me... Which other > addresses ARE there going to be on the link? not sure I understand the question. a point to point link has two nodes connected. each node can have, at least in principle, as many addresses configured as it wants, including RFC3041 and manually configured. /ot From johann@broadpark.no Tue Jan 7 10:59:36 2003 From: johann@broadpark.no (Janine C.Buorditez) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 11:59:36 +0100 Subject: [6bone] IPv6 configuration in FreeBSD In-Reply-To: <20030103163114.A10573@naund.org> References: <20030103194357.25479fc6.johann@broadpark.no> <20030103163114.A10573@naund.org> Message-ID: <20030107115936.4ba081f2.johann@broadpark.no> Hi! Actually, I do need further help. This is my network: cisco adsl-modem < ninja (lnc0) < ninja (ep0) < aegis (rl0) 10.0.0.1 < 10.0.0.2 < 192.168.187.1 < 192.168.187.2 After I started assigning IPv6 addresses to lnc0, ep0 and rl0 my network has been a complete mess. I couldn't connect to anything inside or outside my network. Lots of files seems to have disappeared which is why I'm doing a rebuild; /usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libgmodule12.so.3" not found Not sure if this has anything to do with my failure of setup though. I have to admit, I wasn't myself when I made these errors. I've never been so wasted before in my entire life. What I'm wondering, in my case, 3ffe:4008:1b::1200 -- is that lnc0 or ep0, considering lnc0 *has* to be 10.0.0.2 for my NAT'ed ADSL router to pick it up? And if I assign something to ep0, do I assign the same thing to rl0, or is this all done automatically? Cause I'd like ::1200 for my server and ::1210 for my workstation. (kinda like the Technics 1200 turntables) Well, thanks. On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:31:14 -0800 Andreas Ott wrote: > Hi, > On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 07:43:57PM +0100, Janine C.Buorditez wrote: > > > > Hello. > > > > I was just wondering whether someone could take a look at my config files > > available at http://www.terrabionic.com/ipv6 and tell me where I lost track. > > > > When I connect to IRC f:ex, the end prefix ::1200 (as in my configuration > hrm, I'm not sure what the nature of your problem is. > > > files) doesn't exist. Also, the reverse doesn't work. > > Have you checked the syslog files for messages of the named startup? > Usually bind9 is pretty good about telling you which line of which config > file has a syntax error or other inconsistencies. > > e.g. > Aug 15 01:12:03 XYZABC.net /kernel: Aug 15 01:12:03 host1 named[23610]: In 'myfile.conf' line 10 > Aug 15 01:12:03 XYZABC.net named[23610]: included from '/etc/namedb/named.conf > ' line 113 > Aug 15 01:12:03 XYZABC.net /kernel: Aug 15 01:12:03 host1 named[23610]: included > from '/etc/namedb/named.conf' line 113 > Aug 15 01:12:03 XYZABC.net named[23610]: myfile.conf:10: unknown ACL 'standard' > Aug 15 01:12:03 XYZABC.net /kernel: Aug 15 01:12:03 host1 named[23610]: myfile.conf:10: unknown ACL 'standard' > > Stop the named and restart it (no reload for debugging), and watch that > it loads the zone according to messages in > > next, try to fix this... > > 1200.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 IN PTR ninja6.terrabionic.com. > > into > 0.0.2.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 IN PTR ............. > > all bits are reversed :). And make sure that you have 32 nibbles (add up > the specific ones plus the $ORIGIN) > > Let me know if you need further help. > -andreas > -- > Andreas Ott andreas@naund.org From johann@broadpark.no Tue Jan 7 11:06:56 2003 From: johann@broadpark.no (Janine C.Buorditez) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:06:56 +0100 Subject: [6bone] IPv6 configuration in FreeBSD In-Reply-To: <20030103163114.A10573@naund.org> References: <20030103194357.25479fc6.johann@broadpark.no> <20030103163114.A10573@naund.org> Message-ID: <20030107120656.29dc89f9.johann@broadpark.no> (follow-up from previous mail) Hello again. Are these settings in rc.conf correct? # IPv4 NETWORK CONFIGURATION # defaultrouter="10.0.0.1" hostname="ninja.terrabionic.com" ifconfig_lnc0="10.0.0.2" ifconfig_ep0="192.168.187.1" There should be no ifconfig_lnc0="inet6 3ffe..? # IPv6 NETWORK CONFIGURATION # ipv6_enable="NO" ipv6_gateway_enable="YES" ipv6_firewall_enable="YES" ipv6_firewall_type="open" ipv6_static_routes="default" ipv6_route_default="default -interface gif0" ipv6_network_interfaces="auto" ipv6_prefix_lnc0="3ffe:4008:1b::1200" gif_interfaces="gif0" gifconfig_gif0="192.168.187.1 192.16.124.2" rtadvd_enable="YES" rtadvd_interfaces="ep0" Here is rtadvd.conf: ep0:\ :addrs#1:\ :addr="3ffe:4008:1b::1210":prefixlen#128:tc=ether: If anything is wrong or unnecessary, please let me know. On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:31:14 -0800 Andreas Ott wrote: > Hi, > On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 07:43:57PM +0100, Janine C.Buorditez wrote: > > > > Hello. > > > > I was just wondering whether someone could take a look at my config files > > available at http://www.terrabionic.com/ipv6 and tell me where I lost track. > > > > When I connect to IRC f:ex, the end prefix ::1200 (as in my configuration > hrm, I'm not sure what the nature of your problem is. > > > files) doesn't exist. Also, the reverse doesn't work. > > Have you checked the syslog files for messages of the named startup? > Usually bind9 is pretty good about telling you which line of which config > file has a syntax error or other inconsistencies. > > e.g. > Aug 15 01:12:03 XYZABC.net /kernel: Aug 15 01:12:03 host1 named[23610]: In 'myfile.conf' line 10 > Aug 15 01:12:03 XYZABC.net named[23610]: included from '/etc/namedb/named.conf > ' line 113 > Aug 15 01:12:03 XYZABC.net /kernel: Aug 15 01:12:03 host1 named[23610]: included > from '/etc/namedb/named.conf' line 113 > Aug 15 01:12:03 XYZABC.net named[23610]: myfile.conf:10: unknown ACL 'standard' > Aug 15 01:12:03 XYZABC.net /kernel: Aug 15 01:12:03 host1 named[23610]: myfile.conf:10: unknown ACL 'standard' > > Stop the named and restart it (no reload for debugging), and watch that > it loads the zone according to messages in > > next, try to fix this... > > 1200.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 IN PTR ninja6.terrabionic.com. > > into > 0.0.2.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 IN PTR ............. > > all bits are reversed :). And make sure that you have 32 nibbles (add up > the specific ones plus the $ORIGIN) > > Let me know if you need further help. > -andreas > -- > Andreas Ott andreas@naund.org From feico@pasta.cs.uit.no Tue Jan 7 11:12:34 2003 From: feico@pasta.cs.uit.no (Feico Dillema) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:12:34 +0100 Subject: [6bone] RE: NATPT prefix ... In-Reply-To: <000001c2b5f5$3f1bd9c0$68226e0a@HUAWEI.COM> References: <001801c2b5ee$52f2c140$b7cbdba8@daniel7209> <000001c2b5f5$3f1bd9c0$68226e0a@HUAWEI.COM> Message-ID: <20030107111234.GB15095@pasta.cs.uit.no> On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 10:34:04AM +0800, Keshava Ayanur wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Of course NAT-PT router can advertise the prefix in RA. > > But there is no such option in RA, so that NAT-PT router can say > if you > want go across V4 (V6) cloud please use this prefix ? A DNS-ALG will take care of that, returning 'fake' IPv6 addresses with the prefix when hosts try to resolve names of IPv4-only hosts. Feico. From dan@reeder.name Tue Jan 7 11:58:38 2003 From: dan@reeder.name (Dan Reeder) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 21:58:38 +1000 Subject: [6bone] trace to 192.88.99.1; .au v6 connectivity Message-ID: <001c01c2b644$20ef4be0$0200a8c0@elf> Hi people, Unless I am under the wrong impression completely, it is my understanding that 192.88.99.1 is the special 'anycast' address used for finding the nearest 2002:: 6to4 routing gateway. I've been doing some traces from various hosts here in .au and they all either end up at a host in Swizerland or a host in Finland. The thing is, I'm rather skeptical of the fact that these servers are the 'nearest' to Australia, BGP-speaking or otherwise. Any assistance you good folks could lend me in relation to this issue would be a great help. Is 6to4 connectivity even desired these days? Secondly, and primarily addressed to Aussies/Kiwis/Asians, I've also got a question with regards to the general IPv6 scene in Australia / Oceania at the moment. As far as I am aware there are zero tunnel brokers in this region, let alone commercial entities actively offering and promoting customer v6 connectivity, although personally I probably couldn't afford a netblock were it offered for a fee. I mean, as I see it the nearest quality tunnel broker (in terms of latency) to me (Brisbane) is he.net's pop at Los Angeles! I'm aware that Aarnet is on it's way to developing a rather decent educationally-inclined ipv6 facility, and I can only hope they will open up a public tunnel brokering service, however apart from them there seems to be nobody here operating a relatively-domestic network yet, letalone an organisation with decent trans-pacific connectivity. So, how long do us aussies/oceanians have to put up with ordinarily 200ms+ first hops? cheers and regards, Dan Reeder 2001:470:1f00:510::/64 ircgate.org From keshavaak@huawei.com Tue Jan 7 12:10:27 2003 From: keshavaak@huawei.com (Keshava Ayanur) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 20:10:27 +0800 Subject: [6bone] Path-mtu .. Message-ID: <000101c2b645$c4273e20$68226e0a@HUAWEI.COM> Hi, I have a question about PATH-MTU . Should the IP stack inform the application about the change in path-MTU . Else how does the application running on UDP will know about change in the size ? Or is it up to the application running on UDP to care by some reliable mechanism ? Regards, keshava From pim@ipng.nl Tue Jan 7 14:22:42 2003 From: pim@ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 15:22:42 +0100 Subject: [6bone] trace to 192.88.99.1; .au v6 connectivity In-Reply-To: <001c01c2b644$20ef4be0$0200a8c0@elf> References: <001c01c2b644$20ef4be0$0200a8c0@elf> Message-ID: <20030107142242.GD10632@bfib.colo.bit.nl> Hoi Dan, | Unless I am under the wrong impression completely, it is my understanding | that 192.88.99.1 is the special 'anycast' address used for finding the | nearest 2002:: 6to4 routing gateway. Correct. | I've been doing some traces from various hosts here in .au and they all | either end up at a host in Swizerland or a host in Finland. The thing is, | I'm rather skeptical of the fact that these servers are the 'nearest' to | Australia, BGP-speaking or otherwise. There's not that many of these anycast advertisers around these days. I actually only have two of them in my tables: * 192.88.99.0/24 O 150 0 >213.136.31.6 B 170 100 >217.71.99.37 13237 8379 I B 170 100 2066 >213.136.31.2 6461 8379 I B 170 100 2066 >213.136.31.2 6461 8379 I B 170 100 0 >212.72.45.29 3356 2603 1741 I The first one is my own relay (which I do not yet advertise to BGP, only in OSPF for my own customers), the next three are Cybernet AG (Germany) and the last one is the Funet REN (Finland). A traceroute from my site (not regarding OSPF) would end up in Germany. A traceroute from another site I maintain (AS8954) ends up in Finland. | Any assistance you good folks could lend me in relation to this issue would | be a great help. Is 6to4 connectivity even desired these days? I don't know. I would be willing to advertise my own implementation of the anycast at the AMS-IX, but I'm not sure that there's much use of 6to4 relaying these days. Perhaps this will pick up when Windows .NET starts massively making use of 6to4. Are there any other people here that would like to have my advertising the prefix at AMS-IX ? regards, Pim -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au Tue Jan 7 14:54:16 2003 From: wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au (Anand Kumria) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 01:54:16 +1100 Subject: [6bone] trace to 192.88.99.1; .au v6 connectivity In-Reply-To: <001c01c2b644$20ef4be0$0200a8c0@elf> References: <001c01c2b644$20ef4be0$0200a8c0@elf> Message-ID: <20030107145415.GC1117@yeenoghu.progsoc.uts.edu.au> On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 09:58:38PM +1000, Dan Reeder wrote: > Hi people, > Unless I am under the wrong impression completely, it is my understanding > that 192.88.99.1 is the special 'anycast' address used for finding the > nearest 2002:: 6to4 routing gateway. > > I've been doing some traces from various hosts here in .au and they all > either end up at a host in Swizerland or a host in Finland. The thing is, > I'm rather skeptical of the fact that these servers are the 'nearest' to > Australia, BGP-speaking or otherwise. Well, Optus's looking glass (see also ), reports that it knows no routes towards 192.88.99.1 from it's domestic peers, only from it's international peers. As far as I recall, AARNet used to advertise that prefix but has not for a long time. > Any assistance you good folks could lend me in relation to this issue would > be a great help. Is 6to4 connectivity even desired these days? > > Secondly, and primarily addressed to Aussies/Kiwis/Asians, I've also got a > question with regards to the general IPv6 scene in Australia / Oceania at > the moment. As far as I am aware there are zero tunnel brokers in this > region, Well, I've been operating one at ProgSoc for the past couple of months. I had hoped to complete the web interface to my tunnel broking setup but I've been ADSL issues since Monday. If you email me off-list I can setup something in advance of the web interface being available -- the tunnel endpoint is 138.25.6.14, so you may to check the latency that has to you. > let alone commercial entities actively offering and promoting > customer v6 connectivity, NTT Australia was/is running a trial; I'm not sure when they intend to make it available as a standard service. Telstra has had an allocation for a year but the noise near the watercooler is that they aren't happy with the implementation their current router vendor provides. > I mean, as I see it the nearest quality tunnel broker (in terms of latency) > to me (Brisbane) is he.net's pop at Los Angeles! sutekh.progsoc.uts.edu.au (138.25.6.14) should be a lot better, I hope to announce something later this week -- time permitting. 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 Jan 7 15:04:03 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 07:04:03 -0800 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request LOXINFO-TH - review closes 21 January 2003 Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030107065916.01822e20@imap2.es.net> 6bone Folk, LOXINFO-TH has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this will close 21 January 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. Thanks, Bob === >Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 20:56:34 +0700 >To: fink@es.net >From: Loxinfo IPv6 Team >Subject: pTLA prefix requests > >Hello Bob, > > >This is a pTLA prefix request from Loxinfo ISP (Thailand), please find >relevant info below. > >Note. Please review and notify us for any update. > >Thank you. >Loxinfo, Thailand. > > > 1. The pTLA Applicant must have a minimum of three (3) months > qualifying experience as a 6Bone end-site or pNLA transit. During > the entire qualifying period the Applicant must be operationally > providing the following: > >======================================================================= >- We have been connected to the 6Bone since April 2002 as a 6Bone end-site >======================================================================= > > a. Fully maintained, up to date, 6Bone Registry entries for their > ipv6-site inet6num, mntner, and person objects, including each > tunnel that the Applicant has. > >======================================================================= >ipv6-site: LOXINFO-TH >origin: AS4750 >descr: Loxley Information Services Co., Ltd. Thailand. >country: TH >application: ping ipv6-gw.ipv6.loxinfo.net.th >tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 ipv6-gw.loxinfo.net.th -> gateway.manis.net.my >MIMOS-MY BGP4+ >tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 ipv6-gw.loxinfo.net.th -> >ipv6-gw.ipv6.chttl.com.tw CHTTL-TW BGP4+ >tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 ipv6-gw.loxinfo.net.th -> >parcr1.fr.ndsoftwarenet.net NDSOFTWARE-FR BGP4+ >tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 ipv6-gw.loxinfo.net.th -> >ipv6-gw-1.btn.kewlio.net KEWLIO-GB BGP4+ >contact: KI3-6BONE >remarks: Operational since April 2002. >notify: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th >mnt-by: MNT-LOXINFO >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20020607 >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20020610 >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20020702 >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20021205 >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20021206 >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20021209 >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20021209 >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20021210 >source: 6BONE >======================================================================= > > b. Fully maintained, and reliable, BGP4+ peering and connectivity > between the Applicant's boundary router and the appropriate > connection point into the 6Bone. This router must be IPv6 > pingable. This criteria is judged by members of the 6Bone > Operations Group at the time of the Applicant's pTLA request. > >======================================================================= >Our BGP4+ conections are working on a cisco router, currently peers with >MIMOS-MY, CHTTL-TW, NDSOFTWARE-FR and KEWLIO-GB. > >sh ipv6 interface b >Tunnel1 [up/up] --> MIMOS-MY > FE80::CB92:3BE2 > 3FFE:80D0:FFFC:10::37 >Tunnel2 [up/up] --> CHTTL-TW > FE80::CB92:3BE2 > 3FFE:3600::1:39 >Tunnel3 [up/up] --> NDSOFTWARE-FR > FE80::CB92:3BE2 > 3FFE:4013:F:6::2 >Tunnel4 [up/up] --> KEWLIO-GB > FE80::CB92:3BE2 > 3FFE:4005:E000:2::1 > >sh bgp ipv6 s >Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ >Up/Down State/PfxRcd >3FFE:3600::1:38 4 17715 2482 1750 1663 0 0 1d05h 333 >3FFE:4005:E000:2:: > 4 25396 4761 1750 1663 0 0 1d05h 319 >3FFE:4013:F:6::1 > 4 25358 0 0 0 0 0 never Active >3FFE:80D0:FFFC:10::36 > 4 2042 2593 1750 1663 0 0 1d05h 327 >======================================================================= > > c. Fully maintained DNS forward (AAAA) and reverse (ip6.int) > entries for the Applicant's router(s) and at least one host > system. > >======================================================================= >we have configured IPv6 DNS on our main operational DNS server: >203.146.6.50 (ns1.ipv6.loxinfo.net.th) > >gw 7200 IN AAAA 3FFE:80D0:FE10:0:200:CFF:FE75:9926 >ns1 7200 IN AAAA 3ffe:80d0:fe10:0:2c0:4fff:fecf:8573 > >$ORIGIN 0.0.0.0.0.1.e.f.0.d.0.8.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. >6.2.9.9.5.7.E.F.F.F.C.0.0.0.2.0 >14400 IN PTR gw.ipv6.loxinfo.net.th. >3.7.5.8.F.C.E.F.F.F.F.4.0.C.2.0 >14400 IN PTR ns1.ipv6.loxinfo.co.th. >======================================================================= > > d. A fully maintained, and reliable, IPv6-accessible system > providing, at a mimimum, one or more web pages, describing the > Applicant's IPv6 services. This server must be IPv6 pingable. > >======================================================================= >Our IPv6 pingable WWW server is www.ipv6.loxinfo.co.th, and it's >accessible by both >IPv6 and IPv4. >======================================================================= > > 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. > >======================================================================= >3 persons: >person: KI3-6bone, Kiat Intarasuriyawong (kiat@loxinfo.co.th) >person: KN4-6bone, Kittipong Nualnarunart (fender@loxinfo.co.th) >person: Wanida Kongtanarit (wanidat@loxinfo.co.th) >======================================================================= > > b. A common mailbox for support contact purposes that all support > staff have acess to, pointed to with a notify attribute in the > ipv6-site object for the pTLA Applicant. > >======================================================================= >notify: ipv6@loxinfo.co.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. > >======================================================================= >LoxInfo is one of the leading ISPs in Thailand, and vigorously expanded >our network and infrastructure in a drive to provide customers with the >most efficient >and cost-effective Internet connections available. There are over 500 access >networks and 100,000 end-users distributed in our country. The web page is >http://www.loxinfo.co.th/ >For the 6bone pTLA, we have plan of testbed within our network and our >subscribers. >This is free services. We welcome whoever want to connect us with 6BONE >prefix. >We also plan to request IPv6 address space from APNIC and then we will >provide the IPv6 commercial services in the future. >======================================================================= > > 4. The pTLA Applicant MUST commit to abide by the current 6Bone > operational rules and policies as they exist at time of its > application, and agree to abide by future 6Bone backbone > operational rules and policies as they evolve by consensus of the > 6Bone backbone and user community. > >======================================================================= >We agree to all current and future operational rules and policies. >======================================================================= > > When an Applicant seeks to receive a pTLA allocation, it will apply > to the 6Bone Operations Group (see section 8 below) by providing to > the Group information in support of its claims that it meets the > criteria above. > >8. 6Bone Operations Group > > The 6Bone Operations Group is the group in charge of monitoring and > policing adherence to the current rules. Membership in the 6Bone > Operations Group is mandatory for, and restricted to, sites connected > to the 6Bone. > > The 6Bone Operations Group is currently defined by those members of > the existing 6Bone mailing list who represent sites participating in > the 6Bone. Therefore it is incumbent on relevant site contacts to > join the 6Bone mailing list. Instructions on how to join the list are > maintained on the 6Bone web site at < http://www.6bone.net>. > > > >Thank you! >================================== >Loxinfo IPv6 Team. >Loxinfo ISP in Thailand. >http://www.ipv6.loxinfo.net.th/ >http://www.loxinfo.co.th/ >ipv6@loxinfo.co.th >T. +66 2622 5678 >F. +66 2622 8380 >================================== From robson_oliverra@ig.com.br Tue Jan 7 16:37:02 2003 From: robson_oliverra@ig.com.br (Robson Oliveira) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 14:37:02 -0200 Subject: [6bone] ARIN allocation Message-ID: <002601c2b66b$33e6e100$0a00a8c0@ipv6brspw2k> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C2B65A.3E52C980 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Can somebody say how can my company/ISP move to IPv6 if: - The IIS/Apache web server don't support Multi-web site alias to one = server only? - To update my Cisco IOS I need a CCO password and my carrier breakdown = with WorldCom? - If my Microsoft w2k OS do not support AH/ESP IPSec support completely? - If the University/developers don't have IPv6 knowledge effort base to = support the new IP network? - The Oracle DB don't say where they are walking? Please, clarify my mind to I see my new way Robson Oliveira ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C2B65A.3E52C980 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Can somebody say how can my company/ISP = move to=20 IPv6 if:
 
- The IIS/Apache web server don't = support Multi-web=20 site alias to one server only?
- To update my Cisco IOS I need a CCO = password and=20 my carrier breakdown with WorldCom?
- If my Microsoft w2k OS do not = support AH/ESP=20 IPSec support completely?
- If the University/developers don't = have IPv6=20 knowledge effort base to support the new IP network?
- The Oracle DB don't say where they = are=20 walking?
