From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Wed May 2 08:28:42 2001 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 12:28:42 +0000 (UCT) Subject: revised v6 statement forthcoming Message-ID: <200105021228.MAA10046@vacation.karoshi.com> After some wordsmithing, the comments from the last ARIN public policy mtg have beenfolded into a proposed, revised statement on v6 allocations. Look for an announcement from the ARIN staff shortly. --bill From mfidler at fusiontel.com Wed May 2 10:19:13 2001 From: mfidler at fusiontel.com (Michael L. Fidler) Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 10:19:13 -0400 Subject: revised v6 statement References: <200105021228.MAA10046@vacation.karoshi.com> Message-ID: <3AF01761.7B14FDFF@fusiontel.com> We concur with the recommendation as indicated at the Member's meeting. - Mike Fidler From susanh at arin.net Wed May 2 17:11:51 2001 From: susanh at arin.net (Susan Hamlin) Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 17:11:51 -0400 Subject: Last Call for Comment on New IPv6 Policy Message-ID: Following discussion at the April ARIN Public Policy meetings, the recommendation of the ARIN Advisory Committee was modified slightly. Please see the announcement of this discussion and read the current recommended policy, based on the consensus of those attending the meeting: http://www.arin.net/announcements/ipv6_wg2.html You have ten (10) working days, or until 1700 Eastern Time, 16 May 2001, to comment on the IPv6 Working group mailing list. Please see the above announcement for instructions on how to subscribe to v6wg at arin.net. The Advisory Council will consider all comments before making their recommendation to the Board of Trustees. Regards, Susan Hamlin Director, Member Services ARIN From smarcus at genuity.com Mon May 7 15:57:52 2001 From: smarcus at genuity.com (J. Scott Marcus) Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 15:57:52 -0400 Subject: Last Call for Comment on New IPv6 Policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010507155752.0096c100@pobox3.genuity.com> At 09:35 05/02/2001 -0400, Member Services wrote: > >Following discussion at the April ARIN Public Policy meetings, the >recommendation of the ARIN Advisory Committee was modified slightly. >Please see the announcement of this discussion and read the >current recommended policy, based on the consensus of those attending the >meeting: > > http://www.arin.net/announcements/ipv6_wg2.html > >You have ten (10) working days, or until 1700 Eastern Time, 16 May 2001, >to comment on the IPv6 Working group mailing list. Please see the above >announcement for instructions on how to subscribe to v6wg at arin.net. > >The Advisory Council will consider all comments before making their >recommendation to the Board of Trustees... I coulda' sworn I sent an e-mail to the following effect to this list last week, but I do not see it, so here goes again... As I read the proposed text, it references an Internet Draft: http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing-recommenda tions-00.txt The earliest date on which the ARIN Board will take up this issue is at our meeting on July 27. For a number of reasons, I would propose that the Board replace this reference, if appropriate, with the most suitable version of the specification available as of that date. Reasons include: 1) It is, of course, poor practice in general to reference an I-D in any permanent document or policy. 2) This particular draft will have EXPIRED before the Board takes up the issue (Six months from a publication date of January 23, 2001 is July 23 or thereabouts). 3) The authors are revising the document to reflect some important understandings about responsibility for administration of the bits to the left of the /48 dividing line, consistent with presentations made to the ARIN Public Policy meeting. This draft does not reflect those changes. 4) There is a reasonable chance that a clean version will be available as an RFC before the ARIN Board meets. Makes sense? Cheers, - Scott ----------- J. Scott Marcus Phone: +1 781.262.3075 Chief Technology Officer (CTO) FAX: +1 707.313.7548 Genuity Inc. 3 Van de Graaff Drive, P.O. Box 3073, room 25/2046A Burlington, MA 01803 E-mail: smarcus at genuity.com U.S.A. WWW: http://www.genuity.com/index.htm "There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." -- Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince, 1513) From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Mon May 7 16:49:36 2001 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 20:49:36 +0000 (UCT) Subject: Last Call for Comment on New IPv6 Policy In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010507155752.0096c100@pobox3.genuity.com> from "J. Scott Marcus" at May 07, 2001 03:57:52 PM Message-ID: <200105072049.UAA15576@vacation.karoshi.com> > As I read the proposed text, it references an Internet Draft: > http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing-recommenda > tions-00.txt > > The earliest date on which the ARIN Board will take up this issue is at our > meeting on July 27. For a number of reasons, I would propose that the > Board replace this reference, if appropriate, with the most suitable > version of the specification available as of that date. Reasons include: > > 1) It is, of course, poor practice in general to reference an I-D in any > permanent document or policy. Since the other RIRs have adpoted policies based on this draft, it seems prudent to have ARIN do the same. I would hope that instead of the draft being referenced, that an ARIN local copy would be referenced instead. > 2) This particular draft will have EXPIRED before the Board takes up the > issue (Six months from a publication date of January 23, 2001 is July 23 or > thereabouts). Yes, we have taken far too long in getting this done. > 3) The authors are revising the document to reflect some important > understandings about responsibility for administration of the bits to the > left of the /48 dividing line, consistent with presentations made to the > ARIN Public Policy meeting. This draft does not reflect those changes. The proposed changes are significant enough that it obscures the inital premise, i.e. /48 is a good first cut. The IESG proposal is not based on operational experience but is a rough draft of what might be reasonable, after the experiences w/ the /48 have been collected. I beleive that we should consider the new IESG proposal in the 3rd or 4th quarter of this year... AFTER we get the first policy in play. > 4) There is a reasonable chance that a clean version will be available as > an RFC before the ARIN Board meets. Not even. The RFC process is far too slow these days. > Makes sense? > > Cheers, > - Scott > > > > > > > ----------- > J. Scott Marcus Phone: +1 781.262.3075 > Chief Technology Officer (CTO) FAX: +1 707.313.7548 > Genuity Inc. > 3 Van de Graaff Drive, P.O. Box 3073, room 25/2046A > Burlington, MA 01803 E-mail: smarcus at genuity.com > U.S.A. WWW: http://www.genuity.com/index.htm > > "There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, > or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction > of a new order of things." -- Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince, 1513) > From smarcus at genuity.com Mon May 7 17:05:06 2001 From: smarcus at genuity.com (J. Scott Marcus) Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 17:05:06 -0400 Subject: Last Call for Comment on New IPv6 Policy In-Reply-To: <200105072049.UAA15576@vacation.karoshi.com> References: <3.0.5.32.20010507155752.0096c100@pobox3.genuity.com> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010507170506.033011e0@pobox3.genuity.com> >> 3) The authors are revising the document to reflect some important >> understandings about responsibility for administration of the bits to the >> left of the /48 dividing line, consistent with presentations made to the >> ARIN Public Policy meeting. This draft does not reflect those changes. > > The proposed changes are significant enough that it obscures > the inital premise, i.e. /48 is a good first cut. The IESG > proposal is not based on operational experience but is a rough > draft of what might be reasonable, after the experiences w/ the > /48 have been collected. I beleive that we should consider the > new IESG proposal in the 3rd or 4th quarter of this year... > AFTER we get the first policy in play. The new draft is not expected to differ from the old in setting the dividing line at /48. From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Mon May 7 17:37:19 2001 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 21:37:19 +0000 (UCT) Subject: Last Call for Comment on New IPv6 Policy In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010507170506.033011e0@pobox3.genuity.com> from "J. Scott Marcus" at May 07, 2001 05:05:06 PM Message-ID: <200105072137.VAA15722@vacation.karoshi.com> > > >> 3) The authors are revising the document to reflect some important > >> understandings about responsibility for administration of the bits to the > >> left of the /48 dividing line, consistent with presentations made to the > >> ARIN Public Policy meeting. This draft does not reflect those changes. > > > > The proposed changes are significant enough that it obscures > > the inital premise, i.e. /48 is a good first cut. The IESG > > proposal is not based on operational experience but is a rough > > draft of what might be reasonable, after