Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE

Why would people pay for IPv6 Address Space when IPv8 Address Space is FREE
?

2047 IPv8 Blocks have been FREEly allocated to IN-ADDR.<TLD> managers.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

On October 25, 2001 Microsoft will launch Windows XP which supports IPv8
Addressing.
Companies like New.Net are making it possible for people to register
IN-ADDR.<TLD> names.
Companies like TuCows are helping to break down the .COM monopoly with .INFO
names.
http://www.IN-ADDR.INFO

The .BIZ Community is growing. It is time to build a new Internet based on
fair IP allocations.
The Proof-of-Concept work on the IPv4 Internet can continue, but true
pioneers need to move on.
The technology is now in place to route around the I* organizations, "It
Seeks Overall Control".
http://www.dot-biz.com/Registry/ProofConcept/index.html

Do you use a 2002:<IPv4>:0000 prefix ?
http://www.dot-arizona.com/IPv8/IPv4/
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html

JimFleming at Unir.com
http://www.unir.com
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerard Ross" <gerard at apnic.net>
To: <v6wg at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 3:32 AM
Subject: RE: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE


> Hello all
>
> As a follow-up to Thomas's announcemnt, I just wanted to add some
additional
> information regarding the IPv6 discussions at the APNIC and RIPE NCC
> meetings.
>
> Detailed presentations summarising the policy principles discussed at the
> APNIC meeting are available on the APNIC web site at:
>
>  http://www.apnic.net/meetings/12/amm/
>
> A further summary of the principles accepted by the APNIC community,
> including details of the criteria for initial allocations and the size of
> initial allocations, was presented at RIPE 40 and is available at:
>
>
>
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-40/presentations.html#ipv6-li
> r
>
> (The presentation outlining the proposal by Dave Pratt is also available
> there.)
>
> It should be noted that discussions at these meetings have identified a
need
> for an interim policy to be developed as soon as possible, so as to not
> hinder IPv6 development. The recommendations agreed upon at APNIC and RIPE
> meetings have recognised this fact, and have anticipated that review of
> these principles will be ongoing.
>
> Regards
> - Gerard Ross
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> Gerard Ross, Documentation Manager                  <gerard at apnic.net>
> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre             ph +61 7 3367 0490
> http://www.apnic.net                                fx +61 7 3367 0482
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-v6wg at arin.net [mailto:owner-v6wg at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > Thomas Narten
> > Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 2:07 AM
> > To: v6wg at arin.net
> > Subject: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE
> >
> >
> > Here is a summary of recent activity related to IPv6 addressing
> > policy. Credit goes to Richard Jimmerson for putting it together with
> > help from RIPE and APNIC.
> >
> > This will serve as background for the upcoming v6 WG meeting in Miami,
> > where these topics will be discussed.
> >
> > Thomas (with WG Chair hat in place)
> >
> > ***** APNIC *****
> >
> > There was a joint IPv6/Policy session relating to iPv6 address policy
> > held at the last APNIC meeting.  During this session there were two
> > separate IPv6 policy proposals made.  The following day these two
> > policy proposals were merged.  There was consensus that many of the
> > principles outlined in the proposal document were sound, but there
> > was general agreement that further discussion was needed at the global
> > level -- in particular, the initial allocation size from the RIRs.
> >
> > There was consensus that the IPv6 bootstrap period should be extended
> > until the next IPv6 policy is implemented, with the understanding that
> > the next policy takes account of bootstrapping needs.
> >
> > There was consensus to accept the proposal for APNIC to assign IPv6
> > address space to Internet exchanges.  The assignment size agreed upon
> > was a /64.
> >
> > ***** RIPE NCC *****
> >
> > There were two separate sessions that covered the topic of IPv6
> > addressing policy -- 1) The IPv6/LIR joint session
> >                      2) The IPv6/LIR/EIX joint session
> >
> > 1) The IPv6/LIR joint session discussed the IPv6 policy proposal
> > language, summarized the discussions that took place at the APNIC
> > meeting, and reviewed a proposal submitted by Dave Pratt.
> >
> > There were many similarities between these three offerings.  The group
> > seemed to agree on principles such as using the HD-ratio for checking
> > utilization, the fact current IPv4 utilization would be considered
> > when evaluating an initial request for IPv6 address space, and many
> > other points from the IPv6 proposal language, but objected to the
> > references to "slow start," as there was concern the minimum allocation
> > size may be too small and that LIRs would have to return to the RIR
> > too often.
> >
> > One of the main points that was left open and identified as needed
> > further discussion was the initial allocation size from the RIR.  It
> > was agreed that this point and others would be best discussed on a
> > global mailing list so the discussions of the three regions remained
> > in sync.
> >
> > It was also decided that the RIRs should continue work on an interim
> > policy document with the help of the community while these discussions
> > are going on.  It was felt that even though there are still some open
> > issues, the new proposed policies are much better than what we have now.
> >
> > 2) The IPv6/LIR/EIX joint session discussed the proposed policy of
> > the RIPE NCC assigning IPv6 address space to exchange points.  There was
> > much discussion about what size to assign IXes (/64 or /48).  It was
> > argued some IXes may need more than a /64, so a /48 should be assigned
> > for purposes of administrative ease.  Many people supported this notion,
> > as almost every other type of "site" would receive a /48 anyway.
> >
> > It was also observed that IXes may not even need space from the RIR
> > and that they could use link-local addresses.  It was countered that
> > link-local may not work because some exchange customers may want to
> > traceroute to one another.
> >
> > The final consensus was that exchange points should receive their
> > IPv6 address space from a RIR.
> >
>
>