 
Please, clarify my mind to I see my new = way
Robson = Oliveira
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C2B65A.3E52C980-- From pekkas@netcore.fi Tue Jan 7 17:24:41 2003 From: pekkas@netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:24:41 +0200 (EET) Subject: [6bone] pTLA request LOXINFO-TH - review closes 21 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030107065916.01822e20@imap2.es.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Bob Fink wrote: > LOXINFO-TH has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this will close 21 > January 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. > > I can only wonder why you haven't established any peerings _inside_ Thailand; there are some other IPv6 sites and pTLA's there. IMO, this should have been the _first_ thing to do! > === > >Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 20:56:34 +0700 > >To: fink@es.net > >From: Loxinfo IPv6 Team > >Subject: pTLA prefix requests > > > >Hello Bob, > > > > > >This is a pTLA prefix request from Loxinfo ISP (Thailand), please find > >relevant info below. > > > >Note. Please review and notify us for any update. > > > >Thank you. > >Loxinfo, Thailand. > > > > > > 1. The pTLA Applicant must have a minimum of three (3) months > > qualifying experience as a 6Bone end-site or pNLA transit. During > > the entire qualifying period the Applicant must be operationally > > providing the following: > > > >======================================================================= > >- We have been connected to the 6Bone since April 2002 as a 6Bone end-site > >======================================================================= > > > > a. Fully maintained, up to date, 6Bone Registry entries for their > > ipv6-site inet6num, mntner, and person objects, including each > > tunnel that the Applicant has. > > > >======================================================================= > >ipv6-site: LOXINFO-TH > >origin: AS4750 > >descr: Loxley Information Services Co., Ltd. Thailand. > >country: TH > >application: ping ipv6-gw.ipv6.loxinfo.net.th > >tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 ipv6-gw.loxinfo.net.th -> gateway.manis.net.my > >MIMOS-MY BGP4+ > >tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 ipv6-gw.loxinfo.net.th -> > >ipv6-gw.ipv6.chttl.com.tw CHTTL-TW BGP4+ > >tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 ipv6-gw.loxinfo.net.th -> > >parcr1.fr.ndsoftwarenet.net NDSOFTWARE-FR BGP4+ > >tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 ipv6-gw.loxinfo.net.th -> > >ipv6-gw-1.btn.kewlio.net KEWLIO-GB BGP4+ > >contact: KI3-6BONE > >remarks: Operational since April 2002. > >notify: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th > >mnt-by: MNT-LOXINFO > >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20020607 > >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20020610 > >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20020702 > >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20021205 > >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20021206 > >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20021209 > >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20021209 > >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20021210 > >source: 6BONE > >======================================================================= > > > > b. Fully maintained, and reliable, BGP4+ peering and connectivity > > between the Applicant's boundary router and the appropriate > > connection point into the 6Bone. This router must be IPv6 > > pingable. This criteria is judged by members of the 6Bone > > Operations Group at the time of the Applicant's pTLA request. > > > >======================================================================= > >Our BGP4+ conections are working on a cisco router, currently peers with > >MIMOS-MY, CHTTL-TW, NDSOFTWARE-FR and KEWLIO-GB. > > > >sh ipv6 interface b > >Tunnel1 [up/up] --> MIMOS-MY > > FE80::CB92:3BE2 > > 3FFE:80D0:FFFC:10::37 > >Tunnel2 [up/up] --> CHTTL-TW > > FE80::CB92:3BE2 > > 3FFE:3600::1:39 > >Tunnel3 [up/up] --> NDSOFTWARE-FR > > FE80::CB92:3BE2 > > 3FFE:4013:F:6::2 > >Tunnel4 [up/up] --> KEWLIO-GB > > FE80::CB92:3BE2 > > 3FFE:4005:E000:2::1 > > > >sh bgp ipv6 s > >Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ > >Up/Down State/PfxRcd > >3FFE:3600::1:38 4 17715 2482 1750 1663 0 0 1d05h 333 > >3FFE:4005:E000:2:: > > 4 25396 4761 1750 1663 0 0 1d05h 319 > >3FFE:4013:F:6::1 > > 4 25358 0 0 0 0 0 never Active > >3FFE:80D0:FFFC:10::36 > > 4 2042 2593 1750 1663 0 0 1d05h 327 > >======================================================================= > > > > c. Fully maintained DNS forward (AAAA) and reverse (ip6.int) > > entries for the Applicant's router(s) and at least one host > > system. > > > >======================================================================= > >we have configured IPv6 DNS on our main operational DNS server: > >203.146.6.50 (ns1.ipv6.loxinfo.net.th) > > > >gw 7200 IN AAAA 3FFE:80D0:FE10:0:200:CFF:FE75:9926 > >ns1 7200 IN AAAA 3ffe:80d0:fe10:0:2c0:4fff:fecf:8573 > > > >$ORIGIN 0.0.0.0.0.1.e.f.0.d.0.8.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. > >6.2.9.9.5.7.E.F.F.F.C.0.0.0.2.0 > >14400 IN PTR gw.ipv6.loxinfo.net.th. > >3.7.5.8.F.C.E.F.F.F.F.4.0.C.2.0 > >14400 IN PTR ns1.ipv6.loxinfo.co.th. > >======================================================================= > > > > d. A fully maintained, and reliable, IPv6-accessible system > > providing, at a mimimum, one or more web pages, describing the > > Applicant's IPv6 services. This server must be IPv6 pingable. > > > >======================================================================= > >Our IPv6 pingable WWW server is www.ipv6.loxinfo.co.th, and it's > >accessible by both > >IPv6 and IPv4. > >======================================================================= > > > > 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. > > > >======================================================================= > >3 persons: > >person: KI3-6bone, Kiat Intarasuriyawong (kiat@loxinfo.co.th) > >person: KN4-6bone, Kittipong Nualnarunart (fender@loxinfo.co.th) > >person: Wanida Kongtanarit (wanidat@loxinfo.co.th) > >======================================================================= > > > > b. A common mailbox for support contact purposes that all support > > staff have acess to, pointed to with a notify attribute in the > > ipv6-site object for the pTLA Applicant. > > > >======================================================================= > >notify: ipv6@loxinfo.co.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. > > > >======================================================================= > >LoxInfo is one of the leading ISPs in Thailand, and vigorously expanded > >our network and infrastructure in a drive to provide customers with the > >most efficient > >and cost-effective Internet connections available. There are over 500 access > >networks and 100,000 end-users distributed in our country. The web page is > >http://www.loxinfo.co.th/ > >For the 6bone pTLA, we have plan of testbed within our network and our > >subscribers. > >This is free services. We welcome whoever want to connect us with 6BONE > >prefix. > >We also plan to request IPv6 address space from APNIC and then we will > >provide the IPv6 commercial services in the future. > >======================================================================= > > > > 4. The pTLA Applicant MUST commit to abide by the current 6Bone > > operational rules and policies as they exist at time of its > > application, and agree to abide by future 6Bone backbone > > operational rules and policies as they evolve by consensus of the > > 6Bone backbone and user community. > > > >======================================================================= > >We agree to all current and future operational rules and policies. > >======================================================================= > > > > When an Applicant seeks to receive a pTLA allocation, it will apply > > to the 6Bone Operations Group (see section 8 below) by providing to > > the Group information in support of its claims that it meets the > > criteria above. > > > >8. 6Bone Operations Group > > > > The 6Bone Operations Group is the group in charge of monitoring and > > policing adherence to the current rules. Membership in the 6Bone > > Operations Group is mandatory for, and restricted to, sites connected > > to the 6Bone. > > > > The 6Bone Operations Group is currently defined by those members of > > the existing 6Bone mailing list who represent sites participating in > > the 6Bone. Therefore it is incumbent on relevant site contacts to > > join the 6Bone mailing list. Instructions on how to join the list are > > maintained on the 6Bone web site at < http://www.6bone.net>. > > > > > > > >Thank you! > >================================== > >Loxinfo IPv6 Team. > >Loxinfo ISP in Thailand. > >http://www.ipv6.loxinfo.net.th/ > >http://www.loxinfo.co.th/ > >ipv6@loxinfo.co.th > >T. +66 2622 5678 > >F. +66 2622 8380 > >================================== > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From gert@space.net Tue Jan 7 19:45:06 2003 From: gert@space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 20:45:06 +0100 Subject: [6bone] ARIN allocation In-Reply-To: <002601c2b66b$33e6e100$0a00a8c0@ipv6brspw2k>; from robson_oliverra@ig.com.br on Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 02:37:02PM -0200 References: <002601c2b66b$33e6e100$0a00a8c0@ipv6brspw2k> Message-ID: <20030107204506.P15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 02:37:02PM -0200, Robson Oliveira wrote: > Can somebody say how can my company/ISP move to IPv6 if: Slowly and with patience... > - The IIS/Apache web server don't support Multi-web site alias to one server only? Apache 2.0 should be able to do multihoming with IPv6. > - To update my Cisco IOS I need a CCO password and my carrier breakdown with WorldCom? You need to buy an IOS update, yes. But that's the same as with all your machines - if their operating system is too old for IPv6, you need a more recent version. > - If my Microsoft w2k OS do not support AH/ESP IPSec support completely? Do IPSEC on a NetBSD or Linux/Usagi box. > - If the University/developers don't have IPv6 knowledge effort base to support the new IP network? Show them that users exist. Right now, there are only few users, and thus the developers are not very much interested. > - The Oracle DB don't say where they are walking? Tell them you're going to purchase if they don't support IPv6 soon. Maybe that will help. There are some other issues as well - like firewall vendors that have no interest in IPv6, print server vendors, and so on. The main problem is that one half claims "nobody is using this, so we do not have to support IPv6" and the other half claims "because it is so badly supported, we can't use IPv6". Chicken and Egg problem. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 55180 (54707) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net Tue Jan 7 19:47:21 2003 From: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net (Nicolas DEFFAYET) Date: 07 Jan 2003 20:47:21 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request LOXINFO-TH - review closes 21 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030107065916.01822e20@imap2.es.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030107065916.01822e20@imap2.es.net> Message-ID: <1041968840.27203.690.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 16:04, Bob Fink wrote: 6bone Folk, > LOXINFO-TH has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this will close 21 > January 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. > > > > === > >Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 20:56:34 +0700 > >To: fink@es.net > >From: Loxinfo IPv6 Team > >Subject: pTLA prefix requests > > > > a. Fully maintained, up to date, 6Bone Registry entries for their > > ipv6-site inet6num, mntner, and person objects, including each > > tunnel that the Applicant has. > > > >======================================================================= > >ipv6-site: LOXINFO-TH > >origin: AS4750 > >descr: Loxley Information Services Co., Ltd. Thailand. > >country: TH > >application: ping ipv6-gw.ipv6.loxinfo.net.th > >tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 ipv6-gw.loxinfo.net.th -> gateway.manis.net.my > >MIMOS-MY BGP4+ > >tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 ipv6-gw.loxinfo.net.th -> > >ipv6-gw.ipv6.chttl.com.tw CHTTL-TW BGP4+ > >tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 ipv6-gw.loxinfo.net.th -> > >parcr1.fr.ndsoftwarenet.net NDSOFTWARE-FR BGP4+ > >tunnel: IPv6 in IPv4 ipv6-gw.loxinfo.net.th -> > >ipv6-gw-1.btn.kewlio.net KEWLIO-GB BGP4+ > >contact: KI3-6BONE > >remarks: Operational since April 2002. > >notify: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th > >mnt-by: MNT-LOXINFO > >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20020607 > >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20020610 > >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20020702 > >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20021205 > >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20021206 > >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20021209 > >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20021209 > >changed: ipv6@loxinfo.co.th 20021210 > >source: 6BONE > >======================================================================= > > > > b. Fully maintained, and reliable, BGP4+ peering and connectivity > > between the Applicant's boundary router and the appropriate > > connection point into the 6Bone. This router must be IPv6 > > pingable. This criteria is judged by members of the 6Bone > > Operations Group at the time of the Applicant's pTLA request. > > > >======================================================================= > >Our BGP4+ conections are working on a cisco router, currently peers with > >MIMOS-MY, CHTTL-TW, NDSOFTWARE-FR and KEWLIO-GB. > > > >sh ipv6 interface b > >Tunnel1 [up/up] --> MIMOS-MY > > FE80::CB92:3BE2 > > 3FFE:80D0:FFFC:10::37 > >Tunnel2 [up/up] --> CHTTL-TW > > FE80::CB92:3BE2 > > 3FFE:3600::1:39 > >Tunnel3 [up/up] --> NDSOFTWARE-FR > > FE80::CB92:3BE2 > > 3FFE:4013:F:6::2 > >Tunnel4 [up/up] --> KEWLIO-GB > > FE80::CB92:3BE2 > > 3FFE:4005:E000:2::1 > > > >sh bgp ipv6 s > >Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ > >Up/Down State/PfxRcd > >3FFE:3600::1:38 4 17715 2482 1750 1663 0 0 1d05h 333 > >3FFE:4005:E000:2:: > > 4 25396 4761 1750 1663 0 0 1d05h 319 > >3FFE:4013:F:6::1 > > 4 25358 0 0 0 0 0 never Active > >3FFE:80D0:FFFC:10::36 > > 4 2042 2593 1750 1663 0 0 1d05h 327 > >======================================================================= NDSoftware (AS25358) don't peer with Loxinfo (AS4750). NDSoftware have a strict peering policy about IPv6 over IPv4 tunnels for have a full high quality network, IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel must have less than 50ms of latency (http://noc.ndsoftwarenet.com/docs/peering-policy.php). We have this policy for can peer with production network and have a full high quality network. We do at our discretion an exception to our peering policy for projets/ISP that request peering to us and have more than 50ms of latency, if the project/ISP don't provide BGP transit to other ASN and don't reannonce NDSoftware's routes, we can peer with a signed peering agreement. If we don't peer, we help project/ISP to find peering partner in its area. I have sent a peering agreement to Loxinfo for that they sign it and return it via postal mail but i never receive it. We will peer with Loxinfo only when we have the signed peering agreement. We don't want have route like UK -> TH -> FR. Best Regards, -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NOC Website: http://noc.ndsoftwarenet.com/ FNIX6: http://www.fnix6.net/ From nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net Tue Jan 7 20:02:34 2003 From: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net (Nicolas DEFFAYET) Date: 07 Jan 2003 21:02:34 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request LOXINFO-TH - review closes 21 January 2003 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1041969753.27196.709.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 18:24, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Bob Fink wrote: > > LOXINFO-TH has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully > > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this will close 21 > > January 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. > > > > > > I can only wonder why you haven't established any peerings _inside_ > Thailand; there are some other IPv6 sites and pTLA's there. IMO, this > should have been the _first_ thing to do! INET-TH (http://whois.6bone.net/cgi-bin/whois?INET-TH) can probably peer with them. Best Regards, -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NOC Website: http://noc.ndsoftwarenet.com/ FNIX6: http://www.fnix6.net/ From finlayson@live.com Tue Jan 7 20:39:12 2003 From: finlayson@live.com (Ross Finlayson) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 12:39:12 -0800 Subject: [6bone] trace to 192.88.99.1; .au v6 connectivity In-Reply-To: <20030107142242.GD10632@bfib.colo.bit.nl> References: <001c01c2b644$20ef4be0$0200a8c0@elf> <001c01c2b644$20ef4be0$0200a8c0@elf> Message-ID: <4.3.1.1.20030107122313.00c5f770@laptop-localhost> >Are there any other people here that would like to have my advertising the >prefix at AMS-IX ? Any additional 6to4 relays (using the default anycast address) would be welcome, although it would be really nice to also have some of these outside Europe! Let's not forget that for those of us without our own ASs (and who don't have an IPv6-capable ISP), 6to4 is the only good way that we can get IPv6 connectivity. I'm located in Silicon Valley (USA), and right now I'm using "6to4.ipv6.microsoft.com" (2002:836b:213c:1:e0:8f08:f020:8) as my 6to4 router, because it's far closer to me, topologically, than any router that's currently being advertised on the anycast address (2002:c058:6301::). But I hate having to 'hard-wire' in a 6to4 router (especially one located at Microsoft :-); I really wish I could just use the anycast address, and automatically get a router that's 'close' to me. However, the real question to ask here is: Why are more 6to4 relays not being advertised to the world using the default anycast address? The answer, presumably, is that there's no incentive for anyone to do this! What incentive does anyone have to provide a 6to4 relay (and, thus, bandwidth) to outsiders? With this in mind, can we ever expect public, anycast 6to4 relays to become more widespread? Ross. From ljosa-6bone@initio.no Tue Jan 7 20:55:31 2003 From: ljosa-6bone@initio.no (Vebjorn Ljosa) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:55:31 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 6BONE registry deletions by jazz.viagenie.qc.ca Message-ID: <20030107205531.GA30346@cs.ucsb.edu> On 2002-12-17, I got notices from the 6BONE Registry (auto-dbm-mgr@whois.6bone.net) that two of my ipv6-site objects (PVV and PVV2) had been deleted. The request came from the host jazz.viagenie.qc.ca (206.123.31.2). The associated inet6num objects were not deleted. The networks in question have been dead for a while, so it's not a big deal, but does anyone know who deleted the objects and why? (If this was some kind of official deletion, and it was announced on the 6BONE list, I apologize for not having read the list closely enough.) Thanks, Vebjorn From jeroen@unfix.org Tue Jan 7 22:18:56 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 23:18:56 +0100 Subject: [6bone] trace to 192.88.99.1; .au v6 connectivity In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.1.20030107122313.00c5f770@laptop-localhost> Message-ID: <002701c2b69a$c5a18170$210d640a@unfix.org> Ross Finlayson wrote: > I'm located in Silicon Valley (USA), and right now I'm using > "6to4.ipv6.microsoft.com" (2002:836b:213c:1:e0:8f08:f020:8) > as my 6to4 router, because it's far closer to me, topologically, than any router > that's currently being advertised on the anycast address > (2002:c058:6301::). But I hate having to 'hard-wire' in a > 6to4 router (especially one located at Microsoft :-); I really wish I > could just use the anycast address, and automatically get a router that's > 'close' to me. You could try he.net (http://tunnelbroker.com) though that's 6in4 they are known to provide a quality service. > However, the real question to ask here is: Why are more 6to4 > relays not being advertised to the world using the default anycast address? The > answer, presumably, is that there's no incentive for anyone to do > this! What incentive does anyone have to provide a 6to4 > relay (and, thus, bandwidth) to outsiders? With this in mind, can we ever > expect public, anycast 6to4 relays to become more widespread? 6to4 is a transitional method, one should opt for native first. If that is not a possibility one should find the closest IPv6 uplink, may this be 6to4, 6in4 or other tunneled mechanisms. Unfortunatly the "Americas's" (ARIN region) isn't quite aware of IPv6 ;( So go hammer the ISP's over there. Greets, Jeroen From david@IPRG.nokia.com Tue Jan 7 22:29:00 2003 From: david@IPRG.nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 14:29:00 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 6BONE registry deletions by jazz.viagenie.qc.ca In-Reply-To: <20030107205531.GA30346@cs.ucsb.edu>; from ljosa-6bone@initio.no on Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 12:55:31PM -0800 References: <20030107205531.GA30346@cs.ucsb.edu> Message-ID: <20030107142900.D2102@iprg.nokia.com> Vebjorn, On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 12:55:31PM -0800, Vebjorn Ljosa wrote: > On 2002-12-17, I got notices from the 6BONE Registry > (auto-dbm-mgr@whois.6bone.net) that two of my ipv6-site objects (PVV > and PVV2) had been deleted. The request came from the host > jazz.viagenie.qc.ca (206.123.31.2). The associated inet6num objects > were not deleted. > > The networks in question have been dead for a while, so it's not a big > deal, but does anyone know who deleted the objects and why? > > (If this was some kind of official deletion, and it was announced on > the 6BONE list, I apologize for not having read the list closely > enough.) Please send me privately more detailed information with the exact email that you received and I will be able to figure out what happened in cooperation with the viagenie people who are managing the website userinterface. I hope this helps, David K. --- From toml@allcomnetworks.com.au Tue Jan 7 23:32:59 2003 From: toml@allcomnetworks.com.au (Tom Lohdan) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 10:32:59 +1100 Subject: [6bone] trace to 192.88.99.1; .au v6 connectivity Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C2B701.50CB3460 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dan, There are some suppliers of IPv6 space with Australia, but considering we still pay for bandwidth at very low traffic limits, not everyone is willing to donated bandwidth to vanity host people. On the other hand, people are willing to donate resources if they are going to develop applications/services to the IPv6 community. 