the experiences w/ the > > /48 have been collected. I beleive that we should consider the > > new IESG proposal in the 3rd or 4th quarter of this year... > > AFTER we get the first policy in play. > > > The new draft is not expected to differ from the old in setting the > dividing line at /48. True. However there is a fair amount of debate/discussion on opening up the bits to the left. The presumption is that the /48 is a done deal and for ARIN, its not yet. Hence my desire to proceed with the package (nearly) as currently stated. I don;t beleive we will have an RFC of this topic ready before the board is ready to consider the proposed policy and so in referencing material that is, in another fourm, still in draft format, should not be a significant problem. It was not a problem for APNIC or RIPE. --bill From randy at psg.com Mon May 7 17:23:31 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 14:23:31 -0700 Subject: Last Call for Comment on New IPv6 Policy References: <3.0.5.32.20010507170506.033011e0@pobox3.genuity.com> <200105072137.VAA15722@vacation.karoshi.com> Message-ID: > The presumption is that the /48 is a done deal and for > ARIN, its not yet. your presumption is that it is a done deal. in fact, it was and continues to be part of a more complex bit of work with which you are not involved. > I don;t beleive we will have an RFC of this topic ready before > the board is ready to consider the proposed policy and so > in referencing material that is, in another fourm, still in > draft format, should not be a significant problem. It was not > a problem for APNIC or RIPE. i suspect that the arin board is competent to deal with that problem should it arise. randy From smarcus at genuity.com Mon May 7 17:38:36 2001 From: smarcus at genuity.com (J. Scott Marcus) Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 17:38:36 -0400 Subject: Last Call for Comment on New IPv6 Policy In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.20010507170506.033011e0@pobox3.genuity.com> <200105072137.VAA15722@vacation.karoshi.com> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010507173836.03318810@pobox3.genuity.com> >> I don;t beleive we will have an RFC of this topic ready before >> the board is ready to consider the proposed policy and so >> in referencing material that is, in another fourm, still in >> draft format, should not be a significant problem. It was not >> a problem for APNIC or RIPE. > >i suspect that the arin board is competent to deal with that >problem should it arise. Thanks, Randy. :-) Bill, I expect that there will AT LEAST be a later draft. I'm not proposing to hold this up, just to use the best and most current version as of the date on which the Board takes up the issue. From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Mon May 7 18:15:43 2001 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 22:15:43 +0000 (UCT) Subject: Last Call for Comment on New IPv6 Policy In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010507173836.03318810@pobox3.genuity.com> from "J. Scott Marcus" at May 07, 2001 05:38:36 PM Message-ID: <200105072215.WAA15811@vacation.karoshi.com> > > > >> I don;t beleive we will have an RFC of this topic ready before > >> the board is ready to consider the proposed policy and so > >> in referencing material that is, in another fourm, still in > >> draft format, should not be a significant problem. It was not > >> a problem for APNIC or RIPE. > > > >i suspect that the arin board is competent to deal with that > >problem should it arise. > > Thanks, Randy. :-) > > Bill, I expect that there will AT LEAST be a later draft. I'm not > proposing to hold this up, just to use the best and most current version as > of the date on which the Board takes up the issue. > That seems reasonable. However there is the possiblity that the IESG may put into play some material that the membership has not seen or approved. This has happened before. To give tacit approval to any future work that might be "best and most current" or may have all sorts of interesting modifications and ammendments is not being fair to the membership, regardless of the competency of the board or well-meaning IESG members. The membership seems to have settled on the policy as stated in the current IETF ID. Not some possible proposed new wording. Do you think it is fair to allow such a loophole past the members? --bill From hinden at iprg.nokia.com Mon May 7 17:54:14 2001 From: hinden at iprg.nokia.com (Bob Hinden) Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 14:54:14 -0700 Subject: Last Call for Comment on New IPv6 Policy In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010507173836.03318810@pobox3.genuity.com> References: <3.0.5.32.20010507170506.033011e0@pobox3.genuity.com> <200105072137.VAA15722@vacation.karoshi.