200ms ping times will never go away. Packets still are required to travel large distances to EU/Asia or the USA. I'm lucky if I can break 100ms to NRT (Tokyo) from Sydney on a good day. Domestic traffic is pretty much a waste of time, as most of the IPv6 traffic is generated out of EU/Asia. If you would like to contact me off the list, we can discuss it further. Thanks, Tom -----Original Message----- From: Dan Reeder [mailto:dan@reeder.name] Sent: Tuesday, 7 January 2003 10:59 PM To: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu Subject: [6bone] trace to 192.88.99.1; .au v6 connectivity Hi people, Unless I am under the wrong impression completely, it is my understanding that 192.88.99.1 is the special 'anycast' address used for finding the nearest 2002:: 6to4 routing gateway. I've been doing some traces from various hosts here in .au and they all either end up at a host in Swizerland or a host in Finland. The thing is, I'm rather skeptical of the fact that these servers are the 'nearest' to Australia, BGP-speaking or otherwise. Any assistance you good folks could lend me in relation to this issue would be a great help. Is 6to4 connectivity even desired these days? Secondly, and primarily addressed to Aussies/Kiwis/Asians, I've also got a question with regards to the general IPv6 scene in Australia / Oceania at the moment. As far as I am aware there are zero tunnel brokers in this region, let alone commercial entities actively offering and promoting customer v6 connectivity, although personally I probably couldn't afford a netblock were it offered for a fee. I mean, as I see it the nearest quality tunnel broker (in terms of latency) to me (Brisbane) is he.net's pop at Los Angeles! I'm aware that Aarnet is on it's way to developing a rather decent educationally-inclined ipv6 facility, and I can only hope they will open up a public tunnel brokering service, however apart from them there seems to be nobody here operating a relatively-domestic network yet, letalone an organisation with decent trans-pacific connectivity. So, how long do us aussies/oceanians have to put up with ordinarily 200ms+ first hops? cheers and regards, Dan Reeder 2001:470:1f00:510::/64 ircgate.org _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list 6bone@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C2B701.50CB3460 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIKIzCCAj0w ggGmAhEAzbp/VvDf5LxU/iKss3KqVTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQIFADBfMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUG A1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xNzA1BgNVBAsTLkNsYXNzIDEgUHVibGljIFByaW1hcnkgQ2Vy dGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkwHhcNOTYwMTI5MDAwMDAwWhcNMjgwODAxMjM1OTU5WjBfMQsw CQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xNzA1BgNVBAsTLkNsYXNzIDEgUHVi bGljIFByaW1hcnkgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkwgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0A MIGJAoGBAOUZv22jVmEtmUhx9mfeuY3rt56GgAqRDvo4Ja9GiILlc6igmyRdDR/MZW4MsNBWhBiH mgabEKFz37RYOWtuwfYV1aioP6oSBo0xrH+wNNePNGeICc0UEeJORVZpH3gCgNrcR5EpuzbJY1zF 4Ncth3uhtzKwezC6Ki8xqu6jZ9rbAgMBAAEwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQECBQADgYEATD+4i8Zo3+5DMw5d 6abLB4RNejP/khv0Nq3YlSI2aBFsfELM85wuxAc/FLAPT/+Qknb54rxK6Y/NoIAK98Up8YIiXbix 3YEjo3slFUYweRb46gVLlH8dwhzI47f0EEA8E8NfH1PoSOSGtHuhNbB7Jbq4046rPzidADQAmPPR cZQwggNmMIICz6ADAgECAhANi0/uqtIYW/R1ap0p4X/7MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAgUAMF8xCzAJBgNV BAYTAlVTMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjE3MDUGA1UECxMuQ2xhc3MgMSBQdWJsaWMg UHJpbWFyeSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9uIEF1dGhvcml0eTAeFw05ODA1MTIwMDAwMDBaFw0wODA1MTIy MzU5NTlaMIHMMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1 c3QgTmV0d29yazFGMEQGA1UECxM9d3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9yZXBvc2l0b3J5L1JQQSBJbmNv cnAuIEJ5IFJlZi4sTElBQi5MVEQoYyk5ODFIMEYGA1UEAxM/VmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMSBDQSBJ bmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXItUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEB AQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQC7WkSKBBa7Vf0DeootlE8VeDa4DUqyb5xUv7zodyqdufBou5XZMUFweoFL uUgTVi3HCOGEQqvAopKrRFyqQvCCDgLpL/vCO7u+yScKXbawNkIztW5UiE+HSr8Z2vkV6A+Hthzj zMaajn9qJJLj/OBluqexfu/J2zdqyErICQbkmQIDAQABo4G0MIGxMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIB BjA1BgNVHR8ELjAsMCqgKKAmhiRodHRwOi8vY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9wY2ExLjEuMS5jcmww RwYDVR0gBEAwPjA8BgtghkgBhvhFAQcBATAtMCsGCCsGAQUFBwIBFh93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29t L3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvUlBBMA8GA1UdEwQIMAYBAf8CAQAwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgEGMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEB AgUAA4GBAEJ8Dt+MeUysvwjsTVUvUImgxV5OLl6VMpt5rWURCxxKUsTVqDEhjt4Qm2wIxQfmA7nn yDR4CQnyvAZC+FqMg9GK3qoi9dnjIdLPZYwGM7DNILIzzQq9PuGdwTWpZLCnpSRb6fFo6xPEfDf0 lGQNmsW9MxfvgzOgPuWqPq7Ycx+tMIIEdDCCA92gAwIBAgIQD/oO/42UOVJDGBp4RrP/mDANBgkq hkiG9w0BAQQFADCBzDEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWdu IFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEg SW5jb3JwLiBCeSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxSDBGBgNVBAMTP1ZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEg Q0EgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyLVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDAeFw0wMjEyMTcw MDAwMDBaFw0wMzEyMTcyMzU5NTlaMIIBGDEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNV BAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVw b3NpdG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNv bmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDE0MDIGA1UECxMrRGlnaXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTWljcm9zb2Z0 IEZ1bGwgU2VydmljZTETMBEGA1UEAxQKVG9tIExvaGRhbjEpMCcGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYadG9tbEBh bGxjb21uZXR3b3Jrcy5jb20uYXUwgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBAMELm71ATWJe +p0nbi3Z2zGtCYtDj9qlfMF9ZfkmPOezHGQ0snPvkLJhGWlI9d6rSGva6v0FhFm8BlMdmxtwNo7S mbHCuVLnwoXGCnm9pTqblvZlDSJvoEUTqZM1cG4U2V+pC2q8jExV2bmVYq8RdDZ5iwO1lgYz7YnF bwQ5CzFhAgMBAAGjggEGMIIBAjAJBgNVHRMEAjAAMIGsBgNVHSAEgaQwgaEwgZ4GC2CGSAGG+EUB BwEBMIGOMCgGCCsGAQUFBwIBFhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vQ1BTMGIGCCsGAQUF BwICMFYwFRYOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4wAwIBARo9VmVyaVNpZ24ncyBDUFMgaW5jb3JwLiBieSBy ZWZlcmVuY2UgbGlhYi4gbHRkLiAoYyk5NyBWZXJpU2lnbjARBglghkgBhvhCAQEEBAMCB4AwMwYD VR0fBCwwKjAooCagJIYiaHR0cDovL2NybC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vY2xhc3MxLmNybDANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQQFAAOBgQBro5HD4LETC+E8RzcD7ZSqFu6MFQFAlqznSJIaktpm5VpvKI7rcO1hYzKdXOGk crfab1bNbrjy2mxwc0APN3lhL9eE6OLu0pEwHVjtJDl/FkpW9II/1vADB3q2mSxRPbpBwwfUo0N9 o5JhvDXlsgQSTCWOn86o8/2bmGjWzPvhWDGCBD4wggQ6AgEBMIHhMIHMMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJp U2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yazFGMEQGA1UECxM9d3d3 LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9yZXBvc2l0b3J5L1JQQSBJbmNvcnAuIEJ5IFJlZi4sTElBQi5MVEQoYyk5 ODFIMEYGA1UEAxM/VmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMSBDQSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXItUGVy c29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkAhAP+g7/jZQ5UkMYGnhGs/+YMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggKyMBgGCSqG SIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTAzMDEwNzIzMzI1OVowIwYJKoZI hvcNAQkEMRYEFJ9B290uqLXqpMP6vQZhKJA/UA73MGcGCSqGSIb3DQEJDzFaMFgwCgYIKoZIhvcN AwcwDgYIKoZIhvcNAwICAgCAMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgEo MAcGBSsOAwIaMAoGCCqGSIb3DQIFMIHyBgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxgeQwgeEwgcwxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZl cmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMUYwRAYDVQQLEz13 d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvUlBBIEluY29ycC4gQnkgUmVmLixMSUFCLkxURChj KTk4MUgwRgYDVQQDEz9WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIENBIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlci1Q ZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQCEA/6Dv+NlDlSQxgaeEaz/5gwgfQGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYHk oIHhMIHMMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3Qg TmV0d29yazFGMEQGA1UECxM9d3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9yZXBvc2l0b3J5L1JQQSBJbmNvcnAu IEJ5IFJlZi4sTElBQi5MVEQoYyk5ODFIMEYGA1UEAxM/VmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMSBDQSBJbmRp dmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXItUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkAhAP+g7/jZQ5UkMYGnhGs/+Y MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIGAC47iOtBShelZkabAeZgTsFhgWP/DL2wJMqEfX5wJH31ZyDAdSf/Z h2viJ9CwHIHMR6VjUtufjkuyyZyUfFw+KogIJf7j4+o8wqk9B0KkP/6z02c/X444gH2uxDsCyz3t mfun1BSnUCo4vreK3wDowgScyiHu4XrCd2ftrLGDotsAAAAAAAA= ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C2B701.50CB3460-- From odysseus@soa.co.nz Tue Jan 7 19:50:35 2003 From: odysseus@soa.co.nz (Chris Hellberg) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 08:50:35 +1300 Subject: [6bone] trace to 192.88.99.1; .au v6 connectivity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030107195035.GA27620@hellcheese.soa.co.nz> Dan, I have set up a v6 peering exchange in Wellington, New Zealand in the hope of get some v6 interest and flowing. I did have v6-accessible mirrors of some open-source projects, however it's been temporarily taken off the air. I have a think about injecting an anycast address for dynamic tunnels a bit later on. There is tunnel to the 6bone on the IX, however I've set a no-export on those routes unless requested. webpage: http://www.soa.co.nz/ipv6 Cheers, Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Reeder [mailto:dan@reeder.name] > Sent: Tuesday, 7 January 2003 10:59 PM > To: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > Subject: [6bone] trace to 192.88.99.1; .au v6 connectivity > > > Hi people, > Unless I am under the wrong impression completely, it is my > understanding that 192.88.99.1 is the special 'anycast' address used for > finding the nearest 2002:: 6to4 routing gateway. > > I've been doing some traces from various hosts here in .au and they all > either end up at a host in Swizerland or a host in Finland. The thing > is, I'm rather skeptical of the fact that these servers are the > 'nearest' to Australia, BGP-speaking or otherwise. > > Any assistance you good folks could lend me in relation to this issue > would be a great help. Is 6to4 connectivity even desired these days? > > Secondly, and primarily addressed to Aussies/Kiwis/Asians, I've also got > a question with regards to the general IPv6 scene in Australia / Oceania > at the moment. As far as I am aware there are zero tunnel brokers in > this region, let alone commercial entities actively offering and > promoting customer v6 connectivity, although personally I probably > couldn't afford a netblock were it offered for a fee. I mean, as I see > it the nearest quality tunnel broker (in terms of latency) to me > (Brisbane) is he.net's pop at Los Angeles! I'm aware that Aarnet is on > it's way to developing a rather decent educationally-inclined ipv6 > facility, and I can only hope they will open up a public tunnel > brokering service, however apart from them there seems to be nobody here > operating a relatively-domestic network yet, letalone an organisation > with decent trans-pacific connectivity. > > So, how long do us aussies/oceanians have to put up with ordinarily > 200ms+ first hops? > > cheers and regards, > Dan Reeder > 2001:470:1f00:510::/64 > ircgate.org > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From bob@thefinks.com Wed Jan 8 02:56:05 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 18:56:05 -0800 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by HP - review closes 22 January 2003 Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030107185118.02099e70@mail.addr.com> 6bone Folk, HP 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. Thanks, Bob === >From: "UPPENDAHL,MICKEY (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" >To: "'fink@es.net'" , "'bob@thefinks.com'" >Cc: "UPPENDAHL,MICKEY (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" , > "FROELICH,STEVE (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" >Subject: >Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 13:28:42 -0800 > >Mr. Fink, > >On behalf of the Hewlett-Packard IT IPv6 Testbed Project, I would like to >submit our application for a pTLA. > >-Mickey Uppendahl > HP - MSDD Strategic Communications Architecture > mickey.uppendahl@hp.com > > >---------------- from RFC 2772 ------------------------------------------- > >7. Guidelines for 6Bone pTLA sites > > The following rules apply to qualify for a 6Bone pTLA allocation. It > should be recognized that holders of 6Bone pTLA allocations are > expected to provide production quality backbone network services for > the 6Bone. > > 1. The pTLA Applicant must have a minimum of three (3) months > qualifying experience as a 6Bone end-site or pNLA transit. During > the entire qualifying period the Applicant must be operationally > providing the following: > >We've been running since 21 June 2002, meeting all requirements since that >date. > > 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?HP >http://whois.6bone.net/cgi-bin/whois?HP-Americas > > b. Fully maintained, and reliable, BGP4+ peering and connectivity > between the Applicant's boundary router and the appropriate > connection point into the 6Bone. This router must be IPv6 > pingable. This criteria is judged by members of the 6Bone > Operations Group at the time of the Applicant's pTLA request. > >Our boundary router is corgw01.hwp6.net, and is pingable via both v6 and v4. > >We currently maintain external connections to Sprint (who gave us our >current >block of IPv6 addresses) and internal connections (tunneled and native v6) >between >our 4 internal "core" sites, cascading to other edge site groups. All >connections >are via BGP4+ using AS71. > >We have resisted making further external connections until we obtain pTLA >space >so that we can do full external peering relationships. We've been using >BGP4+ >within our testbed network, and members of our groups have extensive >experience >using both I-BGP and E-BGP in HP's IPv4 network. > > c. Fully maintained DNS forward (AAAA) and reverse (ip6.int) > entries for the Applicant's router(s) and at least one host > system. > >Our current authoritative name servers: > corns01.hwp6.net > palns01.hwp6.net > > d. A fully maintained, and reliable, IPv6-accessible system > providing, at a minimum, one or more web pages, describing the > Applicant's IPv6 services. This server must be IPv6 pingable. > >www.hwp6.net (externally accessible) >www.ipv6.hp.com (only accessible from inside HP's private network) > > > 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. > >SFF-6BONE >JLH-6BONE >MJU-6BONE >DDC-6BONE > > b. A common mailbox for support contact purposes that all support > staff have access to, pointed to with a notify attribute in the > ipv6-site object for the pTLA Applicant. > >ipv6-admin@ipv6.hp.com > > 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 HP IT IPv6 Testbed provides IPv6 connectivity to internal >Hewlett-Packard >product development teams. There well over 100,000 current HP employees and >many IPv6 product development projects are underway, the details of which we >would (obviously) prefer not to disclose publicly. We expected to soon be >required to provide connectivity to certain external business partners. > >The HP IT IPv6 is part of the company Information Services organization, >currently located in the Managed Services Design & Delivery group. > > 4. The pTLA Applicant MUST commit to abide by the current 6Bone > operational rules and policies as they exist at time of its > application, and agree to abide by future 6Bone backbone > operational rules and policies as they evolve by consensus of the > 6Bone backbone and user community. > >We agree to abide by all 6Bone rules and policies now and for as long as >we continue to use the 6Bone. > > 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. -end From koch@tiscali.net Wed Jan 8 06:48:36 2003 From: koch@tiscali.net (Alexander Koch) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 07:48:36 +0100 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request LOXINFO-TH - review closes 21 January 2003 In-Reply-To: <1041968840.27203.690.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030107065916.01822e20@imap2.es.net> <1041968840.27203.690.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Message-ID: <20030108064836.GA28230@shekinah.ip.tiscali.net> On Tue, 7 January 2003 20:47:21 +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > 6bone Folk, [snip] > NDSoftware (AS25358) don't peer with Loxinfo (AS4750). > > NDSoftware have a strict peering policy about IPv6 over IPv4 tunnels for > have a full high quality network, IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel must have less > than 50ms of latency > (http://noc.ndsoftwarenet.com/docs/peering-policy.php). > > We have this policy for can peer with production network and have a full > high quality network. You have a full high quality network? In Paris only, you mean? You sound like one of these beancounter ppl when answering peering requests, man. What a tone, eh. It does not fit with your network size. Regardless, we are doing written paperwork for IPv6 peering already with 6bone addresses? Anyone else does it? curious, Alexander From mohacsi@niif.hu Wed Jan 8 07:25:31 2003 From: mohacsi@niif.hu (Janos Mohacsi) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 08:25:31 +0100 (CET) Subject: [6bone] ARIN allocation In-Reply-To: <20030107204506.P15927@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20030108082203.D16488-100000@evil.ki.iif.hu> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 02:37:02PM -0200, Robson Oliveira wrote: > > Can somebody say how can my company/ISP move to IPv6 if: > > Slowly and with patience... > > > - The IIS/Apache web server don't support Multi-web site alias to one server only? > > Apache 2.0 should be able to do multihoming with IPv6. Yes. It is capable doing that. We are using both VirtualHost and NameVirtualHost . > > > - To update my Cisco IOS I need a CCO password and my carrier breakdown with WorldCom? > > You need to buy an IOS update, yes. But that's the same as with all your > machines - if their operating system is too old for IPv6, you need a more > recent version. > > > - If my Microsoft w2k OS do not support AH/ESP IPSec support completely? > > Do IPSEC on a NetBSD or Linux/Usagi box. IPsec also supported very well on FreeBSD/OpenBSD, Solaris and AIX. Janos Mohacsi From koch@tiscali.net Wed Jan 8 13:55:31 2003 From: koch@tiscali.net (Alexander Koch) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:55:31 +0100 Subject: [6bone] ARIN allocation In-Reply-To: <20030108082203.D16488-100000@evil.ki.iif.hu> References: <20030107204506.P15927@Space.Net> <20030108082203.D16488-100000@evil.ki.iif.hu> Message-ID: <20030108135531.GA30016@shekinah.ip.tiscali.net> On Wed, 8 January 2003 08:25:31 +0100, Janos Mohacsi wrote: > > > - The IIS/Apache web server don't support Multi-web > > > site alias to one server only? > > Apache 2.0 should be able to do multihoming with IPv6. > Yes. It is capable doing that. We are using both VirtualHost and > NameVirtualHost . Is Apache 2.0.42 (or whatever) working nice enough with IPv6 and mod_perl and mod_php? Anyone having it in production? I know these are not necessarily IPv6 considerations, but it is closely linked. Regards, Alexander -- Alexander Koch / ako4-ripe Network Engineer, Tiscali International Network Robert-Bosch-Strasse 32, D-63303 Dreieich, Germany Phone +49 6103 916 480, Fax +49 6103 916 464 From Ettore De Simone" On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:55:31 +0100, Alexander Koch wrote: >Is Apache 2.0.42 (or whatever) working nice enough with IPv6 >and mod_perl and mod_php? Anyone having it in production? I >know these are not necessarily IPv6 considerations, but it >is closely linked. Apache 2.0 isn't working even in IPv4, I had to downgrade an installation back to 1.3.26. Definitely not for production environment, maybe when 2.1 is out... From danne@wiberg.nu Wed Jan 8 16:06:21 2003 From: danne@wiberg.nu (Daniel Wiberg) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 17:06:21 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Apache 2 In-Reply-To: <200301081538.h08FcKS12409@mail.mclink.it> References: <200301081538.h08FcKS12409@mail.mclink.it> Message-ID: <20030108160620.GF10305@wiberg.nu> What are the problems with Apache2? I've been running Apache2/Php in a "semi-production" environment for quite some time with absolutely no problem. BR, Daniel Wiberg On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 04:38:19PM +0100, Ettore De Simone wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:55:31 +0100, Alexander Koch wrote: > > >Is Apache 2.0.42 (or whatever) working nice enough with IPv6 > >and mod_perl and mod_php? Anyone having it in production? I > >know these are not necessarily IPv6 considerations, but it > >is closely linked. > > Apache 2.0 isn't working even in IPv4, I had to downgrade an installation back to 1.3.26. Definitely not > for production environment, maybe when 2.1 is out... > > > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone -- www.wiberg.nu From E.L.Schippers@rf.rabobank.nl Wed Jan 8 16:31:28 2003 From: E.L.Schippers@rf.rabobank.nl (Schippers, EL (Eward)) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 17:31:28 +0100 Subject: [6bone] ARIN allocation Message-ID: <120291FD14933-28@_rabobank.nl_> Indeed not working well at all. Lots of trouble with PHP 4.2.3 and up too All related to the MM session handler Segfaults, child processes dieing. Downgraded as well and wouldn't advise apache 2.0 nor php 4.3.0 to anyone. Met vriendelijke groet, E.L.Schippers RabobankICT Mail Continuïteit Tel. +31 (0)30 21 51237 Mailto:E.L.Schippers@rf.rabobank.nl -----Original Message----- From: Ettore De Simone [mailto:e.desimone@ecity.it] Sent: woensdag 8 januari 2003 16:38 To: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu Subject: Re: [6bone] ARIN allocation On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:55:31 +0100, Alexander Koch wrote: >Is Apache 2.0.42 (or whatever) working nice enough with IPv6 >and mod_perl and mod_php? Anyone having it in production? I >know these are not necessarily IPv6 considerations, but it >is closely linked. Apache 2.0 isn't working even in IPv4, I had to downgrade an installation back to 1.3.26. Definitely not for production environment, maybe when 2.1 is out... _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list 6bone@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone ================================================ De informatie opgenomen in dit bericht kan vertrouwelijk zijn en is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Indien u dit bericht onterecht ontvangt, wordt u verzocht de inhoud niet te gebruiken en de afzender direct te informeren door het bericht te retourneren. ================================================ The information contained in this message may be confidential and is intended to be exclusively for the addressee. Should you receive this message unintentionally, please do not use the contents herein and notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. From ck@arch.bellsouth.net Wed Jan 8 16:49:35 2003 From: ck@arch.bellsouth.net (Christian Kuhtz) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 11:49:35 -0500 Subject: [6bone] Apache 2 In-Reply-To: <20030108160620.GF10305@wiberg.nu> Message-ID: I concur, it does indeed work. Apache2.0.43 w/ mod_ssl/2.0.43 OpenSSL/0.9.6g PHP/4.3.0-pre1, on Solaris 9. Don't care for mod_perl over here, haven't bothered with it at all. www.arch.bellsouth.net/ipv6 is an installation (under construction) with Apache2 & PHP, dual stacked with IPv4 & IPv6. Right now, pretty much all it'll tell you is what IPv4/IPv6 addr you're coming from (via whimpy PHP script). Contact me off-list if you'd like more info. Cheers, Christian -----Original Message----- From: 6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu [mailto:6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu]On Behalf Of Daniel Wiberg Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 11:06 AM To: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu Subject: Re: [6bone] Apache 2 What are the problems with Apache2? I've been running Apache2/Php in a "semi-production" environment for quite some time with absolutely no problem. BR, Daniel Wiberg On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 04:38:19PM +0100, Ettore De Simone wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:55:31 +0100, Alexander Koch wrote: > > >Is Apache 2.0.42 (or whatever) working nice enough with IPv6 > >and mod_perl and mod_php? Anyone having it in production? I > >know these are not necessarily IPv6 considerations, but it > >is closely linked. > > Apache 2.0 isn't working even in IPv4, I had to downgrade an installation back to 1.3.26. Definitely not > for production environment, maybe when 2.1 is out... > > > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone -- www.wiberg.nu _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list 6bone@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From jeroen@unfix.org Wed Jan 8 17:45:42 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 18:45:42 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Apache 2 In-Reply-To: <20030108160620.GF10305@wiberg.nu> Message-ID: <004601c2b73d$c5e78e10$210d640a@unfix.org> Daniel Wiberg wrote: > What are the problems with Apache2? > > I've been running Apache2/Php in a "semi-production" > environment for quite > some time with absolutely no problem. Maybe a teeny bit off topic but just to make it clear: Apache 2.x + PHP4 *works* both on IPv6 and IPv4 without any problems. The one issue that was at hand was the fact that with Linux and certain combinations of NIC's and the 'sendfile()' function. Causing that pages send out over IPv6 never worked except when they where sent over SSL or similar. When one comes over this situation building Apache 2 without sendfile support fixes this problem. The next edition of Apache 2 will have a "Sendfile off" option which circumvents this without the need for a rebuild. One should use PHP4 4.3.x and up in combination with Apache2. As for PHP4 and Apache2, the main problem is here that most of the database related php-plugins are not resitant against threading. Using the Apache2 MPM prefork module works. If people still are having problems with it I suggest them to give comprehensive reports to the Apache development list and/or the bugreport tool: http://httpd.apache.org/bug_report.html http://httpd.apache.org/lists.html Btw... *.apache.org runs Apache2 and so does www.sixxs.net amongst many other sites around this globe. People saying "it does not work" should give comprehensive details of what doesn't work etc, see above. Greets, Jeroen From gert@space.net Wed Jan 8 18:18:26 2003 From: gert@space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 19:18:26 +0100 Subject: [6bone] ARIN allocation In-Reply-To: <20030108135531.GA30016@shekinah.ip.tiscali.net>; from koch@tiscali.net on Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 02:55:31PM +0100 References: <20030107204506.P15927@Space.Net> <20030108082203.D16488-100000@evil.ki.iif.hu> <20030108135531.GA30016@shekinah.ip.tiscali.net> Message-ID: <20030108191826.F15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 02:55:31PM +0100, Alexander Koch wrote: > Is Apache 2.0.42 (or whatever) working nice enough with IPv6 > and mod_perl and mod_php? Anyone having it in production? I > know these are not necessarily IPv6 considerations, but it > is closely linked. 2.0.43 works nicely for us (http://www.space.net), with mod_php and mod_perl. mod_php ist heavily used and works well. mod_perl claims to work but hasn't been tested very much yet. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 55180 (54707) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From kim@tac.nyc.ny.us Wed Jan 8 18:35:55 2003 From: kim@tac.nyc.ny.us (Kimmo Suominen) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 13:35:55 -0500 Subject: [6bone] Apache 2 In-Reply-To: from "Christian Kuhtz" on Wed, 08 Jan 2003 11:49:35 -0500 References: Message-ID: <20030108183555.23D607E3A@beowulf.gw.com> I tried to upgrade to Apache2 and had the following problems: - no libapreq to go with Apache2/mod_perl - Horde (2.2-cvs) would no longer work with PHP-4.2.3 (not even on Apache 1.3.27) I was using the versions from pkgsrc on NetBSD, and did not have time to try to look into it further. And I'm not sure it would have helped for me to look into it, either... :-) Otherwise I did have a working basic Apache2 w/ SSL, and PHP also worked ok for some smaller (simpler) apps. Regards, + Kim | From: "Christian Kuhtz" | Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 11:49:35 -0500 | | | I concur, it does indeed work. Apache2.0.43 w/ mod_ssl/2.0.43 | OpenSSL/0.9.6g PHP/4.3.0-pre1, on Solaris 9. Don't care for mod_perl over | here, haven't bothered with it at all. | | www.arch.bellsouth.net/ipv6 is an installation (under construction) with | Apache2 & PHP, dual stacked with IPv4 & IPv6. Right now, pretty much all | it'll tell you is what IPv4/IPv6 addr you're coming from (via whimpy PHP | script). | | Contact me off-list if you'd like more info. | | Cheers, | Christian | | -----Original Message----- | From: 6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu [mailto:6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu]On | Behalf Of Daniel Wiberg | Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 11:06 AM | To: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu | Subject: Re: [6bone] Apache 2 | | | What are the problems with Apache2? | | I've been running Apache2/Php in a "semi-production" environment for quite | some time with absolutely no problem. | | BR, | Daniel Wiberg | | | On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 04:38:19PM +0100, Ettore De Simone wrote: | > On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:55:31 +0100, Alexander Koch wrote: | > | > >Is Apache 2.0.42 (or whatever) working nice enough with IPv6 | > >and mod_perl and mod_php? Anyone having it in production? I | > >know these are not necessarily IPv6 considerations, but it | > >is closely linked. | > | > Apache 2.0 isn't working even in IPv4, I had to downgrade an installation | back to 1.3.26. Definitely not | > for production environment, maybe when 2.1 is out... | > | > | > | > _______________________________________________ | > 6bone mailing list | > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu | > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone | | -- | www.wiberg.nu | _______________________________________________ | 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 Ettore De Simone" Random hangs, usually associated with heavy traffic - no faults, it just stops answering requests and needs manual restart. Checking the Apache bug database I found out is a somewhat diffuse problem, and yet it is unresolved - no way around it, had to abandon the whole thing. On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 17:06:21 +0100, Daniel Wiberg wrote: >What are the problems with Apache2? > >I've been running Apache2/Php in a "semi-production" environment for quite >some time with absolutely no problem. From jeroen@unfix.org Wed Jan 8 19:59:46 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 20:59:46 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Apache 2 In-Reply-To: <200301081850.h08IomJ05544@mail.mclink.it> Message-ID: <006001c2b750$7f889780$210d640a@unfix.org> Ettore De Simone wrote: > Random hangs, usually associated with heavy traffic - no > faults, it just stops answering requests and > needs manual restart. Checking the Apache bug database I > found out is a somewhat diffuse problem, > and yet it is unresolved - no way around it, had to abandon > the whole thing. > http://www.apache.org/server-status Server Version: Apache/2.0.44-dev (Unix) Server Built: Jan 7 2003 08:24:19 Current Time: Wednesday, 08-Jan-2003 11:53:58 PST Restart Time: Tuesday, 07-Jan-2003 11:39:18 PST Parent Server Generation: 1 Server uptime: 1 day 14 minutes 40 seconds Total accesses: 3408392 - Total Traffic: 236.4 GB CPU Usage: u190.031 s448.383 cu452.109 cs159.203 - 1.43% CPU load 39.1 requests/sec - 2.8 MB/second - 72.7 kB/request 151 requests currently being processed, 57 idle workers I think they are pushing quite a lot of traffic. Especially when new versions get released. nagoya.apache.org Wed Jan 08 11:57:40 2003 Apache/2.0.40-dev (Unix) DAV/2 SVN/0.13.1 (dev build) That is one of the primary mirrors, unfortunatly it doesn't have a public server-status. Also your 'bug' quite probably has to do with the Linux 'sendfile' implementation. But heh, you didn't even bother to mention OS nor Apache versions so there is nothing to tell about it now is there. Greets, Jeroen From andreas@naund.org Wed Jan 8 22:43:28 2003 From: andreas@naund.org (Andreas Ott) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:43:28 -0800 Subject: [6bone] IPv6 configuration in FreeBSD In-Reply-To: <20030107115936.4ba081f2.johann@broadpark.no>; from johann@broadpark.no on Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 11:59:36AM +0100 References: <20030103194357.25479fc6.johann@broadpark.no> <20030103163114.A10573@naund.org> <20030107115936.4ba081f2.johann@broadpark.no> Message-ID: <20030108144328.L1428@naund.org> Hi, On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 11:59:36AM +0100, Janine C.Buorditez wrote: > Actually, I do need further help. I will do this in private mail to you (as I did in the first round), I believe this topic is more of the 'tech support' nature and we should not bother the list with it. I know of several successful FreeBSD IPv6 installation that were straight forward. -andreas -- Andreas Ott andreas@naund.org From itojun@iijlab.net Thu Jan 9 03:32:32 2003 From: itojun@iijlab.net (itojun@iijlab.net) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 12:32:32 +0900 Subject: [6bone] ARIN allocation In-Reply-To: e.desimone's message of Wed, 08 Jan 2003 16:38:19 +0100. <200301081538.h08FcKS12409@mail.mclink.it> Message-ID: <20030109033232.848E44B23@coconut.itojun.org> >>Is Apache 2.0.42 (or whatever) working nice enough with IPv6 >>and mod_perl and mod_php? Anyone having it in production? I >>know these are not necessarily IPv6 considerations, but it >>is closely linked. >Apache 2.0 isn't working even in IPv4, I had to downgrade an installation >back to 1.3.26. Definitely not for production environment, maybe when 2.1 >is out... could you talk more about WHAT did not work with 2.0? i have switched all my servers to 2.0 (no mod_perl/php though), and have been using it without any trouble. itojun From hank@att.net.il Thu Jan 9 08:58:39 2003 From: hank@att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 10:58:39 +0200 Subject: [6bone] FYI: Cisco ICMPv6 Packet Types and Codes In-Reply-To: <20021220103729.C27796@iprg.nokia.com> References: <20021220173646.ED4287E3A@beowulf.gw.com> <003a01c2a849$7b478980$210d640a@unfix.org> <20021220173646.ED4287E3A@beowulf.gw.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030109105706.0103f1e0@max.att.net.il> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/icmpv6codes.html -Hank From tommahoney@technetinc.com Thu Jan 9 19:45:55 2003 From: tommahoney@technetinc.com (Tom Mahoney) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 11:45:55 -0800 Subject: [6bone] Career Opportunity in IPv6 Message-ID: <3E1DD173.BDF24864@technetinc.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_rMGkvuF6cUXLSro88Ynuwg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hello, I am a recruiter here in Mountain View CA. I represent a company that is looking to fill a Architect position (details to follow) in the San Jose area. If you or anyone you know is interested, do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks and Happy New Year. Tom Mahoney Technology Network Inc 650-960-4055 ph tommahoney@technetinc.com Candidate is expected to have in-depth knowledge of IPv6 forwarding, addressing and tunneling. Candidate should also have strong background in IP stack and routing protocols for IPv6. The candidate will be responsible for defining and driving hardware/software architecture and design for IPv6 . Hands-on development experience in IPv6 is a must. Must have 4-5 year experience in IPv6, 8-10 years in networking, and a BS/MS. --Boundary_(ID_rMGkvuF6cUXLSro88Ynuwg) Content-type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name=tommahoney.vcf Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: attachment; filename=tommahoney.vcf Content-description: Card for Tom Mahoney begin:vcard n:Mahoney;Tom tel;cell:818-681-1361 tel;fax:650-960-4056 tel;work:650-960-4055 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:Technology Network Inc version:2.1 email;internet:tommahoney@technetinc.com title:Partner adr;quoted-printable:;;650 Castro Street=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A;Mountain View;CA;94040; fn:Tom Mahoney end:vcard --Boundary_(ID_rMGkvuF6cUXLSro88Ynuwg)-- From rrockell@sprint.net Thu Jan 9 20:44:17 2003 From: rrockell@sprint.net (Robert J. Rockell) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 15:44:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: [6bone] Career Opportunity in IPv6 In-Reply-To: <3E1DD173.BDF24864@technetinc.com> Message-ID: Who is monitoring this list again? Thanks Rob Rockell SprintLink (+1) 703-689-6322 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Tom Mahoney wrote: ->Hello, ->I am a recruiter here in Mountain View CA. I represent a company that is ->looking to fill a Architect position (details to follow) in the San Jose ->area. ->If you or anyone you know is interested, do not hesitate to contact me. ->Thanks and Happy New Year. ->Tom Mahoney ->Technology Network Inc ->650-960-4055 ph ->tommahoney@technetinc.com -> -> Candidate is expected to have in-depth knowledge of IPv6 forwarding, ->addressing and tunneling. Candidate should also have strong background ->in IP stack and routing protocols for IPv6. The candidate will be ->responsible for defining and driving hardware/software architecture and ->design for IPv6 . Hands-on development experience in IPv6 is a must. ->Must have 4-5 year experience in IPv6, 8-10 years in networking, and a ->BS/MS. -> From cfaber@fpsn.net Thu Jan 9 21:48:05 2003 From: cfaber@fpsn.net (Colin Faber) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 14:48:05 -0700 Subject: [6bone] Career Opportunity in IPv6 References: Message-ID: <3E1DEE15.36BAA9B2@fpsn.net> This is somewhat off topic (Yes I realize im adding to the noise level) however, Given the lack of any other generalized' IPv6 discussion lists I don't see too much of a problem with this kind of posting until such postings get absolutely out of hand. "Robert J. Rockell" wrote: > > Who is monitoring this list again? > -- 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 bob@thefinks.com Thu Jan 9 23:21:43 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 15:21:43 -0800 Subject: [6bone] Career Opportunity in IPv6 In-Reply-To: <3E1DEE15.36BAA9B2@fpsn.net> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030109151715.0191ed68@mail.addr.com> 6bone Folk, As for moderating this list, it really isn't. Bill Manning helps manage the list given he is the host for it, and we collectively decide on what's appropriate after the fact, with input from those on the list, of course. Having said that, I believe we should not allow job postings. However, I don't believe anyone wants to look at every posting before it's released. Too much work for a little gain. Bob === Who is monitoring this list again? Thanks Rob Rockell SprintLink (+1) 703-689-6322 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Tom Mahoney wrote: ->Hello, ->I am a recruiter here in Mountain View CA. I represent a company that is ->looking to fill a Architect position (details to follow) in the San Jose ->area. ->If you or anyone you know is interested, do not hesitate to contact me. ->Thanks and Happy New Year. ->Tom Mahoney ->Technology Network Inc ->650-960-4055 ph ->tommahoney@technetinc.com -> -> Candidate is expected to have in-depth knowledge of IPv6 forwarding, ->addressing and tunneling. Candidate should also have strong background ->in IP stack and routing protocols for IPv6. The candidate will be ->responsible for defining and driving hardware/software architecture and ->design for IPv6 . Hands-on development experience in IPv6 is a must. ->Must have 4-5 year experience in IPv6, 8-10 years in networking, and a ->BS/MS. -> At 02:48 PM 1/9/2003 -0700, Colin Faber wrote: >This is somewhat off topic (Yes I realize im adding to the noise level) >however, Given the lack of any other generalized' IPv6 discussion lists >I don't see too much of a problem with this kind of posting until such >postings get absolutely out of hand. From bmanning@ISI.EDU Fri Jan 10 01:03:21 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 17:03:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] Career Opportunity in IPv6 In-Reply-To: from "Robert J. Rockell" at "Jan 9, 3 03:44:17 pm" Message-ID: <200301100103.h0A13LQ15355@boreas.isi.edu> everyone subscribed? :) seriously, we have never encouraged job postings. I could moderate the list, but it would delay postings a bit. Or I could kick offenders off and be draconian. That may reduce the useful life of the list. Would a brief posting of list manners be useful? % Who is monitoring this list again? % % Thanks % Rob Rockell % SprintLink % (+1) 703-689-6322 % ----------------------------------------------------------------------- % % On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Tom Mahoney wrote: % % ->Hello, % ->I am a recruiter here in Mountain View CA. I represent a company that is % ->looking to fill a Architect position (details to follow) in the San Jose % ->area. % ->If you or anyone you know is interested, do not hesitate to contact me. % ->Thanks and Happy New Year. % ->Tom Mahoney % ->Technology Network Inc % ->650-960-4055 ph % ->tommahoney@technetinc.com % -> % -> Candidate is expected to have in-depth knowledge of IPv6 forwarding, % ->addressing and tunneling. Candidate should also have strong background % ->in IP stack and routing protocols for IPv6. The candidate will be % ->responsible for defining and driving hardware/software architecture and % ->design for IPv6 . Hands-on development experience in IPv6 is a must. % ->Must have 4-5 year experience in IPv6, 8-10 years in networking, and a % ->BS/MS. % -> % % _______________________________________________ % 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 bob@thefinks.com Fri Jan 10 01:56:13 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:56:13 -0800 Subject: [6bone] Career Opportunity in IPv6 In-Reply-To: <200301100103.h0A13LQ15355@boreas.isi.edu> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030109175539.036d9028@mail.addr.com> At 05:03 PM 1/9/2003 -0800, Bill Manning wrote: > everyone subscribed? :) > seriously, we have never encouraged job postings. > I could moderate the list, but it would delay postings > a bit. Or I could kick offenders off and be draconian. > That may reduce the useful life of the list. > > Would a brief posting of list manners be useful? I don't think moderation is required, but your offer of a manners list would be appreciated. Thanks, Bob From michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us Fri Jan 10 02:20:10 2003 From: michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 18:20:10 -0800 Subject: [6bone] Career Opportunity in IPv6 Message-ID: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B04640BD5C2@server2000> > Bob Fink wrote: > Having said that, I believe we should not allow job postings. Agreed. Besides, who would want to work for a recruiter that does not even have enough money to post a job on dice.com or monster.com? I'm interested in the job. Move it 3 blocks from my house and make the salary $350k/yr, I'll take it. Michel. From basit@basit.cc Fri Jan 10 06:16:19 2003 From: basit@basit.cc (Abdul Basit) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 00:16:19 -0600 (CST) Subject: [6bone] ntp/kame Message-ID: <20030110001321.P24115-100000@wireless.cs.twsu.edu> Hi, Has anyone checked out ntp ipv6 implementation? as far as i tested, none(ntp4.1rc1, ntp 4.1.72, 4.1.70, 4.1.0 (patched from viaganie patch) worked on kame/freebsd (snap 6'th jan). viaganie patched ipv6 results in not IPV6_ONLY error and others do not recognize ipv6 address notion. - basit From old_mc_donald@hotmail.com Fri Jan 10 12:25:30 2003 From: old_mc_donald@hotmail.com (Gav) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:25:30 +0800 Subject: [6bone] Career Opportunity in IPv6 References: <200301100103.h0A13LQ15355@boreas.isi.edu> Message-ID: Hi All, I wonder if maybe monitoring of the subscriptions instead would be useful? I am guessing here as I do not know how many you get, but imagine it to be a 10th of the postings on the list at the most. The advertiser would have had to subscribe to the list in order to post to it. I assume having taken this effort it is not a cross posting or junk job offer and that it was genuinely aimed at targeting the best in the IPv6 field - I have no doubt he is in the right place. However I agree it is not the place for Job Adverts. A more thorough application process to subscribe to the list might be easier to manage. | everyone subscribed? :) | seriously, we have never encouraged job postings. | I could moderate the list, but it would delay postings | a bit. Or I could kick offenders off and be draconian. | That may reduce the useful life of the list. | | Would a brief posting of list manners be useful? I don't know, how would it work? If posted tomorrow surely someone who subcribes the next day would not get to see it. Gav... --- Checked for Viruses (Viri) , Gav... Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.441 / Virus Database: 247 - Release Date: 9/01/2003 From aridaman kaushik" Hi all, Could any one tell me SNTP client/server free code site having support ipv4 as well as Ipv6. regards ari. On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 Abdul Basit wrote : > >Hi, > > Has anyone checked out ntp ipv6 implementation? >as far as i tested, none(ntp4.1rc1, ntp 4.1.72, 4.1.70, >4.1.0 (patched from viaganie patch) worked on kame/freebsd >(snap 6'th jan). > >viaganie patched ipv6 results in not IPV6_ONLY error >and others do not recognize ipv6 address notion. > >- basit > >_______________________________________________ >6bone mailing list >6bone@mailman.isi.edu >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From pim@ipng.nl Fri Jan 10 14:02:33 2003 From: pim@ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 15:02:33 +0100 Subject: [6bone] ntp/kame In-Reply-To: <20030110001321.P24115-100000@wireless.cs.twsu.edu> References: <20030110001321.P24115-100000@wireless.cs.twsu.edu> Message-ID: <20030110140233.GD27470@bfib.colo.bit.nl> On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 12:16:19AM -0600, Abdul Basit wrote: | | Hi, | | Has anyone checked out ntp ipv6 implementation? | as far as i tested, none(ntp4.1rc1, ntp 4.1.72, 4.1.70, | 4.1.0 (patched from viaganie patch) worked on kame/freebsd | (snap 6'th jan). I have recently also tried the ntp4 stuff, but to no avail. Also there were many strange behavioral issues with IPv6 transport so I reverted back to an IPv4 only approach. The Viagenie software can only work with one specific GPS source and IIRC not sync to other (stratum-1) servers over the Internet. Does anybody have a working server (that does IPv4 and IPv6 without a direct time-source) ? I'd be interrested in one for FreeBSD. groet, Pim -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From pim@ipng.nl Fri Jan 10 14:03:43 2003 From: pim@ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 15:03:43 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Career Opportunity in IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: <200301100103.h0A13LQ15355@boreas.isi.edu> Message-ID: <20030110140343.GE27470@bfib.colo.bit.nl> | | I don't know, how would it work? Of course, when one subscribes to a list, they will get a welcome note from the listadmin. This can be done automatically in any list software. | If posted tomorrow surely someone who subcribes the next day | would not get to see it. They should get the AUP when they subscribe. This way everybody that is on they list, should know about the rules before they ever post. groet, Pim -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From fredb@immanent.net Fri Jan 10 14:18:16 2003 From: fredb@immanent.net (Frederick Bruckman) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:18:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: [6bone] ntp/kame In-Reply-To: <20030110001321.P24115-100000@wireless.cs.twsu.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Abdul Basit wrote: > Has anyone checked out ntp ipv6 implementation? > as far as i tested, none(ntp4.1rc1, ntp 4.1.72, 4.1.70, > 4.1.0 (patched from viaganie patch) worked on kame/freebsd > (snap 6'th jan). I'm successfully using the ntp-dev-ipv6 bitkeeper checkout, on NetBSD 1.6K and 1.6_STABLE. As in the story of Ambrose Bierce's inventor, all the details are solved, and only fundamental problems remain. > viaganie patched ipv6 results in not IPV6_ONLY error > and others do not recognize ipv6 address notion. Why would you need to use ipv6 notation? Try ntp.ipv6.viagenie.qc.ca, or you could try ntp.immanent.net (which is just a workstation synced to some public servers). Frederick From kim@tac.nyc.ny.us Fri Jan 10 14:45:09 2003 From: kim@tac.nyc.ny.us (Kimmo Suominen) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:45:09 -0500 Subject: [6bone] ntp/kame In-Reply-To: from Frederick Bruckman on Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:18:16 -0600 References: Message-ID: <20030110144509.9A82C7E4C@beowulf.gw.com> Sometimes at boot DNS may not be available (e.g. an external line being down), yet you'd want your servers to not reject an external NTP server in their config, but rather continue using it once the connectivity is back. Using an address instead of a DNS name provides this. + Kim | From: Frederick Bruckman | Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:18:16 -0600 | | > viaganie patched ipv6 results in not IPV6_ONLY error | > and others do not recognize ipv6 address notion. | | Why would you need to use ipv6 notation? Try ntp.ipv6.viagenie.qc.ca, | or you could try ntp.immanent.net (which is just a workstation synced | to some public servers). | | Frederick From bob@thefinks.com Fri Jan 10 15:44:13 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 07:44:13 -0800 Subject: [6bone] Fwd: Reverse delegation for 6bone address space in ip6.arpa Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030110074258.021cb6b8@mail.addr.com> 6bone Folk, The RIPE NCC has just issued the following about reverse delegation for 6bone address space in ip6.arpa. Bob === >Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 12:39:47 +0100 >From: Andrei Robachevsky >Organization: RIPE NCC >To: ipv6-wg@ripe.net >CC: Bob Fink >Subject: Reverse delegation for 6bone address space in ip6.arpa > >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. -end From bob@thefinks.com Fri Jan 10 16:05:38 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:05:38 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030108111030.0213dda0@mail.addr.com> 6bone Folk, The following draft has been submitted to the IETF ID directory, but hasn't appeared yet, so I have placed it on the 6bone web site. Bob Hinden and I, as co-authors (along with Jon Postel) of RFC 2471, which allocated the 6bone's 3FFE::/16 testing prefix, have just co-authored an I-D to establish a phaseout timeline and plan for the 6bone. We have done this after various conversations about the future of the 6bone with various folk in the 6bone, Internet and RIR communities. The sum of these conversations has led us to believe that it time to start a 6bone phaseout planning process. Note that, as stated below, the plan and dates are for discussion. Nothing has been pre-determined or pre-decided by anyone. The background, plan and proposed timeline of this are described in the draft itself, which has just been released to the ID Directory. This includes an explanation of why we believe this process should be done within the IETF community. Note that it is expected that 6bone participants will have a considerable part in this discussion, whether on the 6bone list, an IETF list or an RIR list. If you are interested please read and comment: Note that the plan and dates stated in the draft are only for discussion. It is now up to the IETF open process to establish the actual plan and timing. Thanks, Bob Fink Bob Hinden From JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" Message-ID: <00bf01c2b8c7$3ebdbd20$8700000a@consulintel.es> Hi Bob, all, After a quick read of the draft my thoughts are: 1) I agree in the main aspects of the process, as we already discussed this some time ago. 2) It seems to be that July 1st 2006 is reasonable for the final close-down. 3) It seems to me that we must allocate pTLAs until January 1st 2006 (6 months can still do a lot for "last minute" newcomers). 4) I'm missing something that we discussed, relative to facilities from the RIRs to allocate production space to pTLA owners, let's say starting on July 1st 2004 (to facilitate the transition and encourage it). I understand that this can kick-off the discussion at least for the dates, as you point in your email ;-) and hope is useful. Regards, Jordi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Fink" To: "6BONE List" <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 5:05 PM Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement > 6bone Folk, > > The following draft has been submitted to the IETF ID directory, but hasn't > appeared yet, so I have placed it on the 6bone web site. > > Bob Hinden and I, as co-authors (along with Jon Postel) of RFC 2471, which > allocated the 6bone's 3FFE::/16 testing prefix, have just co-authored an > I-D to establish a phaseout timeline and plan for the 6bone. We have done > this after various conversations about the future of the 6bone with various > folk in the 6bone, Internet and RIR communities. The sum of these > conversations has led us to believe that it time to start a 6bone phaseout > planning process. Note that, as stated below, the plan and dates are for > discussion. Nothing has been pre-determined or pre-decided by anyone. > > The background, plan and proposed timeline of this are described in the > draft itself, which has just been released to the ID Directory. This > includes an explanation of why we believe this process should be done > within the IETF community. Note that it is expected that 6bone participants > will have a considerable part in this discussion, whether on the 6bone > list, an IETF list or an RIR list. > > If you are interested please read and comment: > > > > Note that the plan and dates stated in the draft are only for discussion. > It is now up to the IETF open process to establish the actual plan and timing. > > > Thanks, > > Bob Fink > Bob Hinden > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > *********************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit 12-14 May 2003 - Soon on line at: http://www.ipv6-es.com Interested in participating or sponsoring ? Contact us at ipv6@consulintel.es From jeroen@unfix.org Fri Jan 10 17:00:14 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 18:00:14 +0100 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030108111030.0213dda0@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <000701c2b8c9$bfc71db0$210d640a@unfix.org> Bob Fink wrote: > If you are interested please read and comment: > > The 6bone IPv6 mirror apparently hasn't mirrored the file, but it can be found in IPv4 on: http://131.243.129.43/misc/draft-fink-6bone-phaseout-00.txt Or IPv6 + IPv4: http://www.sixxs.net/archive/draft-fink-6bone-phaseout-00.txt Btw, the dates look quite reasonable to me. Greets, Jeroen From bob@thefinks.com Fri Jan 10 17:05:47 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:05:47 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement In-Reply-To: <00bf01c2b8c7$3ebdbd20$8700000a@consulintel.es> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030108111030.0213dda0@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030110090207.0366d538@mail.addr.com> At 05:42 PM 1/10/2003 +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >Hi Bob, all, > >After a quick read of the draft my thoughts are: > >1) I agree in the main aspects of the process, as we already discussed >this some time ago. >2) It seems to be that July 1st 2006 is reasonable for the final close-down. >3) It seems to me that we must allocate pTLAs until January 1st 2006 (6 >months can still do a lot for "last minute" newcomers). >4) I'm missing something that we discussed, relative to facilities from >the RIRs to allocate production space to pTLA owners, let's >say starting on July 1st 2004 (to facilitate the transition and encourage it). As we said in the draft I don't want the phaseout plan to pre-dispose what level a pTLA holder gravitates to in production prefix space. They may rightly need to be at the top level, or some other level. It is a big can of worms to pre-decide this, seems to me. From last paragraph of 2.0 in the draft >"It should be noted that this RFC does not intend to imply that a > 6bone prefix holder, whether at the pTLA top level or lower, should > seek a production IPv6 address prefix at any specific level. It may > be entirely reasonable for a 6bone prefix holder to seek a higher > level, or a lower level, IPv6 prefix as their specific needs dictate." >I understand that this can kick-off the discussion at least for the dates, >as you point in your email ;-) and hope is useful. Thanks for the comments, Bob From bob@thefinks.com Fri Jan 10 17:06:31 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:06:31 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement In-Reply-To: <000701c2b8c9$bfc71db0$210d640a@unfix.org> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030108111030.0213dda0@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030110090555.03706e60@mail.addr.com> At 06:00 PM 1/10/2003 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: >Bob Fink wrote: > > > If you are interested please read and comment: > > > > > >The 6bone IPv6 mirror apparently hasn't mirrored the file, True enough. >but it can be found in IPv4 on: >http://131.243.129.43/misc/draft-fink-6bone-phaseout-00.txt > >Or IPv6 + IPv4: >http://www.sixxs.net/archive/draft-fink-6bone-phaseout-00.txt > >Btw, the dates look quite reasonable to me. Thanks for the comments and reposting. Bob From bmanning@ISI.EDU Fri Jan 10 17:07:36 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:07:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] ntp/kame In-Reply-To: <20030110001321.P24115-100000@wireless.cs.twsu.edu> from Abdul Basit at "Jan 10, 3 00:16:19 am" Message-ID: <200301101707.h0AH7aU16848@boreas.isi.edu> % % Hi, % % Has anyone checked out ntp ipv6 implementation? % as far as i tested, none(ntp4.1rc1, ntp 4.1.72, 4.1.70, % 4.1.0 (patched from viaganie patch) worked on kame/freebsd % (snap 6'th jan). % % viaganie patched ipv6 results in not IPV6_ONLY error % and others do not recognize ipv6 address notion. % % - basit % % _______________________________________________ % 6bone mailing list Hiddy has been working on this for a bit and it seems to be working for us. I understand that he has submitted his work back to the ntp maintainers. if its not there now, I can tar up what we have and send it out. --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 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <5.2.0.9.0.20030110090207.0366d538@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <022c01c2b8ce$20a25b00$8700000a@consulintel.es> Yes, I see your point, but we must try ... I'm not meaning mandating to move to a production prefix, of course, but asking the RIRs to help those that want to move into production, no new requirements (no consider them as starting from scratch) or even with lower fees or something like that. May be you can comment if any off-line talks have already done with the RIRs ? Regards, Jordi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Fink" To: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" ; <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 6:05 PM Subject: Re: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement > At 05:42 PM 1/10/2003 +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > >Hi Bob, all, > > > >After a quick read of the draft my thoughts are: > > > >1) I agree in the main aspects of the process, as we already discussed > >this some time ago. > >2) It seems to be that July 1st 2006 is reasonable for the final close-down. > >3) It seems to me that we must allocate pTLAs until January 1st 2006 (6 > >months can still do a lot for "last minute" newcomers). > >4) I'm missing something that we discussed, relative to facilities from > >the RIRs to allocate production space to pTLA owners, let's > >say starting on July 1st 2004 (to facilitate the transition and encourage it). > > As we said in the draft I don't want the phaseout plan to pre-dispose what > level a pTLA holder gravitates to in production prefix space. They may > rightly need to be at the top level, or some other level. It is a big can > of worms to pre-decide this, seems to me. > > From last paragraph of 2.0 in the draft > >"It should be noted that this RFC does not intend to imply that a > > 6bone prefix holder, whether at the pTLA top level or lower, should > > seek a production IPv6 address prefix at any specific level. It may > > be entirely reasonable for a 6bone prefix holder to seek a higher > > level, or a lower level, IPv6 prefix as their specific needs dictate." > > > >I understand that this can kick-off the discussion at least for the dates, > >as you point in your email ;-) and hope is useful. > > > Thanks for the comments, > > Bob > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > *********************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit 12-14 May 2003 - Soon on line at: http://www.ipv6-es.com Interested in participating or sponsoring ? Contact us at ipv6@consulintel.es From bob@thefinks.com Fri Jan 10 17:59:11 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:59:11 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement In-Reply-To: <022c01c2b8ce$20a25b00$8700000a@consulintel.es> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030108111030.0213dda0@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030110090207.0366d538@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030110095705.0351de00@mail.addr.com> Jordi, At 06:31 PM 1/10/2003 +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >Yes, I see your point, but we must try ... > >I'm not meaning mandating to move to a production prefix, of course, but >asking the RIRs to help those that want to move into >production, no new requirements (no consider them as starting from >scratch) or even with lower fees or something like that. I understand your point. Thanks. >May be you can comment if any off-line talks have already done with the RIRs ? No dialog has started yet re a phaseout. You are the first!! Thanks, Bob From michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us Sat Jan 11 05:43:07 2003 From: michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 21:43:07 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement Message-ID: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046405E554@server2000> Bob, Bob, 6boners, > Bob Fink wrote: > The following draft has been submitted to the IETF ID directory, > but hasn't appeared yet, so I have placed it on the 6bone web site. It has appeared now, see: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fink-6bone-phaseout-00.txt Short comments [before the long ones]: - I think that such a document is necessary, and I support it. > Jordi Palet Martinez wrote: > 3) It seems to me that we must allocate pTLAs until January 1st > 2006 (6 months can still do a lot for "last minute" newcomers). - I agree with Jordi here that 6 months before the sunset seems a reasonable limit to me to allocate new pTLAs. - The sunset in July (vs. January) seems a good idea to me. Operationally speaking, July is better time of year to monkey with filter-lists. - I would personally be favorable to a sunset one year after what you proposed, July 1 2007. This is a matter of appreciation and shall be discussed. The 2006 sunset is reasonable as well, IMHO. - This might push things behind what some have in mind, so I have a question for Bob Fink: Bob, by then your house will be completed. How many bottles of Sassacaia does it take for you to stay at the helm until 2007? Long comments: [disclaimer] Most of what follows are arguments about why the 6bone should be shut down. It does *not* mean that I think the 6bone is bad. I just don't have time to write about why it is good, as it does not need justification. 6bone ROCKS. That being said, there are two main reasons why the 6bone needs to sunset. 1. The prefix MUST be reclaimed. 2. The 6bone will at some point handicap the development of a native IPv6 backbone. 1. The prefix must be reclaimed. We must make clear that the 6bone is, has always been, and will always be EXPERIMENTAL, which means it is not a cheap substitute for temporary portable address space that is to be transformed into permanent portable address space. I am not a pTLA. I am not stupid though; if I feel that the pTLA status is a shortcut to a permanent /32 portable address space, I will setup overnight something (like adding a cable modem to my residential aDSL, that does not remind anybody anything, does it) that exceeds RFC 2772 and become one. We must foil schemes that will lead to a landrush a year before sunset and leave us with the déjà vu of the IPv4 swamp. 2. The 6bone will at some point handicap the development of a native IPv6 backbone. The current situation, everyone providing free transit to everyone and no IPv6 DFZ is no business model. It has worked so far because there is no money to make with IPv6 (the crumbs the handful of commercial v6 ISPs are making today are 3 orders of magnitude below what it takes to build a backbone). As of today, the volunteer efforts of what is collectively the 6bone have been a launchpad for IPv6. At some point, a real commercial backbone is needed though. I wish IPv6 service could be free forever, bit this simply is not the way it works. The challenge we are facing is to time the 6bone sunset when it will become more an obstacle than it is a benefit today. What are the reasons that I think 2007 would be more appropriate than 2006: - Deployment of commercial IPv6 remains confidential. The "killer app" that would launch v6 into orbit has not been found yet, and given the current state of the economy 3 years is not enough for a launch. - Until v6 becomes mainstream, a boatload of 2001:: tunnel brokers is no improvement over a truckload of 3FFE:: tunnel brokers. - There is no IPv6 multihoming solution as of today. In short: I generally approve the text. My reading of fine-tuning is that it realistically appears a little short-timed, but I would support a 2006 sunset. Michel. From dr@cluenet.de Sat Jan 11 15:39:55 2003 From: dr@cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 16:39:55 +0100 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030108111030.0213dda0@mail.addr.com>; from bob@thefinks.com on Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:05:38AM -0800 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030108111030.0213dda0@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <20030111163955.A24601@homebase.cluenet.de> On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:05:38AM -0800, Bob Fink wrote: > If you are interested please read and comment: > > This timeline sounds reasonable to me. Not too short and not too long, so keeps momentum. Perhaps a recommendation (or even requirement?) to start filtering 3FFE::/16 orlonger on 2006-07-01 would be a good idea, but might be unnecessary. Regards, Daniel From jeroen@unfix.org Sat Jan 11 17:37:03 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:37:03 +0100 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement In-Reply-To: <20030111163955.A24601@homebase.cluenet.de> Message-ID: <001b01c2b998$0e0d85d0$210d640a@unfix.org> Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 08:05:38AM -0800, Bob Fink wrote: > > If you are interested please read and comment: > > > > > > This timeline sounds reasonable to me. Not too short and not too long, > so keeps momentum. > > Perhaps a recommendation (or even requirement?) to start filtering > 3FFE::/16 orlonger on 2006-07-01 would be a good idea, but might be > unnecessary. IMHO there should be no filtering for this space. It should not be announced at all and if a packet is detected the party sending out that packet should be . Good reason for not filtering are: - If someone does use it it will show up in the various monitors. - It avoids having to remove the filters when IANA reassigns the space. Especially the second part is usefull as, like seen now on some networks who filter out certain ipv4 prefixes and 'forget' about the filters. Greets, Jeroen From nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net Sat Jan 11 23:30:11 2003 From: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net (Nicolas DEFFAYET) Date: 12 Jan 2003 00:30:11 +0100 Subject: [6bone] 3FFE:4014::/32 - Another pTLA space hijack Message-ID: <1042327811.2521.159.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Hi all, I have discover another pTLA space hijack: ---------------------------------------------------------------------> Sun Jan 12 00:12:55 CET 2003 % RIPEdb(3.0.0b2) with ISI RPSL extensions ipv6-site: 6BONE origin: AS293 descr: IETF NGTRANS Working Group IPv6 Testbed prefix: 3FFE::/16 contact: RLF1-6BONE remarks: This object is automatically converted from the RIPE181 registry url: http://www.6bone.net notify: fink@es.net mnt-by: RLF1-6BONE changed: fink@es.net 20001128 changed: auto-dbm@whois.6bone.net 20010117 source: 6BONE inet6num: 3FFE:4014::/32 netname: ircspace descr: ircspace test ipv6 country: IT admin-c: PD77-6BONE tech-c: PD77-6BONE mnt-by: ROBBTEK changed: proliste@libero.it 20021128 source: 6BONE person: Robert L. Fink address: ESnet - Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory phone: +1 510 486 5692 e-mail: fink@es.net nic-hdl: RLF1-6BONE remarks: change to my esnet email address remarks: This object is automatically converted from the RIPE181 registry notify: fink@es.net mnt-by: RLF1-6BONE changed: fink@es.net 19991206 changed: fink@es.net 20000521 changed: auto-dbm@whois.6bone.net 20010117 source: 6BONE person: Roberto Milani address: via padova 17 phone: +390721335478 nic-hdl: PD77-6BONE mnt-by: ROBBTEK changed: proliste@libero.it 20021128 source: 6BONE ---------------------------------------------------------------------> Why we don't protect the 6bone whois database with mnt-lower ? Best Regards, -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NOC Website: http://noc.ndsoftwarenet.com/ FNIX6: http://www.fnix6.net/ From pekkas@netcore.fi Sun Jan 12 06:13:16 2003 From: pekkas@netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 08:13:16 +0200 (EET) Subject: [6bone] 3FFE:4014::/32 - Another pTLA space hijack In-Reply-To: <1042327811.2521.159.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Message-ID: On 12 Jan 2003, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: [...] > Why we don't protect the 6bone whois database with mnt-lower ? Would that help significantly? Then people would just hijack the space and start advertising it. Now we can see when they add something ugly in the database :-). -- 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 Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org Sun Jan 12 10:20:00 2003 From: Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org (Ronald van der Pol) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:20:00 +0100 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement In-Reply-To: <000701c2b8c9$bfc71db0$210d640a@unfix.org> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030108111030.0213dda0@mail.addr.com> <000701c2b8c9$bfc71db0$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <20030112101959.GN6527@rvdp.org> On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 18:00:14 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > Bob Fink wrote: > > > If you are interested please read and comment: > > > > > > The 6bone IPv6 mirror apparently hasn't mirrored the file, I think this is a bad situation. Why isn't the 6bone website on a dual stack server? rvdp From Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org Sun Jan 12 10:31:35 2003 From: Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org (Ronald van der Pol) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:31:35 +0100 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement In-Reply-To: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046405E554@server2000> References: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046405E554@server2000> Message-ID: <20030112103135.GO6527@rvdp.org> On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 21:43:07 -0800, Michel Py wrote: > > Jordi Palet Martinez wrote: > > 3) It seems to me that we must allocate pTLAs until January 1st > > 2006 (6 months can still do a lot for "last minute" newcomers). > > - I agree with Jordi here that 6 months before the sunset seems a reasonable limit to me to allocate new pTLAs. I like the phases in Bob's draft. We all know what will happen. On July 1, 2004 people will start screaming that 6bone allocations have "suddenly stopped". It will take some time before people start realizing that the 6bone is something that will end. Hopefully, with the 2004 phase it will be easier to completely end the 6bone in 2006. rvdp From nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net Sun Jan 12 14:07:13 2003 From: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net (Nicolas DEFFAYET) Date: 12 Jan 2003 15:07:13 +0100 Subject: [6bone] 3FFE:4014::/32 - Another pTLA space hijack In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1042380433.1003.22.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 07:13, Pekka Savola wrote: > On 12 Jan 2003, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > [...] > > Why we don't protect the 6bone whois database with mnt-lower ? > > Would that help significantly? Then people would just hijack the space > and start advertising it. Now we can see when they add something ugly in > the database :-). I don't agree with you, you can announce a route without something in the database... -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NOC Website: http://noc.ndsoftwarenet.com/ FNIX6: http://www.fnix6.net/ From pekkas@netcore.fi Sun Jan 12 14:28:14 2003 From: pekkas@netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 16:28:14 +0200 (EET) Subject: [6bone] 3FFE:4014::/32 - Another pTLA space hijack In-Reply-To: <1042380433.1003.22.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Message-ID: On 12 Jan 2003, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 07:13, Pekka Savola wrote: > > On 12 Jan 2003, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > > [...] > > > Why we don't protect the 6bone whois database with mnt-lower ? > > > > Would that help significantly? Then people would just hijack the space > > and start advertising it. Now we can see when they add something ugly in > > the database :-). > > I don't agree with you, you can announce a route without something in > the database... .. which was exactly my point (perhaps not worded carefully): and that's why mnt-lower does not seem to help that much for this specific problem.. -- 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 pekkas@netcore.fi Sun Jan 12 14:51:58 2003 From: pekkas@netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 16:51:58 +0200 (EET) Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement In-Reply-To: <20030112103135.GO6527@rvdp.org> Message-ID: On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Ronald van der Pol wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 21:43:07 -0800, Michel Py wrote: > > > Jordi Palet Martinez wrote: > > > 3) It seems to me that we must allocate pTLAs until January 1st > > > 2006 (6 months can still do a lot for "last minute" newcomers). > > > > - I agree with Jordi here that 6 months before the sunset seems a reasonable limit to me to allocate new pTLAs. > > I like the phases in Bob's draft. We all know what will happen. On July 1, > 2004 people will start screaming that 6bone allocations have "suddenly > stopped". It will take some time before people start realizing that > the 6bone is something that will end. Hopefully, with the 2004 phase > it will be easier to completely end the 6bone in 2006. Screaming? Uh-oh. IPv6 should be commonplace enough then (it's getting there now..). And besides, the rate of pTLA's has decreased significantly because of the more liberal RIR sTLA policies. Earlier, ISP's just got 6bone addresses because it was easier. Now they don't bother (in most cases) unless they didn't qualify RIR criteria. My prediction is that by Q2/2004 pretty much nobody even cares about 6bone (I hope so!), and by 2006 it is almost completely forgotten. Thus I'd be OK with an even quicker phaseout plan. -- 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 Sun Jan 12 15:30:11 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 16:30:11 +0100 Subject: [6bone] 3FFE:4014::/32 - Another pTLA space hijack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000d01c2ba4f$80942390$210d640a@unfix.org> Pekka Savola wrote: > On 12 Jan 2003, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > > On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 07:13, Pekka Savola wrote: > > > On 12 Jan 2003, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > > > [...] > > > > Why we don't protect the 6bone whois database with mnt-lower ? > > > > > > Would that help significantly? Then people would just > hijack the space > > > and start advertising it. Now we can see when they add > something ugly in > > > the database :-). > > > > I don't agree with you, you can announce a route without > something in > > the database... > > .. which was exactly my point (perhaps not worded carefully): > and that's > why mnt-lower does not seem to help that much for this > specific problem.. The people allowing that prefix to be announced and routed, thus their upstreams shout also be shot on site as they apparently don't have appropriate filters for their downstreams. But, checking my TLA watcher (*) it didn't pop up at any of the * = http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/all/?prefix=3ffe:4014::/32 Coming to the above statement I wonder to what level 'tunnelbroker' systems filter their downstreams. Eg. allowing only the delegated space or allowing the tunnels to be used for complete transit which when thinking along allows 1 way spoofing also something we don't want. Figure out where packets are flowing from then... Limiting this would also block out many potential problems. Also be glad the italian guy didn't pick one prefix lower otherwise you yourself would have been hurt if it where announced. Greets, Jeroen From pim@ipng.nl Sun Jan 12 17:32:52 2003 From: pim@ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:32:52 +0100 Subject: [6bone] ntp/kame In-Reply-To: <20030110001321.P24115-100000@wireless.cs.twsu.edu> References: <20030110001321.P24115-100000@wireless.cs.twsu.edu> Message-ID: <20030112173252.GA23686@bfib.colo.bit.nl> | Has anyone checked out ntp ipv6 implementation? | as far as i tested, none(ntp4.1rc1, ntp 4.1.72, 4.1.70, | 4.1.0 (patched from viaganie patch) worked on kame/freebsd | (snap 6'th jan). Basit, After a Golden Tip [tmw from Wim Biemolt, I downloadede the Bitkeeper software and checked out the software (also ntp 4.1.72), compiled and ran this without a problem. I'm currently testing the software and believe it'll prove to be stable. I've heard other sites are running this ntp4.1.72 (with or without a clock), and have found what I'm looking for. Will update ntp1/ntp2.bit.nl to run IPv6 NTP within several days. groet, Pim -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From pim@ipng.nl Sun Jan 12 17:41:35 2003 From: pim@ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:41:35 +0100 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030108111030.0213dda0@mail.addr.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030108111030.0213dda0@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <20030112174135.GB23686@bfib.colo.bit.nl> | | | Note that the plan and dates stated in the draft are only for discussion. | It is now up to the IETF open process to establish the actual plan and | timing. I have read the document and I agree to all of your suggestions and remarks. Note that repeat yourself once in the document: > This document is intended to obsolete RFC 2471, "IPv6 Testing Address > Allocation", December, 1998. RFC 2471 will become historic. About the dates, 7/2004 through 7/2006 seems to be quite a long time in my opinion. I'd like to see 7/2005 as closing date, because one year of deployment practice should be enough for most companies. Perhaps when time progresses, we'll have a lot of best common practices regarding IPv6 deployment and administration, so that it can be considered a valid possibility for entities with an IPv6 deployment plan which requires a TLA, to simply request one from their RIR. In short: In 2005, I don't think anybody will need separated space to experiment in. I'd like to see the closing date moved forward to July 2005. groet, Pim -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net Sun Jan 12 19:12:37 2003 From: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net (Nicolas DEFFAYET) Date: 12 Jan 2003 20:12:37 +0100 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement In-Reply-To: <20030112174135.GB23686@bfib.colo.bit.nl> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030108111030.0213dda0@mail.addr.com> <20030112174135.GB23686@bfib.colo.bit.nl> Message-ID: <1042398756.1002.115.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 18:41, Pim van Pelt wrote: > | > | > | Note that the plan and dates stated in the draft are only for discussion. > | It is now up to the IETF open process to establish the actual plan and > | timing. > > I have read the document and I agree to all of your suggestions and > remarks. Note that repeat yourself once in the document: > > This document is intended to obsolete RFC 2471, "IPv6 Testing Address > > Allocation", December, 1998. RFC 2471 will become historic. > > About the dates, 7/2004 through 7/2006 seems to be quite a long time in > my opinion. I'd like to see 7/2005 as closing date, because one year of > deployment practice should be enough for most companies. > > Perhaps when time progresses, we'll have a lot of best common practices > regarding IPv6 deployment and administration, so that it can be > considered a valid possibility for entities with an IPv6 deployment > plan which requires a TLA, to simply request one from their RIR. > > In short: In 2005, I don't think anybody will need separated space to > experiment in. I'd like to see the closing date moved forward to July > 2005. I agree, July 2005 is a good closing date. -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NOC Website: http://noc.ndsoftwarenet.com/ FNIX6: http://www.fnix6.net/ From tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk Sun Jan 12 20:28:54 2003 From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:28:54 +0000 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement In-Reply-To: <1042398756.1002.115.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030108111030.0213dda0@mail.addr.com> <20030112174135.GB23686@bfib.colo.bit.nl> <1042398756.1002.115.