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010507144650.020e20c8@mailhost.iprg.nokia.com> Scott, There is work going on to revise the draft and publish it as an RFC. I don't know the timetable for this, but expecting it out as an RFC by July might be a bit optimistic. The basic recommendation in the document (i.e., /48 allocations for sites, etc.) will not change. The new version is improve the text and clarify side issues. Also, I belive the issues subsequently raised about the bits to the left of /48 will not be in this document as they belong to the registry community (i.e., not the IETF). Bob At 05:38 PM 5/7/2001 -0400, J. Scott Marcus wrote: > >> I don;t beleive we will have an RFC of this topic ready before > >> the board is ready to consider the proposed policy and so > >> in referencing material that is, in another fourm, still in > >> draft format, should not be a significant problem. It was not > >> a problem for APNIC or RIPE. > > > >i suspect that the arin board is competent to deal with that > >problem should it arise. > > >Thanks, Randy. :-) > >Bill, I expect that there will AT LEAST be a later draft. I'm not >proposing to hold this up, just to use the best and most current version as >of the date on which the Board takes up the issue. From randy at psg.com Mon May 7 18:13:20 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 15:13:20 -0700 Subject: Last Call for Comment on New IPv6 Policy References: <3.0.5.32.20010507170506.033011e0@pobox3.genuity.com> <200105072137.VAA15722@vacation.karoshi.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010507144650.020e20c8@mailhost.iprg.nokia.com> Message-ID: > Also, I belive the issues subsequently raised about the bits to the left of > /48 will not be in this document as they belong to the registry community > (i.e., not the IETF). before that can be done, i thought that there was ipngwg work to be done, specifically on draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-06.txt and rfc2374bis. randy From hinden at iprg.nokia.com Mon May 7 18:18:04 2001 From: hinden at iprg.nokia.com (Bob Hinden) Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 15:18:04 -0700 Subject: Last Call for Comment on New IPv6 Policy In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.20010507170506.033011e0@pobox3.genuity.com> <200105072137.VAA15722@vacation.karoshi.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010507144650.020e20c8@mailhost.iprg.nokia.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010507151438.020e20c8@mailhost.iprg.nokia.com> Randy, >before that can be done, i thought that there was ipngwg work to be done, >specifically on draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-06.txt and rfc2374bis. I am working on the updates now. Bob From smarcus at genuity.com Tue May 8 09:26:24 2001 From: smarcus at genuity.com (J. Scott Marcus) Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 09:26:24 -0400 Subject: Last Call for Comment on New IPv6 Policy In-Reply-To: <200105072215.WAA15811@vacation.karoshi.com> References: <3.0.5.32.20010507173836.03318810@pobox3.genuity.com> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010508092624.00a8e2c0@pobox3.genuity.com> > That seems reasonable. However there is the possiblity that > the IESG may put into play some material that the membership has not > seen or approved. This has happened before. > To give tacit approval to any future work that might be > "best and most current" or may have all sorts of interesting > modifications and ammendments is not being fair to the membership, > regardless of the competency of the board or well-meaning IESG > members. The membership seems to have settled on the policy as > stated in the current IETF ID. Not some possible proposed new > wording. Do you think it is fair to allow such a loophole past > the members? I think that it's fair if our members and stakeholders are comfortable with our doing so. (Making decisions is presumably what ARIN pays us the big bucks to do. ;^) Anyway, that's exactly why I raised the issue. I'd like to make sure, if possible, that the Board has a broad enough mandate to close this IPv6 policy issue out cleanly and definitively when we next take it up. I would prefer to avoid the delay of yet another public policy review cycle UNLESS some new substantive issue comes up that has not previously been discussed adequately, either on the mailing list or in our Public Policy meetings. By the way, please note that I am speaking for myself, not for the Board as a whole. Cheers, - Scott From billd at cait.wustl.edu Tue May 8 09:54:58 2001 From: billd at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 