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Message-ID: <20030112202854.GZ31375@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 08:12:37PM +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > > I agree, July 2005 is a good closing date. I'm not so sure. I'd like to see a chart of new pTLA allocation volume against new SubTLA allocation volume for 1999 onwards... The 6bone has been running for, what, 6 years? To close it in 3 seems short, given deployment status. I know of at least two large projects that will be using pTLAs out to at least January 2005. Tim From jeroen@unfix.org Sun Jan 12 21:12:41 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 22:12:41 +0100 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement In-Reply-To: <20030112202854.GZ31375@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Message-ID: <002501c2ba7f$58388ff0$210d640a@unfix.org> Tim Chown wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 08:12:37PM +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > > > > I agree, July 2005 is a good closing date. > > I'm not so sure. > > I'd like to see a chart of new pTLA allocation volume against > new SubTLA > allocation volume for 1999 onwards... > > The 6bone has been running for, what, 6 years? To close it in 3 seems > short, given deployment status. I know of at least two large > projects that > will be using pTLAs out to at least January 2005. Maybe it's a good plan to let every pTLA holder give a little sum-up of where they are using their TLA's for ? There could be a possibility that projects could help out each other etc... Greets, Jeroen From bob@thefinks.com Mon Jan 13 01:18:32 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 17:18:32 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement In-Reply-To: <20030112101959.GN6527@rvdp.org> References: <000701c2b8c9$bfc71db0$210d640a@unfix.org> <5.2.0.9.0.20030108111030.0213dda0@mail.addr.com> <000701c2b8c9$bfc71db0$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030112171801.01f377f8@mail.addr.com> At 11:20 AM 1/12/2003 +0100, Ronald van der Pol wrote: >On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 18:00:14 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > Bob Fink wrote: > > > > > If you are interested please read and comment: > > > > > > > > > > The 6bone IPv6 mirror apparently hasn't mirrored the file, > >I think this is a bad situation. Why isn't the 6bone website on a >dual stack server? Working on that. Wait a bit. Thanks, Bob From bob@thefinks.com Mon Jan 13 01:31:02 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 17:31:02 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 3FFE:4014::/32 - Another pTLA space hijack In-Reply-To: <1042327811.2521.159.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030112172018.01f3ab40@mail.addr.com> Nicolas, Thanks for letting me know. I'll take it from here. Bob === At 12:30 AM 1/12/2003 +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: >Hi all, > >I have discover another pTLA space hijack: > >---------------------------------------------------------------------> >Sun Jan 12 00:12:55 CET 2003 > >% RIPEdb(3.0.0b2) with ISI RPSL extensions > >ipv6-site: 6BONE >origin: AS293 >descr: IETF NGTRANS Working Group IPv6 Testbed >prefix: 3FFE::/16 >contact: RLF1-6BONE >remarks: This object is automatically converted from the RIPE181 >registry >url: http://www.6bone.net >notify: fink@es.net >mnt-by: RLF1-6BONE >changed: fink@es.net 20001128 >changed: auto-dbm@whois.6bone.net 20010117 >source: 6BONE > >inet6num: 3FFE:4014::/32 >netname: ircspace >descr: ircspace test ipv6 >country: IT >admin-c: PD77-6BONE >tech-c: PD77-6BONE >mnt-by: ROBBTEK >changed: proliste@libero.it 20021128 >source: 6BONE > >person: Robert L. Fink >address: ESnet - Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory >phone: +1 510 486 5692 >e-mail: fink@es.net >nic-hdl: RLF1-6BONE >remarks: change to my esnet email address >remarks: This object is automatically converted from the RIPE181 >registry >notify: fink@es.net >mnt-by: RLF1-6BONE >changed: fink@es.net 19991206 >changed: fink@es.net 20000521 >changed: auto-dbm@whois.6bone.net 20010117 >source: 6BONE > >person: Roberto Milani >address: via padova 17 >phone: +390721335478 >nic-hdl: PD77-6BONE >mnt-by: ROBBTEK >changed: proliste@libero.it 20021128 >source: 6BONE >---------------------------------------------------------------------> > >Why we don't protect the 6bone whois database with mnt-lower ? > > >Best Regards, > >-- >Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware >NOC Website: http://noc.ndsoftwarenet.com/ >FNIX6: http://www.fnix6.net/ > >_______________________________________________ >6bone mailing list >6bone@mailman.isi.edu >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From bob@thefinks.com Mon Jan 13 01:42:20 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 17:42:20 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement In-Reply-To: <20030112174135.GB23686@bfib.colo.bit.nl> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030108111030.0213dda0@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030108111030.0213dda0@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030112172417.01f6f160@mail.addr.com> Pim, At 06:41 PM 1/12/2003 +0100, Pim van Pelt wrote: >| >| >| Note that the plan and dates stated in the draft are only for discussion. >| It is now up to the IETF open process to establish the actual plan and >| timing. > >I have read the document and I agree to all of your suggestions and >remarks. Note that repeat yourself once in the document: > > This document is intended to obsolete RFC 2471, "IPv6 Testing Address > > Allocation", December, 1998. RFC 2471 will become historic. On purpose. The abstract has it so it can appear alone and state this, and the body of the draft has it. If that's what you meant. >About the dates, 7/2004 through 7/2006 seems to be quite a long time in >my opinion. I'd like to see 7/2005 as closing date, because one year of >deployment practice should be enough for most companies. > >Perhaps when time progresses, we'll have a lot of best common practices >regarding IPv6 deployment and administration, so that it can be >considered a valid possibility for entities with an IPv6 deployment >plan which requires a TLA, to simply request one from their RIR. > >In short: In 2005, I don't think anybody will need separated space to >experiment in. I'd like to see the closing date moved forward to July >2005. Thanks for the comments. Bob From bob@thefinks.com Mon Jan 13 02:01:46 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:01:46 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement In-Reply-To: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046405E554@server2000> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030112180053.00b81d10@mail.addr.com> Michel, Thanks for the comments. Sassacaia may be good, but not that good :-) Bob At 09:43 PM 1/10/2003 -0800, Michel Py wrote: >Bob, Bob, 6boners, > > > Bob Fink wrote: > > The following draft has been submitted to the IETF ID directory, > > but hasn't appeared yet, so I have placed it on the 6bone web site. > >It has appeared now, see: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fink-6bone-phaseout-00.txt > >Short comments [before the long ones]: >- I think that such a document is necessary, and I support it. > > > Jordi Palet Martinez wrote: > > 3) It seems to me that we must allocate pTLAs until January 1st > > 2006 (6 months can still do a lot for "last minute" newcomers). > >- I agree with Jordi here that 6 months before the sunset seems a >reasonable limit to me to allocate new pTLAs. > >- The sunset in July (vs. January) seems a good idea to me. Operationally >speaking, July is better time of year to monkey with filter-lists. > >- I would personally be favorable to a sunset one year after what you >proposed, July 1 2007. This is a matter of appreciation and shall be >discussed. The 2006 sunset is reasonable as well, IMHO. > >- This might push things behind what some have in mind, so I have a >question for Bob Fink: >Bob, by then your house will be completed. How many bottles of Sassacaia >does it take for you to stay at the helm until 2007? > > >Long comments: >[disclaimer] Most of what follows are arguments about why the 6bone should >be shut down. It does *not* mean that I think the 6bone is bad. I just >don't have time to write about why it is good, as it does not need >justification. 6bone ROCKS. > >That being said, there are two main reasons why the 6bone needs to sunset. >1. The prefix MUST be reclaimed. >2. The 6bone will at some point handicap the development of a > native IPv6 backbone. > >1. The prefix must be reclaimed. >We must make clear that the 6bone is, has always been, and will always be >EXPERIMENTAL, which means it is not a cheap substitute for temporary >portable address space that is to be transformed into permanent portable >address space. > >I am not a pTLA. I am not stupid though; if I feel that the pTLA status is >a shortcut to a permanent /32 portable address space, I will setup >overnight something (like adding a cable modem to my residential aDSL, >that does not remind anybody anything, does it) that exceeds RFC 2772 and >become one. >We must foil schemes that will lead to a landrush a year before sunset and >leave us with the déjà vu of the IPv4 swamp. > > >2. The 6bone will at some point handicap the development of a > native IPv6 backbone. > >The current situation, everyone providing free transit to everyone and no >IPv6 DFZ is no business model. > >It has worked so far because there is no money to make with IPv6 (the >crumbs the handful of commercial v6 ISPs are making today are 3 orders of >magnitude below what it takes to build a backbone). >As of today, the volunteer efforts of what is collectively the 6bone have >been a launchpad for IPv6. >At some point, a real commercial backbone is needed though. I wish IPv6 >service could be free forever, bit this simply is not the way it works. > >The challenge we are facing is to time the 6bone sunset when it will >become more an obstacle than it is a benefit today. > >What are the reasons that I think 2007 would be more appropriate than 2006: >- Deployment of commercial IPv6 remains confidential. The "killer app" >that would launch v6 into orbit has not been found yet, and given the >current state of the economy 3 years is not enough for a launch. >- Until v6 becomes mainstream, a boatload of 2001:: tunnel brokers is no >improvement over a truckload of 3FFE:: tunnel brokers. >- There is no IPv6 multihoming solution as of today. > >In short: I generally approve the text. My reading of fine-tuning is that >it realistically appears a little short-timed, but I would support a 2006 >sunset. > >Michel. From michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us Mon Jan 13 03:43:48 2003 From: michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 19:43:48 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement Message-ID: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046405E55E@server2000> >> Michel Py wrote: >> - I agree with Jordi here that 6 months before the sunset seems >> a reasonable limit to me to allocate new pTLAs. > Ronald van der Pol wrote: > I like the phases in Bob's draft. We all know what will happen. > On July 1, 2004 people will start screaming that 6bone allocations > have "suddenly stopped". It will take some time before people > start realizing that the 6bone is something that will end. > Hopefully, with the 2004 phase it will be easier to completely end > the 6bone in 2006. There is some truth to that :-) I will support the text with whatever date we come up with, but the point I am trying to make is: It's not because *we* might consider that we have learned all we possibly could from the 6bone that we must generalize it. Most potential ISPs or pTLAs have not even begun to look at IPv6 because there is no money to make in it and no demand. Adoption of v6 is a lot longer than anticipated 6 years ago, and the 6bone still is a niche same as IPv6. In other words, I don't think we should kill the 6bone before it has become the experimental environment for mainstream ISPs, not only for the very small set it represents today. Michel. From yjchui@cht.com.tw Mon Jan 13 05:56:52 2003 From: yjchui@cht.com.tw (yjchui) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:56:52 +0800 Subject: [6bone] ntp/kame References: <20030110001321.P24115-100000@wireless.cs.twsu.edu> Message-ID: <005a01c2bac8$9284fdd0$27a9900a@twinkletaipei> I have tested NTP on freeBSD for the IPv6 function. But it can not work properly under IPv6 protocol (but it works under IPv4) and I can not find the problem. Y.J. Chu E-mail: yjchui@cht.com.tw ----- Original Message ----- From: "Abdul Basit" To: Cc: <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 2:16 PM Subject: [6bone] ntp/kame > > Hi, > > Has anyone checked out ntp ipv6 implementation? > as far as i tested, none(ntp4.1rc1, ntp 4.1.72, 4.1.70, > 4.1.0 (patched from viaganie patch) worked on kame/freebsd > (snap 6'th jan). > > viaganie patched ipv6 results in not IPV6_ONLY error > and others do not recognize ipv6 address notion. > > - basit > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > From dan@reeder.name Mon Jan 13 06:19:23 2003 From: dan@reeder.name (Dan Reeder) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:19:23 +1000 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement In-Reply-To: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046405E55E@server2000> Message-ID: <000001c2bacb$bc343260$6700000a@managed.local> "In other words, I don't think we should kill the 6bone before it has become the experimental environment for mainstream ISPs, not only for the very small set it represents today." Originally I was going to say something along the lines of "Ah, but that is the crux of the matter. My emails last week regarding the availability of 2002:: gateways yells at the fact that most ISPs in the world DON'T provide any sort of v6 connectivity, commercial or otherwise, and as such the greater their contact with v6 technologies the better." But instead of coming to the conclusion that 3ffe should stay for experimentation purposes and encouraging deployment, I then had the idea that perhaps it is of a detriment to the adoption of v6 technologies on a commercial basis; not only would ISPs have two protocols to deal with, but one of those protocols would/should (that's debatable though) need to be connected to two backbones. To me, being a young network admin yet trying to imagine what someone in 2010 would think of today's occurrences, the thought of having to deal with v6 at this point in time just reeks of an exercise in needless complexity, not to mention a feeling of "let's leave it to the university folk to sort it out". Is there any point in having a space reserved for experimentation/education?? Why should people be screaming bloody murder in the near future, just because 3ffe is about to be decommissioned? Isn't it all in the lead up to 2001:: connectivity anyway? With regards to he 2001:: address space and operations of the v6 internet as we know it at this point in time, I can't think of any harm that could come about as a result of some ISP in "Neverland" having a go. Granted, the circumstances are different, but the deployment of v4 and the operations of the net over the last 20-odd years have been relatively fine, have they not? Haven't we already got tools and administrative powers to curb any sort of odd/abnormal/detrimental behaviour that may happen as a result of the world + dog joining up? (Feel free to debunk me on these points btw) The sooner 3ffe:: is killed the better, I say. Force/encourage the RIRs to offer netblocks *cheaply*. Make the transition from v4 to v6 as simple as possible, cheap as possible, and as logical as possible. Cowboy hats and bandwagons aside, I know I speak for many people reading this list when I say that I'll be damned if I have learnt (and continue to learn) what there is to know about v6 only to have a few beers with some friends in 2010 reminiscing (read crying into my pint) about the flop that was IPv6. Gratefully donating my AU$0.022 (inc. GST) to the conversation, Dan Reeder -----Original Message----- From: 6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu [mailto:6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu] On Behalf Of Michel Py Sent: Monday, 13 January 2003 1:44 PM To: Ronald van der Pol Cc: 6bone@ISI.EDU Subject: RE: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement >> Michel Py wrote: >> - I agree with Jordi here that 6 months before the sunset seems >> a reasonable limit to me to allocate new pTLAs. > Ronald van der Pol wrote: > I like the phases in Bob's draft. We all know what will happen. > On July 1, 2004 people will start screaming that 6bone allocations > have "suddenly stopped". It will take some time before people > start realizing that the 6bone is something that will end. > Hopefully, with the 2004 phase it will be easier to completely end > the 6bone in 2006. There is some truth to that :-) I will support the text with whatever date we come up with, but the point I am trying to make is: It's not because *we* might consider that we have learned all we possibly could from the 6bone that we must generalize it. Most potential ISPs or pTLAs have not even begun to look at IPv6 because there is no money to make in it and no demand. Adoption of v6 is a lot longer than anticipated 6 years ago, and the 6bone still is a niche same as IPv6. In other words, I don't think we should kill the 6bone before it has become the experimental environment for mainstream ISPs, not only for the very small set it represents today. Michel. _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list 6bone@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From jhay@icomtek.csir.co.za Mon Jan 13 06:30:22 2003 From: jhay@icomtek.csir.co.za (John Hay) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 08:30:22 +0200 (SAT) Subject: (KAME-snap 7395) Re: [6bone] ntp/kame In-Reply-To: <005a01c2bac8$9284fdd0$27a9900a@twinkletaipei> from yjchui at "Jan 13, 2003 01:56:52 pm" Message-ID: <200301130630.h0D6UNX6065124@zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za> > I have tested NTP on freeBSD for the IPv6 function. But it can not work > properly under IPv6 protocol (but it works under IPv4) and I can not find > the problem. Please try the ntp-dev code in the bitkeeper repository and if you still have problems report them to bugs@ntp.org so that we can fix them. See http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~ntp/download.html to get bitkeeper and the ntp-dev source. I'm using it here in a lot of different configurations on FreeBSD and it works just fine for me. (Stratum 1, 2 and 3, with and without crypto, plain client-server, multicast, manycast, also various versions of FreeBSD from about 4.4 up to -current.) One thing that I haven't tried, is a box with only the IPv6 stack. John -- John Hay -- John.Hay@icomtek.csir.co.za / jhay@FreeBSD.org From basit@ip6.basit.cc Mon Jan 13 11:12:34 2003 From: basit@ip6.basit.cc (Abdul Basit) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 05:12:34 -0600 (CST) Subject: [6bone] Re: ntp/kame In-Reply-To: <200301130630.h0D6UNX6065124@zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za> Message-ID: <20030113051148.P13181-100000@wireless.cs.twsu.edu> I downloaded ntp-dev using bitkeeper thanks it worked wireless@root ntp-dev>./ntpdate/ntpdate ntp.immanent.net Looking for host ntp.immanent.net and service 123 host found : fbruckman1.tsps1.freenet6.net 13 Jan 05:12:07 ntpdate[13342]: step time server 3ffe:b80:2:b23::2 offset -90.620903 sec -- basit On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, John Hay wrote: > > I have tested NTP on freeBSD for the IPv6 function. But it can not work > > properly under IPv6 protocol (but it works under IPv4) and I can not find > > the problem. > > Please try the ntp-dev code in the bitkeeper repository and if you still > have problems report them to bugs@ntp.org so that we can fix them. See > > http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~ntp/download.html > > to get bitkeeper and the ntp-dev source. > > I'm using it here in a lot of different configurations on FreeBSD and it > works just fine for me. (Stratum 1, 2 and 3, with and without crypto, > plain client-server, multicast, manycast, also various versions of > FreeBSD from about 4.4 up to -current.) One thing that I haven't tried, > is a box with only the IPv6 stack. > > John > -- > John Hay -- John.Hay@icomtek.csir.co.za / jhay@FreeBSD.org > From pim@ipng.nl Mon Jan 13 13:45:21 2003 From: pim@ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:45:21 +0100 Subject: (KAME-snap 7395) Re: [6bone] ntp/kame In-Reply-To: <200301130630.h0D6UNX6065124@zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za> References: <005a01c2bac8$9284fdd0$27a9900a@twinkletaipei> <200301130630.h0D6UNX6065124@zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za> Message-ID: <20030113134521.GA14769@bfib.colo.bit.nl> John, | Please try the ntp-dev code in the bitkeeper repository and if you still | have problems report them to bugs@ntp.org so that we can fix them. See I downloaded bitkeeper and the repo and everything worked like a charm. I now have two stratum 2 servers ntp1.bit.nl and ntp2.bit.nl running dualstack unicast. groet, Pim -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk Mon Jan 13 14:08:21 2003 From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:08:21 +0000 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement In-Reply-To: <000001c2bacb$bc343260$6700000a@managed.local> References: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046405E55E@server2000> <000001c2bacb$bc343260$6700000a@managed.local> Message-ID: <20030113140820.GB21979@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 04:19:23PM +1000, Dan Reeder wrote: > > Is there any point in having a space reserved for > experimentation/education?? Why should people be screaming bloody murder in > the near future, just because 3ffe is about to be decommissioned? Isn't it > all in the lead up to 2001:: connectivity anyway? Well, would, for example, the Euro6IX allocation have been made under the existing SubTLA allocation rules? I don't believe so. The new SubTLA rules are more relaxed; the sudden take-off in allocations makes me believe people who were using pTLAs are migrating (most of the European research networks have, for example), or new requests are bypassing the pTLA stage (which they can now do). The "experimentors" are already running in 2001:: space. Tim From gert@space.net Mon Jan 13 14:46:29 2003 From: gert@space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:46:29 +0100 Subject: (KAME-snap 7395) Re: [6bone] ntp/kame In-Reply-To: <20030113134521.GA14769@bfib.colo.bit.nl>; from pim@ipng.nl on Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 02:45:21PM +0100 References: <005a01c2bac8$9284fdd0$27a9900a@twinkletaipei> <200301130630.h0D6UNX6065124@zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za> <20030113134521.GA14769@bfib.colo.bit.nl> Message-ID: <20030113154629.U15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 02:45:21PM +0100, Pim van Pelt wrote: > | Please try the ntp-dev code in the bitkeeper repository and if you still > | have problems report them to bugs@ntp.org so that we can fix them. See > > I downloaded bitkeeper and the repo and everything worked like a charm. > I now have two stratum 2 servers ntp1.bit.nl and ntp2.bit.nl running > dualstack unicast. Same here, ntp6.space.net - thanks. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 55593 (55180) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org Mon Jan 13 18:46:41 2003 From: Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org (Ronald van der Pol) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 19:46:41 +0100 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement In-Reply-To: References: <20030112103135.GO6527@rvdp.org> Message-ID: <20030113184641.GA19391@rvdp.org> On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 16:51:58 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > Thus I'd be OK with an even quicker phaseout plan. I agree. Phasing out the 6bone is a clear sign that the times of experimenting are over. The sooner the better. rvdp From riel@conectiva.com.br Tue Jan 14 19:57:13 2003 From: riel@conectiva.com.br (Rik van Riel) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:57:13 -0200 (BRST) Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement In-Reply-To: <002501c2ba7f$58388ff0$210d640a@unfix.org> References: <002501c2ba7f$58388ff0$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Jeroen Massar wrote: > Maybe it's a good plan to let every pTLA holder give a little sum-up of > where they are using their TLA's for ? The COMPENDIUM pTLA is used to provide ipv6 connectivity to people and organisations in places where ipv6 connectivity isn't available from ISPs (yet). I'm also using it for nl.linux.org; there might be native ipv6 to the gateway of the university, but none of the networks inside the university have ipv6 because of some burocratic reason ;( I'd love to use native ipv6, but it's just not there yet. Btw, the ability to tunnel a static ipv6 address over a dynamic ipv4 address is also pretty important to people who get their email over ipv6 ;)) Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/ Current spamtrap: october@surriel.com From Wim.Biemolt@ipv6.surfnet.nl Wed Jan 15 09:21:53 2003 From: Wim.Biemolt@ipv6.surfnet.nl (Wim.Biemolt@ipv6.surfnet.nl) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:21:53 +0100 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement In-Reply-To: References: <002501c2ba7f$58388ff0$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <20030115092153.GA50117@gigant.surfnet.nl> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 05:57:13PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote: > I'm also using it for nl.linux.org; there might be native > ipv6 to the gateway of the university, but none of the > networks inside the university have ipv6 because of some > burocratic reason ;( Do you happen to know what this burocratic reason is? We have native IPv6 to all our universities. But sadly most of them seem to think IPv6 is something they need to delay until they retire. Which makes it somewhat harder to justify native IPv6 them (and others) if there seems to be no clear need for IPv6. -Wim -/- SURFnet From basit@ip6.basit.cc Wed Jan 15 13:44:25 2003 From: basit@ip6.basit.cc (Abdul Basit) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 07:44:25 -0600 (CST) Subject: [6bone] M6BONE Message-ID: <20030115074123.B27070-100000@wireless.cs.twsu.edu> Hey, I am interested in establishing a IPv6-IPv4 or even IPv6-IPv6 multicast tunnel, is there anyone in USA that can offer me IPv6 multicast transit? It will be better if within USA obviously because of the nature of traffic (video). I am not able to find any site within USA to provide the transit.(i can only find someone in france according to list at http://sem2.renater.fr/m6bone/sites-map.html). Please let me know back. Thanks Abdul Basit NextGenCollective.net From feico@pasta.cs.uit.no Wed Jan 15 14:34:48 2003 From: feico@pasta.cs.uit.no (Feico Dillema) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:34:48 +0100 Subject: (KAME-snap 7401) Re: [6bone] ntp/kame In-Reply-To: <20030113154629.U15927@Space.Net> References: <005a01c2bac8$9284fdd0$27a9900a@twinkletaipei> <200301130630.h0D6UNX6065124@zibbi.icomtek.csir.co.za> <20030113134521.GA14769@bfib.colo.bit.nl> <20030113154629.U15927@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20030115143448.GE2814@pasta.cs.uit.no> On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 03:46:29PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 02:45:21PM +0100, Pim van Pelt wrote: > > | Please try the ntp-dev code in the bitkeeper repository and if you still > > | have problems report them to bugs@ntp.org so that we can fix them. See > > > > I downloaded bitkeeper and the repo and everything worked like a charm. > > I now have two stratum 2 servers ntp1.bit.nl and ntp2.bit.nl running > > dualstack unicast. > > Same here, ntp6.space.net - thanks. And I setup server.pasta.cs.uit.no to sync from these three (ntp1, ntp2 and ntp6). Thanks! Feico. From bob@thefinks.com Fri Jan 17 17:05:20 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:05:20 -0800 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, closes 17Jan0 Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030117074602.020a8c88@mail.addr.com> 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. 3ffe:400e::/32 ECITY/IT 3ffe:1700::/24 MREN/US-IL 3ffe:82e0::/28 LDCOM/FR 3ffe:4002::/32 MOTOROLA-LABS/US --- ZAMA is no longer in business and I am reclaiming their pTLA: 3ffe:80f0::/28 ZAMA/US --- The UNI-C IPv6-site entry notes their network is no longer operational, so I am reclaiming their pTLA: 3ffe:1400::/24 UNI-C/DK --- 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 :-) Thanks, Bob From ajs@labs.mot.com Fri Jan 17 17:27:01 2003 From: ajs@labs.mot.com (Aron Silverton) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:27:01 -0600 Subject: [6bone] MOTOROLA-LABS pTLA 3ffe:4002::/32 Message-ID: <3E283CE5.5090306@labs.mot.com> 6bone, Per Bob Fink's request, I am updating the list as to the status of our pTLA. As of the afternoon (CST) of 1/15/2003, our pTLA is being advertised via MREN to the 6tap. It was not possible for us to advertise our pTLA prior to MREN and 6tap putting the necessary agreements and connections in place. This was not completed until earlier in the week of 1/13/2003. (You all may have noticed that MREN's own pTLA, 3ffe:1700::/24 is also being advertised as of this week.) While we are now advertising our pTLA, and continuing to provide connectivity to internal organizations, we will be looking into other arrangements in the future. This is becoming necessary as resources dwindle and our "day jobs" catch up with us. As an Abilene customer who connects to I2 via MREN, we will be pursuing other arrangements for 6bone and production address space in the future. Our plan, once MREN and Abilene have shuffled all of the paperwork, is to aquire address space from Abilene's 6bone pTLA and productoin sTLA via MREN. (MREN is using the 3ffe:1700::/24 pTLA for non-Abilene member institutions only.) If we are successful in aquiring that address space, we will voluntarily return our pTLA. Until that time, we will continue to use our current delegation per the guidelines established in RFC 2772. (For those interested in history, Motorola Laboratories become "6bone ready" well before Abilene or MREN, but we still relied upon these organizations for connectivity. Catch-22. The MREN pTLA was actually Fermilab's at one point and was transitioned to MREN. Prior to MREN and Abilene coming to agreements, it is not possible for an MREN member institution to get space from Abilene. Abilene refers us back to MREN. We tried. All is well now.) Regards, Aron -- Aron J. Silverton Senior Staff Research Engineer Motorola Laboratories, Networks and Infrastructure Research Motorola, Inc. Telephone: 847-576-8747 Fax: 847-576-3240 mailto: ajs@labs.mot.com From netza@telecom.noc.udg.mx Fri Jan 17 18:13:42 2003 From: netza@telecom.noc.udg.mx (Netzahualcoyotl Ornelas Garcia VOL) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:13:42 -0600 (CST) Subject: [6bone] M6BONE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, We are from the University of Guadalajara in Mexico, we are a work group that is investigating and implementing IPv6 & IPv6 Multicast, we have a connection directly to the RP in France (Renater), that is the actual M6bone Network and is working properly, so I told them about your request of being connected trhougu USA, and I have suggested of doing the connectivity through us, What do you think about it ? We could configurate a Tunnel for your connectivity to the M6bone and participate in the researchs and implementations that in this moment we are working. For more infomation about M6Bone: http://www.m6bone.net http://www.ipv6.udg.mx (Page of the UdeG about IPv6) mail: staff@ipv6.udg.mx Best regards. ** Texto sin acentos. Atte.... ************************************************************************** Netzahualcoyotl Ornelas Garcia. .---. .----------- Coordinacion de Telecomunicaciones y Redes / \ __ / ------ Network Operation Center (NOC). / / \(..)/ ----- University of Guadalajara ////// ' \/ ` --- e-mail: netza@noc.udg.mx ////// // : : --- netza_10@hotmail.com ////// / /` '-- Work Phone: 011(52)3331342220 // //// / //..\ Address: Av. Juarez #976 Planta Baja =============UU====UU==== Col. Centro C.P. 44100 ///////// '//||\` Guadalajara Jal. Mexico. /////// "Ipv6 Staff Working Group" ///// *************************************************************************** On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Abdul Basit wrote: > > Hey, > > I am interested in establishing a IPv6-IPv4 or even IPv6-IPv6 multicast > tunnel, is there anyone in USA that can offer me IPv6 multicast transit? > It will be better if within USA obviously because of the nature of traffic > (video). I am not able to find any site within USA to provide the > transit.(i can only find someone in france according to list at > http://sem2.renater.fr/m6bone/sites-map.html). > > Please let me know back. > > Thanks > Abdul Basit > NextGenCollective.net > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From bob@thefinks.com Fri Jan 17 18:32:32 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:32:32 -0800 Subject: [6bone] notice of intent to reclaim unused pTLAs, closes 17Jan0 In-Reply-To: <20030117173051.T76538-100000@ambient.kewlio.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030117074602.020a8c88@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030117103215.02cbbb10@mail.addr.com> Danile, At 05:31 PM 1/17/2003 +0000, Daniel Austin wrote: >Hi Bob, > >Contact email for IFB is noc@tech.ifb.net - they're still in business (at >least in the IPv4 sense) Thanks. Bob From stuart@tech.org Sun Jan 19 18:26:19 2003 From: stuart@tech.org (Stephen Stuart) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 10:26:19 -0800 Subject: [6bone] ISC is returning 3ffe:8050::/28 to the 6bone pool Message-ID: <200301191826.h0JIQJO58950@lo.tech.org> We're renumbered into our ARIN-delegated prefix, and have withdrawn the 3ffe:8050::/28 from the global routing table. We'll be getting the 6bone whois objects and reverse DNS cleared up shortly. ISC still welcomes any and all native peering either on PAIX's San Francisco Bay Area switching fabric, or by private cross-connect in Bay Area locations at which we have a presence. Thanks, Stephen From bob@thefinks.com Sun Jan 19 19:06:51 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 11:06:51 -0800 Subject: [6bone] ISC is returning 3ffe:8050::/28 to the 6bone pool In-Reply-To: <200301191826.h0JIQJO58950@lo.tech.org> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030119110623.00b61310@mail.addr.com> Stephen, At 10:26 AM 1/19/2003 -0800, Stephen Stuart wrote: >We're renumbered into our ARIN-delegated prefix, and have withdrawn >the 3ffe:8050::/28 from the global routing table. We'll be getting the >6bone whois objects and reverse DNS cleared up shortly. > >ISC still welcomes any and all native peering either on PAIX's San >Francisco Bay Area switching fabric, or by private cross-connect in >Bay Area locations at which we have a presence. Thanks for returning this. Bob From Emanuele.Logalbo@TILAB.COM Tue Jan 21 16:27:17 2003 From: Emanuele.Logalbo@TILAB.COM (Lo Galbo Emanuele) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:27:17 +0100 Subject: [6bone] freebsd Message-ID: <9620749A0C40FB49B72994B11B077C5DD25CC1@EXC2K01A.cselt.it> Hi everybody I am a student who is trying to set up a test plant for IPv6 multicast and I use freebsd 4.7. I have not nuch experience in this field. After having installed bsd from a CD I installed the pim6sd port using ftp. Now what happens; i mean is my machine ready to work in a multicast enviroment? I read I need not only Pim-SM but also MLD. So are both of them include in the Kame snap or not. How you can noticew i am a little bit confused.Please give me hints. Thank you and 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 Emanuele.Logalbo@TILAB.COM Tue Jan 21 16:33:15 2003 From: Emanuele.Logalbo@TILAB.COM (Lo Galbo Emanuele) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:33:15 +0100 Subject: [6bone] help with freebsd&pim-sm Message-ID: <9620749A0C40FB49B72994B11B077C5DD25FA9@EXC2K01A.cselt.it> Hi everybody I am a student who is trying to set up a test plant for IPv6 multicast and I use freebsd 4.7. I have not nuch experience in this field. After having installed bsd from a CD I installed the pim6sd port using ftp. Now what happens; i mean is my machine ready to work in a multicast enviroment? I read I need not only Pim-SM but also MLD. So are both of them include in the Kame snap or not. How you can noticew i am a little bit confused.Please give me hints. Thank you and 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 bob@thefinks.com Tue Jan 21 16:02:41 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:02:41 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 6bone pTLA 3FFE:4014::/32 allocated to LOXINFO-TH Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030121075905.0232ccb0@mail.addr.com> LOXINFO-TH has been allocated pTLA 3FFE:4014::/32 having finished its 2-week review period. Note that it will take a short while for their pTLA inet6num entry to appear in the 6bone registry as they have to create it themselves. However, their registration is listed on: [To create a reverse DNS registration for pTLAs, please send the prefix allocated above, and a list of at least two authoritative nameservers, to hostmaster@ep.net.] Thanks, Bob From bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com Tue Jan 21 19:15:04 2003 From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:15:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] Re: Reverse DNS registration for 3ffe:4002::/32 In-Reply-To: <3E26F3F4.1030200@labs.mot.com> from "Aron Silverton" at Jan 16, 2003 12:03:32 PM Message-ID: <200301211915.h0LJF4a30568@vacation.karoshi.com> > > Hello, > > Please create a reverse DNS registration for pTLA 3ffe:4002::/32. The > names servers are: > > 3ffe:4002:0:2::a dns1.ipv6.motlabs.com > 3ffe:4002:0:2::b dns2.ipv6.motlabs.com > > Regards, > > Aron > -- > Aron J. Silverton > Senior Staff Research Engineer > Motorola Laboratories, Networks and Infrastructure Research > Motorola, Inc. Done. # dig 2.0.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. ns @::1 ; <<>> DiG 9.3.0s20021115 <<>> 2.0.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. ns @::1 ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 29730 ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;2.0.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. IN NS ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 2.0.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. 86400 IN NS dns1.ipv6.motlabs.com. 2.0.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. 86400 IN NS dns2.ipv6.motlabs.com. ;; Query time: 0 msec ;; SERVER: ::1#53(::1) From bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com Tue Jan 21 19:16:03 2003 From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:16:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] Re: 6bone pTLA 3FFE:4014::/32 allocated to LOXINFO-TH In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030121075905.0232ccb0@mail.addr.com> from "Bob Fink" at Jan 21, 2003 08:02:41 AM Message-ID: <200301211916.h0LJG3w30579@vacation.karoshi.com> > > LOXINFO-TH has been allocated pTLA 3FFE:4014::/32 having finished its > 2-week review period. > > > > > Note that it will take a short while for their pTLA inet6num entry to > appear in the 6bone registry as they have to create it themselves. However, > their registration is listed on: > > > > > [To create a reverse DNS registration for pTLAs, please send the prefix > allocated above, and a list of at least two authoritative nameservers, to > hostmaster@ep.net.] > > > Thanks, > > Bob > Waiting for input from the LOXINFO... ; <<>> DiG 9.3.0s20021115 <<>> 4.1.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. ns @::1 ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 55909 ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;4.1.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. IN NS ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 4.1.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. 86400 IN NS noserver. ;; Query time: 0 msec ;; SERVER: ::1#53(::1) ;; WHEN: Wed Jan 22 03:13:59 2003 From bob@thefinks.com Wed Jan 22 16:09:13 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:09:13 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 6bone pTLA 3FFE:4015::/32 allocated to HP Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030122080740.01d70f40@mail.addr.com> HP has been allocated pTLA 3FFE:4015::/32 having finished its 2-week review period. Note that it will take a short while for their pTLA inet6num entry to appear in the 6bone registry as they have to create it themselves. However, their registration is listed on: [To create a reverse DNS registration for pTLAs, please send the prefix allocated above, and a list of at least two authoritative nameservers, to hostmaster@ep.net.] Thanks, Bob From andreas@naund.org Wed Jan 22 18:28:37 2003 From: andreas@naund.org (Andreas Ott) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:28:37 -0800 Subject: [6bone] freenet6 service gone? Message-ID: <20030122102837.Q1428@naund.org> Hello, during the past days I'm having a hard time establishing the connection back to Freenet6. Did I miss any announcement about it being down? Their DNS is mostly gone and consequently their web page is not easily reachable, using a numeric IP it times out. Domain servers in listed order: JAZZ.VIAGENIE.QC.CA 206.123.31.2 CLOUSO.RISQ.QC.CA 192.26.210.1 RAP.VIAGENIE.QC.CA 206.123.31.101 [bear]~$ host tsps1.freenet6.net 206.123.31.2 ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached [bear]~$ host tsps1.freenet6.net 206.123.31.101 ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached [bear]~$ host tsps1.freenet6.net 192.26.210.1 Using domain server: Name: 192.26.210.1 Address: 192.26.210.1#53 tsps1.freenet6.net has address 206.123.31.114 [bear]~$ ping 206.123.31.114 PING 206.123.31.114 (206.123.31.114) from 172.17.2.121 : 56(84) bytes of data. --- 206.123.31.114 ping statistics --- 11 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% loss, time 10012ms Any clues would be highly appreciated. Thanks, andreas -- Andreas Ott andreas@naund.org From mail@thomas--schaefer.de Wed Jan 22 20:05:23 2003 From: mail@thomas--schaefer.de (Thomas Schaefer) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:05:23 +0100 Subject: [6bone] freenet6 service gone? In-Reply-To: <20030122102837.Q1428@naund.org> References: <20030122102837.Q1428@naund.org> Message-ID: <200301222105.23591.mail@thomas--schaefer.de> You should subscribe the users@freenet6.net list: [Freenet6] Network maintenance Datum: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:53:12 -0500 Von: Freenet6 Administrator An: users@freenet6.net Freenet6 users, We will be doing a lot of work on our network infrastruture tomorrow (21-01-2003). It will cause some instability and the Freenet6 service should be unreachable for at least 1 hour starting at 10h30 EST. -- Thanks for using Freenet6, Freenet6 Administrator Am Mittwoch, 22. Januar 2003 19:28 schrieb Andreas Ott: > Hello, > during the past days I'm having a hard time establishing the connection > back to Freenet6. Did I miss any announcement about it being down? > > Their DNS is mostly gone and consequently their web page is not > easily reachable, using a numeric IP it times out. > > Domain servers in listed order: > > JAZZ.VIAGENIE.QC.CA 206.123.31.2 > CLOUSO.RISQ.QC.CA 192.26.210.1 > RAP.VIAGENIE.QC.CA 206.123.31.101 > > [bear]~$ host tsps1.freenet6.net 206.123.31.2 > ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached > [bear]~$ host tsps1.freenet6.net 206.123.31.101 > ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached > [bear]~$ host tsps1.freenet6.net 192.26.210.1 > Using domain server: > Name: 192.26.210.1 > Address: 192.26.210.1#53 > > tsps1.freenet6.net has address 206.123.31.114 > [bear]~$ ping 206.123.31.114 > PING 206.123.31.114 (206.123.31.114) from 172.17.2.121 : 56(84) bytes of > data. > > --- 206.123.31.114 ping statistics --- > 11 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% loss, time 10012ms > > Any clues would be highly appreciated. Thanks, andreas From jeroen@unfix.org Wed Jan 22 20:12:27 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:12:27 +0100 Subject: Freenet6 is alive and kicking (Was: [6bone] freenet6 service gone?) In-Reply-To: <20030122102837.Q1428@naund.org> Message-ID: <003c01c2c252$96134fb0$210d640a@unfix.org> Andreas Ott wrote: > during the past days I'm having a hard time establishing the > connection back to Freenet6. Did I miss any announcement about it being down? It still works perfectly well. > Their DNS is mostly gone and consequently their web page is not > easily reachable, using a numeric IP it times out. Use traceroute and call your upstream ISP. $ ping www.freenet6.net PING www.freenet6.net (206.123.31.114) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from www.freenet6.net (206.123.31.114): icmp_seq=1 ttl=241 time=120 ms 64 bytes from www.freenet6.net (206.123.31.114): icmp_seq=2 ttl=241 time=126 ms (Mind you this is pinging from the Netherlands, at the other side of the pond :) $ mtr --report --report-cycles=5 www.freenet6.net HOST LOSS RCVD SENT BEST AVG WORST gw-64-92.sms-1.ams-tel.cistron.net 0% 5 5 16.67 17.69 19.60 ve10.rtr-1.ams-tel.cistron.net 0% 5 5 17.05 17.71 18.04 adm-tc1-i2-feth3-0.telia.net 0% 5 5 18.66 19.93 23.03 adm-tc1-i1-pos0-0.telia.net 0% 5 5 18.62 20.75 25.06 adm-bb1-pos0-3-1.telia.net 0% 5 5 18.39 19.87 21.59 ldn-bb1-pos1-1-0.telia.net 0% 5 5 26.21 27.48 29.15 ldn-bb2-pos0-0-0.telia.net 0% 5 5 27.02 29.90 39.11 nyk-bb2-pos2-3-0.telia.net 0% 5 5 98.56 99.58 100.94 nyk-i2-pos1-0.telia.net 0% 5 5 98.34 99.39 100.74 p4-1-1-0.r04.nycmny01.us.bb.verio.net 0% 5 5 98.63 100.44 104.39 p4-0.grouptelecom.nycmny01.us.bb.verio.net 0% 5 5 98.81 100.31 104.25 GE3-0.WANA-MTRLPQ.IP.GROUPTELECOM.NET 0% 5 5 111.88 113.80 118.13 h216-18-72-146.gtconnect.net 0% 5 5 115.37 119.05 129.66 h216-18-114-66.gtconnect.net 0% 5 5 117.08 119.96 124.08 h66-201-212-225.gtconnect.net 0% 5 5 115.70 116.66 117.70 www.freenet6.net 0% 4 5 117.37 123.78 134.17 There isn't a AAAA present for that host though ;( Greets, Jeroen From pekkas@netcore.fi Wed Jan 22 21:29:52 2003 From: pekkas@netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:29:52 +0200 (EET) Subject: [6bone] comments on draft-fink-6bone-phaseout-00 Message-ID: Hello, A few comments. In general, I think the schedule should even be sped up a bit (allocation DL 31.12.2003, withdrawal 31.12.2004 or 1.7.2005), but I'm okay with the current one if that's what folks think. Substantial: The IANA MUST reclaim the 3FFE::/16 prefix upon the date specified in 2.0, and MUST make provisions to set it aside from any other uses for a period of at least two years after this date to minimize confusion with its current use for the 6bone (e.g., thus allowing production IPv6 networks to filter out the use of the 3FFE::/16 prefix for a reasonable time after the 6bone phaseout). ==> I'm not sure about the second MUST. Perhaps a SHOULD would do? For example, consider if someone specified a locator,identifier separation mechanisms which would use two IPv6 addresses. Identifiers would be from 3000::/4 and the rest would be as before. The above wording as I read it would prevent the allocation of 3000::/4. Editorial: This document is intended to obsolete RFC 2471, "IPv6 Testing Address Allocation", December, 1998. RFC 2471 will become historic. ==> I'm not sure of the process issue, but I'm not sure if obseleting means moving the obsoleted document to historic, right? If not, these two requested actions should be more clearly separated. format, [TEST-OLD] was replaced with a new IPv6 testing address allocation" ==> add the opening " somewhere Regional Internet Registry (RIR), National Internet Registry, or Local Internet Registries (ISPs). ==> all LIR's aren't ISPs. 3.0 References ==> references should be after security considerations -- 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 Wed Jan 22 23:44:55 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:44:55 +0100 Subject: [6bone] comments on draft-fink-6bone-phaseout-00 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005601c2c270$45282620$210d640a@unfix.org> Pekka Savola wrote: > Hello, > > A few comments. > > In general, I think the schedule should even be sped up a bit > (allocation DL 31.12.2003, withdrawal 31.12.2004 or 1.7.2005), > but I'm okay with the current one if that's what folks think. I am fine too with the current thing, but one could take into consideration the new RIPE-267* IPv6 Address Allocation Policy which has an explicit part for "Assignments for Internet Experiments". See section 6.0 of the following link: * = http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html#experiment-assignments IMHO this section almost describes a 6bone alike setup. Thus companies wanting to experiment could do this in RIR space too. Greets, Jeroen From bob@thefinks.com Thu Jan 23 02:58:14 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 18:58:14 -0800 Subject: [6bone] comments on draft-fink-6bone-phaseout-00 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030122184032.01da07b8@mail.addr.com> Pekka, At 11:29 PM 1/22/2003 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: >Hello, > >A few comments. > >In general, I think the schedule should even be sped up a bit (allocation >DL 31.12.2003, withdrawal 31.12.2004 or 1.7.2005), but I'm okay with the >current one if that's what folks think. > >Substantial: > >The IANA MUST reclaim the > 3FFE::/16 prefix upon the date specified in 2.0, and MUST make > provisions to set it aside from any other uses for a period of at > least two years after this date to minimize confusion with its > current use for the 6bone (e.g., thus allowing production IPv6 > networks to filter out the use of the 3FFE::/16 prefix for a > reasonable time after the 6bone phaseout). > >==> I'm not sure about the second MUST. Perhaps a SHOULD would do? For >example, consider if someone specified a locator,identifier separation >mechanisms which would use two IPv6 addresses. Identifiers would be from >3000::/4 and the rest would be as before. The above wording as I read it >would prevent the allocation of 3000::/4. No, it only means 3ffe::/16 as it says, not anything shorter like 3000::/4. I can add the prefix again in the wording if you think it makes a difference. >Editorial: > > This document is intended to obsolete RFC 2471, "IPv6 Testing Address > Allocation", December, 1998. RFC 2471 will become historic. > >==> I'm not sure of the process issue, but I'm not sure if obseleting >means moving the obsoleted document to historic, right? If not, these two >requested actions should be more clearly separated. I think moving it to historic makes it obsolete. > format, [TEST-OLD] was replaced with a new IPv6 testing address > allocation" > >==> add the opening " somewhere Don't get what you mean. > Regional Internet Registry (RIR), National Internet Registry, or > Local Internet Registries (ISPs). >==> all LIR's aren't ISPs. Just referring to it the way the RIRs do. Should I just remove the ISP part, or elaborate? >3.0 References > >==> references should be after security considerations OK. Thanks, Bob From pekkas@netcore.fi Thu Jan 23 07:26:01 2003 From: pekkas@netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:26:01 +0200 (EET) Subject: [6bone] comments on draft-fink-6bone-phaseout-00 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030122184032.01da07b8@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Bob Fink wrote: > >The IANA MUST reclaim the > > 3FFE::/16 prefix upon the date specified in 2.0, and MUST make > > provisions to set it aside from any other uses for a period of at > > least two years after this date to minimize confusion with its > > current use for the 6bone (e.g., thus allowing production IPv6 > > networks to filter out the use of the 3FFE::/16 prefix for a > > reasonable time after the 6bone phaseout). > > > >==> I'm not sure about the second MUST. Perhaps a SHOULD would do? For > >example, consider if someone specified a locator,identifier separation > >mechanisms which would use two IPv6 addresses. Identifiers would be from > >3000::/4 and the rest would be as before. The above wording as I read it > >would prevent the allocation of 3000::/4. > > No, it only means 3ffe::/16 as it says, not anything shorter like 3000::/4. > I can add the prefix again in the wording if you think it makes a difference. Perhaps it should be spelled out. > > format, [TEST-OLD] was replaced with a new IPv6 testing address > > allocation" > > > >==> add the opening " somewhere > > Don't get what you mean. I mean that you probably meant something like: format, [TEST-OLD] was replaced with a new "IPv6 testing address allocation" ^^^ > > Regional Internet Registry (RIR), National Internet Registry, or > > Local Internet Registries (ISPs). > >==> all LIR's aren't ISPs. > > Just referring to it the way the RIRs do. Should I just remove the ISP > part, or elaborate? Could just changing "ISPs" to "LIRs" do it? Hmm.. upon further reading it seems new text would be required; let's see.. This plan for a 6bone phaseout specifies a multi-year phaseout timeline to allow sufficient time for continuing operation of the 6bone, followed by a sufficient time for 6bone participants to convert to production IPv6 address prefixes allocated by the relevant Regional Internet Registry (RIR), National Internet Registry, or Local Internet Registries (ISPs). the problem here is the word "allocated". Soem 6bone participants would be _assigned_ a prefix (or two) from a LIR. So perhaps rewording like: This plan for a 6bone phaseout specifies a multi-year phaseout timeline to allow sufficient time for continuing operation of the 6bone, followed by a sufficient time for 6bone participants to convert to production IPv6 address prefixes allocated by the relevant Regional Internet Registry (RIR). Some may also obtain addresses via assignment from National Internet Registry, or Local Internet Registries (LIRs). -- 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 bob@thefinks.com Thu Jan 23 07:39:49 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:39:49 -0800 Subject: [6bone] comments on draft-fink-6bone-phaseout-00 In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030122184032.01da07b8@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030122233935.01dda678@mail.addr.com> Pekka, Thanks. Bob === At 09:26 AM 1/23/2003 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: >On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Bob Fink wrote: > > >The IANA MUST reclaim the > > > 3FFE::/16 prefix upon the date specified in 2.0, and MUST make > > > provisions to set it aside from any other uses for a period of at > > > least two years after this date to minimize confusion with its > > > current use for the 6bone (e.g., thus allowing production IPv6 > > > networks to filter out the use of the 3FFE::/16 prefix for a > > > reasonable time after the 6bone phaseout). > > > > > >==> I'm not sure about the second MUST. Perhaps a SHOULD would do? For > > >example, consider if someone specified a locator,identifier separation > > >mechanisms which would use two IPv6 addresses. Identifiers would be from > > >3000::/4 and the rest would be as before. The above wording as I read it > > >would prevent the allocation of 3000::/4. > > > > No, it only means 3ffe::/16 as it says, not anything shorter like > 3000::/4. > > I can add the prefix again in the wording if you think it makes a > difference. > >Perhaps it should be spelled out. > > > > format, [TEST-OLD] was replaced with a new IPv6 testing address > > > allocation" > > > > > >==> add the opening " somewhere > > > > Don't get what you mean. > >I mean that you probably meant something like: > >format, [TEST-OLD] was replaced with a new "IPv6 testing address >allocation" ^^^ > > > > Regional Internet Registry (RIR), National Internet Registry, or > > > Local Internet Registries (ISPs). > > >==> all LIR's aren't ISPs. > > > > Just referring to it the way the RIRs do. Should I just remove the ISP > > part, or elaborate? > >Could just changing "ISPs" to "LIRs" do it? > >Hmm.. upon further reading it seems new text would be required; let's >see.. > > This plan for a 6bone phaseout specifies a multi-year phaseout > timeline to allow sufficient time for continuing operation of the > 6bone, followed by a sufficient time for 6bone participants to > convert to production IPv6 address prefixes allocated by the relevant > Regional Internet Registry (RIR), National Internet Registry, or > Local Internet Registries (ISPs). > >the problem here is the word "allocated". Soem 6bone participants would >be _assigned_ a prefix (or two) from a LIR. So perhaps rewording like: > > This plan for a 6bone phaseout specifies a multi-year phaseout > timeline to allow sufficient time for continuing operation of the > 6bone, followed by a sufficient time for 6bone participants to > convert to production IPv6 address prefixes allocated by the relevant > Regional Internet Registry (RIR). Some may also obtain addresses via > assignment from National Internet Registry, or Local Internet > Registries (LIRs). > >-- >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 Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org Thu Jan 23 10:17:09 2003 From: Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org (Ronald van der Pol) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:17:09 +0100 Subject: [6bone] comments on draft-fink-6bone-phaseout-00 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030122184032.01da07b8@mail.addr.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030122184032.01da07b8@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <20030123101709.GB21226@rvdp.org> On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 18:58:14 -0800, Bob Fink wrote: > >The IANA MUST reclaim the > > 3FFE::/16 prefix upon the date specified in 2.0, and MUST make > > provisions to set it aside from any other uses for a period of at > > least two years after this date to minimize confusion with its > > current use for the 6bone (e.g., thus allowing production IPv6 > > networks to filter out the use of the 3FFE::/16 prefix for a > > reasonable time after the 6bone phaseout). > > > >==> I'm not sure about the second MUST. Perhaps a SHOULD would do? For > >example, consider if someone specified a locator,identifier separation > >mechanisms which would use two IPv6 addresses. Identifiers would be from > >3000::/4 and the rest would be as before. The above wording as I read it > >would prevent the allocation of 3000::/4. > > No, it only means 3ffe::/16 as it says, not anything shorter like 3000::/4. > I can add the prefix again in the wording if you think it makes a > difference. I think what Pekka is saying is that reserving 3ffe::/16 prevents usage of any prefix that includes 3ffe::/16, e.g. 3000::/4. I think it is unlikely that we need a /4 for experiments in the next two years (let's first come up with a plan for ID/LOC separation :-) There are plenty of /16s in 2000::/4 or 3000::/4 that can be used for experiments. Or we can use any of the other unassigned blocks. But on the other hand a MUST is strong. Maybe SHOULD is better. rvdp From bob@thefinks.com Thu Jan 23 17:16:49 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:16:49 -0800 Subject: [6bone] comments on draft-fink-6bone-phaseout-00 In-Reply-To: <20030123101709.GB21226@rvdp.org> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030122184032.01da07b8@mail.addr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20030122184032.01da07b8@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030123091526.01dbe6f8@mail.addr.com> Ronald, At 11:17 AM 1/23/2003 +0100, Ronald van der Pol wrote: >On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 18:58:14 -0800, Bob Fink wrote: > > > >The IANA MUST reclaim the > > > 3FFE::/16 prefix upon the date specified in 2.0, and MUST make > > > provisions to set it aside from any other uses for a period of at > > > least two years after this date to minimize confusion with its > > > current use for the 6bone (e.g., thus allowing production IPv6 > > > networks to filter out the use of the 3FFE::/16 prefix for a > > > reasonable time after the 6bone phaseout). > > > > > >==> I'm not sure about the second MUST. Perhaps a SHOULD would do? For > > >example, consider if someone specified a locator,identifier separation > > >mechanisms which would use two IPv6 addresses. Identifiers would be from > > >3000::/4 and the rest would be as before. The above wording as I read it > > >would prevent the allocation of 3000::/4. > > > > No, it only means 3ffe::/16 as it says, not anything shorter like > 3000::/4. > > I can add the prefix again in the wording if you think it makes a > > difference. > >I think what Pekka is saying is that reserving 3ffe::/16 prevents usage >of any prefix that includes 3ffe::/16, e.g. 3000::/4. >I think it is unlikely that we need a /4 for experiments in the next two >years (let's first come up with a plan for ID/LOC separation :-) There are >plenty of /16s in 2000::/4 or 3000::/4 that can be used for experiments. >Or we can use any of the other unassigned blocks. > >But on the other hand a MUST is strong. Maybe SHOULD is better. OK, comment duly noted. Will see what others say. Thanks, Bob From michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us Fri Jan 24 05:13:23 2003 From: michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:13:23 -0800 Subject: [6bone] comments on draft-fink-6bone-phaseout-00 Message-ID: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F54B62@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> > Rvdp vrote: > I think what Pekka is saying is that reserving 3ffe::/16 > prevents usage of any prefix that includes 3ffe::/16, e.g. > 3000::/4. I think it is unlikely that we need a /4 for > experiments in the next two years Tony Hain's draft. However, I don't think this is an issue. There are other /4s to allocate if needed. Michel. From mickey_uppendahl@hp.com Fri Jan 24 17:52:39 2003 From: mickey_uppendahl@hp.com (UPPENDAHL,MICKEY (HP-Corvallis,ex1)) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:52:39 -0800 Subject: [6bone] RE: 6bone pTLA 3FFE:4015::/32 allocated to HP Message-ID: I believe we're set up on these name servers: corns01.hwp6.net (3ffe:2900:100f:3fff::1 and 156.152.36.140) palns01.hwp6.net (3ffe:2900:100f:3fff::1:1 and 156.152.38.140) ; <<>> DiG 9.2.1 <<>> 5.1.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int NS ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 25223 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 4 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;5.1.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. IN NS ;; ANSWER SECTION: 5.1.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. 9000 IN NS palns01.hwp6.net. 5.1.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. 9000 IN NS corns01.hwp6.net. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: corns01.hwp6.net. 1200 IN A 156.152.36.140 corns01.hwp6.net. 1200 IN AAAA 3ffe:2900:100f:3fff::1 palns01.hwp6.net. 1200 IN A 156.152.38.140 palns01.hwp6.net. 1200 IN AAAA 3ffe:2900:100f:3fff::1:1 ;; Query time: 2 msec ;; SERVER: ::1#53(::1) ;; WHEN: Fri Jan 24 09:43:31 2003 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 181 I it was on my list for yesterday to get you this info, sorry for the delay. We'll get the name servers into our own space soon as well, but they should be functioning now. -Mickey Uppendahl HP - MSDD Strategic Communications Architecture mickey.uppendahl@hp.com -----Original Message----- From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com [mailto:bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com] Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 4:14 AM To: bob@thefinks.com Cc: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu; mickey_uppendahl@hp.com; steve_froelich@hp.com; hostmaster@ep.net Subject: Re: 6bone pTLA 3FFE:4015::/32 allocated to HP waiting for updates from HP. ; <<>> DiG 9.3.0s20021115 <<>> 5.1.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. ns @::1 ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 58707 ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;5.1.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. IN NS ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 5.1.0.4.e.f.f.3.ip6.int. 86400 IN NS noserver. > > HP has been allocated pTLA 3FFE:4015::/32 having finished its 2-week > review > period. > > > > > Note that it will take a short while for their pTLA inet6num entry to > appear in the 6bone registry as they have to create it themselves. However, > their registration is listed on: > > > > > [To create a reverse DNS registration for pTLAs, please send the > prefix > allocated above, and a list of at least two authoritative nameservers, to > hostmaster@ep.net.] > > > Thanks, > > Bob > From ajs@labs.mot.com Sat Jan 25 00:58:25 2003 From: ajs@labs.mot.com (Aron Silverton) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:58:25 -0600 Subject: [6bone] Site addressing best practices? Message-ID: <3E31E131.6020705@labs.mot.com> Does anybody out there have a sample address plan or a document on best practices for delegating IPv6 addresses within an ISP or organization? It looks as though I'm going to be doing some readdressing soon, and I'd like to put a nice plan into place. I'm not too terribly concerned with how the bits are doled out - from the left, center, or right - as the chances of having to grow a prefix are quite slim. I'll probably end up not assigning them contiguously just to be sure. What I am concerned with is how best to use addresses within the /48s that I will assign. This includes address assignments for our main site and other internal sites some of which may be tunneled across IPv4 links. What have people found to be the best way to manage assignments for loopbacks, PTP links, multiple subnets of hosts, etc? I'll probably stick with /64s for the PTPs as opposed to /126, /127, or /112. If I am being too general, let me know and I'll try to post some specific questions. Thanks, Aron -- Aron J. Silverton Senior Staff Research Engineer Motorola Laboratories, Networks and Infrastructure Research Motorola, Inc. Telephone: 847-576-8747 Fax: 847-576-3240 mailto: ajs@labs.mot.com From nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net Sat Jan 25 12:17:16 2003 From: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net (Nicolas DEFFAYET) Date: 25 Jan 2003 13:17:16 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Site addressing best practices? In-Reply-To: <3E31E131.6020705@labs.mot.com> References: <3E31E131.6020705@labs.mot.com> Message-ID: <1043497036.8352.17.camel@wks1.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com> On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 01:58, Aron Silverton wrote: > Does anybody out there have a sample address plan or a document on best > practices for delegating IPv6 addresses within an ISP or organization? You can find many IPv6 address plan with Google: http://www.stack.nl/ipv6/ http://www.cairn.net/addressv6.html http://www.slac.stanford.edu/comp/net/ipv6/ipv6.html http://www.v6.wide.ad.jp/Registry/ http://ipv6.internet2.edu/Abilene_IPv6_Addressing.shtml http://noc.aco.net/ipv6/extern/ACOnet-sTLA-Plan.html http://wwwhome.cs.utwente.nl/~meent/ipv6.html > What have people found to be the best way to manage assignments for > loopbacks, PTP links, multiple subnets of hosts, etc? I'll probably > stick with /64s for the PTPs as opposed to /126, /127, or /112. We use /64. Best Regards, -- Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware NOC Website: http://noc.ndsoftwarenet.com/ FNIX6: http://www.fnix6.net/ From michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us Sat Jan 25 20:29:50 2003 From: michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 12:29:50 -0800 Subject: [6bone] Site addressing best practices? Message-ID: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F54B66@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> > Aron Silverton wrote: > Does anybody out there have a sample address plan or a document > on best practices for delegating IPv6 addresses within an ISP > or organization? Make sure you read: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-ipaddressassign-06.t xt > What have people found to be the best way to manage assignments > for loopbacks, PTP links, multiple subnets of hosts, etc? I'll > probably stick with /64s for the PTPs as opposed to /126, /127, > or /112. /64s are the only way that complies with: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.tx t which is to replace RFC2373. Michel. From Emanuele.Logalbo@TILAB.COM Mon Jan 27 10:13:42 2003 From: Emanuele.Logalbo@TILAB.COM (Lo Galbo Emanuele) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:13:42 +0100 Subject: [6bone] help with an ipv6 multicast test plant Message-ID: <9620749A0C40FB49B72994B11B077C5DD25FD3@EXC2K01A.cselt.it> Hi,everybody. I am trying to set up a test plant for Ipv6 multicast in my lab.So I thought using freebsd 4.7 that supports, natively ,pim6sd for PIM-SM and maybe for MLD. I am not sure about MLD because I read a document relating to freebsd 4.7 stating that for host-side MLDv2 implementation, kame snaps will be necessary over freebsd. So I have some questions : 1) For the host-side Do I have to use freebsd 4.7 + kame snap? 2) for the router-side Do i have to use just freebsd 4.7? 3) If I had to install kame snap please could you give me the way to find friendly instructions how to install over freebsd? I have to find some papers but little friendly. Please give me hints. Best Regards E. ==================================================================== 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 michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us Tue Jan 28 04:30:32 2003 From: michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:30:32 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement Message-ID: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F54B76@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> Dan, > Dan Reeder wrote: > Force/encourage the RIRs to offer netblocks *cheaply*. In the context of tour (excellent) post, this is flawless logic. However, it might backfire. On another list, we are currently discussing about putting a hefty price on announcing a prefix in the global routing table should allocation of PI addresses to end-sites become unavoidable. At this point in time, I do not think that we should encourage RIRs to give away portable address without a good reason. Michel. From ajs@labs.mot.com Tue Jan 28 16:22:36 2003 From: ajs@labs.mot.com (Aron Silverton) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:22:36 -0600 Subject: [6bone] Site addressing best practices? References: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F54B66@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> Message-ID: <3E36AE4C.7010001@labs.mot.com> Michel, Michel Py wrote: >>Aron Silverton wrote: > > >>Does anybody out there have a sample address plan or a document >>on best practices for delegating IPv6 addresses within an ISP >>or organization? > > > Make sure you read: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-ipaddressassign-06.t > xt > Thanks, We are aware of that draft. > >>What have people found to be the best way to manage assignments >>for loopbacks, PTP links, multiple subnets of hosts, etc? I'll >>probably stick with /64s for the PTPs as opposed to /126, /127, >>or /112. > > > /64s are the only way that complies with: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.tx > t > which is to replace RFC2373. > Correct. Like I said, we too, are using /64. Regardless of the draft, many people still use something other than /64. > Michel. > FWIW, we are using CAIRN's address plan adapted to fit our longer 6bone pTLA. I thought that I would ask this question on the list to generate discussion based on what people have learned in practice, versus what is printed in a draft on a possible method of assigning bits in an address. I find it hard to believe that there is so little variance in what people are doing in the case of POPs and end sites. Thanks for the pointers all the same. Aron -- Aron J. Silverton Senior Staff Research Engineer Motorola Laboratories, Networks and Infrastructure Research Motorola, Inc. Telephone: 847-576-8747 Fax: 847-576-3240 mailto: ajs@labs.mot.com From bob@thefinks.com Tue Jan 28 16:57:13 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 08:57:13 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 3ffe:8180::/28 returned Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030128085021.020246e8@mail.addr.com> The 6bone pTLA allocated to TIAI has been returned voluntarily. 3ffe:8180::/28 TIAI/US Thanks, Bob From jeroen@unfix.org Tue Jan 28 19:50:35 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:50:35 +0100 Subject: [6bone] IPv6Gate - IPv6 for IPv4 only websites Message-ID: <002b01c2c706$871bea40$210d640a@unfix.org> Hi, We've setup a IPv6 to IPv4 website gateway which allows to access any IPv4 website over IPv6 using a gateway trick. As http:// url's get rewritten one will remain in the gateway domain so that one will continue to access the sites over IPv6. Maybe if they get enough hits they might be hinted that IPv6 use is rising and maybe we can pursuade them this way to start making their websites natively IPv6 accessible. Contact info for this info@sixxs.net And the gate can be detected in your logs as it is using the following User-Agent: SixXS-IPv6Gate/1.0 (IPv6 Gateway; http://ipv6gate.sixxs.net; info@sixxs.net) Which should allow unaware admins to at least contact us in case of problems. Notez bien the real client IPv6 address is passed along in the X-FORWARDED-FOR header just like 'normal' http proxies and we log all accesses. Also note that when using www.6bone.net.sixxs.org the gateway recognises this special case and uses the IPv4 address of the site to connect; allowing the master server to be seen instead of the usually out-of-sync IPv6 version. For more information see: http://ipv6gate.sixxs.net Greets, Jeroen From Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca Tue Jan 28 23:16:05 2003 From: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca (Marc Blanchet) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:16:05 -0500 Subject: [6bone] Site addressing best practices? In-Reply-To: <3E36AE4C.7010001@labs.mot.com> References: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F54B66@server2000.arneill-py.sacra mento.ca.us> <3E36AE4C.7010001@labs.mot.com> Message-ID: <554230000.1043795765@classic.viagenie.qc.ca> -- mardi, janvier 28, 2003 10:22:36 -0600 Aron Silverton wrote/a écrit: > Michel, > > Michel Py wrote: >>> Aron Silverton wrote: >> >> >>> Does anybody out there have a sample address plan or a document >>> on best practices for delegating IPv6 addresses within an ISP >>> or organization? >> >> >> Make sure you read: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-ipaddressassign-06.t >> xt >> > > Thanks, We are aware of that draft. my colleague Jocelyn made a perl script that implements the draft and did a web page to facilitate its use. Feel free to use it: http://www.viagenie.qc.ca/en/ipv6/allocation/index.shtml Marc. > Aron > > -- > Aron J. Silverton > Senior Staff Research Engineer > Motorola Laboratories, Networks and Infrastructure Research > Motorola, Inc. > > Telephone: 847-576-8747 > Fax: 847-576-3240 > mailto: ajs@labs.mot.com From bob@thefinks.com Wed Jan 29 15:59:14 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 07:59:14 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 3ffe:2700::/24 returned Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030129075811.0303e370@mail.addr.com> The 6bone pTLA allocated to ERA has been returned voluntarily. 3ffe:2700::/24 ERA/SE Thanks, Bob From anil.bhaskar@wipro.com Fri Jan 31 04:14:02 2003 From: anil.bhaskar@wipro.com (Anil Bhaskarwar) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:44:02 +0530 Subject: [6bone] Want help in Configuring OSPF3, DHCPv6 and Mobile IPv6 in Cisco Router. Message-ID: <1E27FF611EBEFB4580387FCB5BEF00F3031665@webmail.wipro.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPartTM-000-b6364da4-0ba5-4fd1-8989-d8dbb9262476 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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.=20 Looking forward for your valuable reply. Thanks and Best Regards, Anil B. Wipro Tech. Electronics City-2=20 India Board No: +91-80-8520408-Ext: 5438 Direct No: +91-80-8528778 ------=_NextPartTM-000-b6364da4-0ba5-4fd1-8989-d8dbb9262476 Content-Type: text/plain; name="InterScan_Disclaimer.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="InterScan_Disclaimer.txt" **************************Disclaimer************************************************** Information contained in this E-MAIL being proprietary to Wipro Limited is 'privileged' and 'confidential' and intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. You are notified that any use, copying or dissemination of the information contained in the E-MAIL in any manner whatsoever is strictly prohibited. **************************************************************************************** ------=_NextPartTM-000-b6364da4-0ba5-4fd1-8989-d8dbb9262476-- From marcel@support.nl Fri Jan 31 08:25:02 2003 From: marcel@support.nl (Marcel Lemmen) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:25:02 +0100 (CET) Subject: [6bone] Cisco IOS Experiences Message-ID: Hi all, I'm looking for the several options to deploy IPv6 into our core-network. We have several Cisco's (7200 and 7500's) which need to be upgraded to a 12.2T IOS if we want a dual-stack network. Does anyone has experiences with these IOS'es in a production environment (good and bad please)? Please let me know if there were any problem, how this has been solved etc. I need to convince the management this IOS is good enough to use :) Thank you in advance. With kind regards, Marcel Lemmen Support Net - Partner in Internetworking --= Try http://alt.binaries.nl =-- From berni@birkenwald.de Fri Jan 31 17:30:29 2003 From: berni@birkenwald.de (Bernhard Schmidt) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:30:29 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Cisco IOS Experiences In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030131173029.GA16928@thor.birkenwald.de> On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 09:25:02AM +0100, Marcel Lemmen wrote: > Does anyone has experiences with these IOS'es in a production environment > (good and bad please)? Please let me know if there were any problem, how > this has been solved etc. I need to convince the management this IOS is > good enough to use :) We are running 12.2T since about 12.2(4)T on two 7206VXR located at INXS and DECIX (public exchange points) since about nine months. The first version were very buggy, e.g. broken unicast IPv4 BGP when enabling multicast IPv4 BGP, broken OSPF, sudden reloads up to 12.2(11)T2 when deleting a tunnel interface, 99%/100% cpu for hours until reloading after running fine for a couple of weeks, and so on. 12.2(13)T runs okay right now, while we have problems on one machine mixing up IPv6 headers when forwarding packets through a tunnel. But since this problem did not appear on any other of our routers we think it might be a hardware problem. We also have 12.2(13)T running on two 7507 in the core network. These machines mixed up routing for one special host after reloading (while the rest of the network the host was running in was routed okay, and the host did _not_ have a /32 route, neither in the IP routing table nor in the dCEF table). The problem could be fixed by clearing the OSPF process. The rest of the problems is rather cosmetic, e.g. one of the 7500s does not appear in the IPv6 traceroute definitely going through this router on one day, then appears on another, then disappears and so on. Also, you should note that if you want to use the only available decent IPv6 IGP (IS-IS) with tunnels you have to use GRE tunnels, which currently do not use IPv6 (d)CEF. A 7500 doing 100Mbps of IPv4 has about 10% cpu load, doing additional 5Mbps of IPv6 with ipv6ip tunnels increased to load to about 15% while using GRE tunnels the CPU load increased to more than 40%! So you should not use GRE tunnels on heavy loaded systems if possible. At this time I would wait for 12.2S which was sheduled for January, 27th, so we hope it will be there soon. -- bye bye Bernhard