08:54:58 -0500 Subject: Last Call for Comment on New IPv6 Policy Message-ID: I have to agree with Bill on this issue. I do agree that the recommendation to approve exists relative to the content of the ID reviewed. Future documents may form the basis for the recommendation, but not without review for consistency with the original. This process is of course what the policy is all about anyway (as worded). It suggests that there be continual revisitation, so I see nothing wrong here. bd > -----Original Message----- > From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com > [mailto:bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com] > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 5:16 PM > To: smarcus at genuity.com > Cc: v6wg at arin.net > Subject: Re: Last Call for Comment on New IPv6 Policy > > > > > > > > >> I don;t beleive we will have an RFC of this topic ready before > > >> the board is ready to consider the proposed policy and so > > >> in referencing material that is, in another fourm, still in > > >> draft format, should not be a significant problem. It was not > > >> a problem for APNIC or RIPE. > > > > > >i suspect that the arin board is competent to deal with that > > >problem should it arise. > > > > Thanks, Randy. :-) > > > > Bill, I expect that there will AT LEAST be a later draft. I'm not > > proposing to hold this up, just to use the best and most > current version as > > of the date on which the Board takes up the issue. > > > > That seems reasonable. However there is the possiblity that > the IESG may put into play some material that the > membership has not > seen or approved. This has happened before. > To give tacit approval to any future work that might be > "best and most current" or may have all sorts of interesting > modifications and ammendments is not being fair to the > membership, > regardless of the competency of the board or well-meaning IESG > members. The membership seems to have settled on the policy as > stated in the current IETF ID. Not some possible proposed new > wording. Do you think it is fair to allow such a loophole past > the members? > > --bill > From smarcus at genuity.com Tue May 8 10:16:20 2001 From: smarcus at genuity.com (J. Scott Marcus) Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 10:16:20 -0400 Subject: Last Call for Comment on New IPv6 Policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010508101620.00b15680@pobox3.genuity.com> At 08:54 05/08/2001 -0500, Bill Darte wrote: >I have to agree with Bill on this issue. I do agree that the recommendation >to approve exists relative to the content of the ID reviewed. Future >documents may form the basis for the recommendation, but not without review >for consistency with the original. This process is of course what the >policy is all about anyway (as worded). It suggests that there be continual >revisitation, so I see nothing wrong here... Fair enough. I withdraw my suggestion. From richardj at arin.net Wed May 9 08:20:36 2001 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 08:20:36 -0400 Subject: Bootstrap Request Period for IPv6 Message-ID: <001701c0d882$74d15d80$edfc95c0@arin.net> The RIRs have collectively made almost 80 IPv6 allocations to date. As originally defined in the "Provisional IPv6 Assignment and Allocation Policy Document," the bootstrap criteria will end once the RIRs reach a combined 100 IPv6 allocations and the general criteria will then be used. A description of the bootstrap and general criteria can be found at http://www.arin.net/regserv/ipv6/ipv6guidelines.html A major difference between the two sets of criteria is that under the bootstrap criteria an organization must show peering relationships with IPv4 networks, but in the general criteria organizations must show peering relationships with IPv6 networks. To date, only 15 IPv6 allocations have been made in the ARIN region. Should ARIN consider extending the bootstrap phase criteria once 100 allocations have been made globally? Your feedback is requested. Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From richardj at arin.net Wed May 9 08:23:23 2001 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 08:23:23 -0400 Subject: Exchange point requests for IPv6 address space Message-ID: <001801c0d882$d8262320$edfc95c0@arin.net> At RIPE 39 last week the issue of IPv6 address assignments to Internet Exchange Points was discussed. During the RIPE meeting an Internet Exchange Point was defined as follows: 3 or more ASes and 3 or more separate entities attached to a LAN (the same infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and more are welcome to join. There was consensus to assign a /64 to an isolated Exchange Point. It was further suggested to assign a /48 to a group of inter-connected Exchange Points. The RIPE NCC has recently proposed to their mailing list to proceed with assignments for Exchange Points using these guidelines. The ARIN region currently has a policy in place for exchange points that applies to IPv4. This policy can be found under the heading "Micro-allocations" at http://www.arin.net/regserv/initial-isp.html Should ARIN consider expanding this policy to apply to IPv6? Your feedback is requested. Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From huberman at gblx.net Wed May 9 15:57:09 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 12:57:09 -0700 (MST) Subject: Exchange point requests for IPv6 address space In-Reply-To: <001801c0d882$d8262320$edfc95c0@arin.net> Message-ID: > The ARIN region currently has a policy in place for exchange > points that applies to IPv4. This policy can be found under > the heading "Micro-allocations" at > http://www.arin.net/regserv/initial-isp.html > > Should ARIN consider expanding this policy to apply to IPv6? Yes. It should expand the current micro-allocation policy to include IPv6 registrations. Organizations requiring IPv6 address space under the micro-allocation policy should be able to petition ARIN directly. There should be no specification of block size in the policy, as it is both ARIN's and the requesting organization's responsibility to determine an appropriately-sized block, just like in v4 today. /david *--------------------------------* | Global Crossing IP Engineering | | Manager, Global IP Addressing | | TEL: (908) 720-6182 | | FAX: (703) 464-0802 | *--------------------------------* From smarcus at genuity.com Wed May 9 16:09:49 2001 From: smarcus at genuity.com (J. Scott Marcus) Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 16:09:49 -0400 Subject: Exchange point requests for IPv6 address space In-Reply-To: References: <001801c0d882$d8262320$edfc95c0@arin.net> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010509160949.007bb700@pobox3.genuity.com> At 12:57 05/09/2001 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > >> The ARIN region currently has a policy in place for exchange >> points that applies to IPv4. This policy can be found under >> the heading "Micro-allocations" at >> http://www.arin.net/regserv/initial-isp.html >> >> Should ARIN consider expanding this policy to apply to IPv6? > >Yes. It should expand the current micro-allocation policy to include IPv6 >registrations. Organizations requiring IPv6 address space under the >micro-allocation policy should be able to petition ARIN directly. There >should be no specification of block size in the policy, as it is both >ARIN's and the requesting organization's responsibility to determine an >appropriately-sized block, just like in v4 today. Makes sense. Richard, you said that the consensus was for a /64: >There was consensus to assign a /64 to an isolated Exchange >Point. It was further suggested to assign a /48 to a group >of inter-connected Exchange Points. The RIPE NCC has recently >proposed to their mailing list to proceed with assignments for >Exchange Points using these guidelines. A /64 seems small -- recall that the IETF draft on IPv6 allocations (not currently adopted as ARIN policy) says: "-Home network subscribers, connecting through on-demand or always-on connections should received (sic) a /48. - Small and large enterprises should received (sic) a /48... - Networks with a clearly expressed disinterest in subnetting should received a /64. - Mobile networks, such as vehicles, cellular phones should received a static /64 prefix to allow the connection of multiple devices and, depending on the architecture, a /128 for a MobileIP care-of address [MobIPv6]. - Subscribers with a single dial-up node preferring a transient address should received a /128. Note that there seems to be little benefit in not giving a /48 if future growth is anticipated..." So RIPE NCC felt that a /64 was more than adequate? Cheers, - Scott From markk at netsol.com Wed May 9 20:05:49 2001 From: markk at netsol.com (Mark Kosters) Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 20:05:49 -0400 Subject: Exchange point requests for IPv6 address space In-Reply-To: <001801c0d882$d8262320$edfc95c0@arin.net>; from richardj@arin.net on Wed, May 09, 2001 at 08:23:23AM -0400 References: <001801c0d882$d8262320$edfc95c0@arin.net> Message-ID: <20010509200549.B4441@slam.admin.cto.netsol.com> On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 08:23:23AM -0400, Richard Jimmerson wrote: > The ARIN region currently has a policy in place for exchange > points that applies to IPv4. This policy can be found under > the heading "Micro-allocations" at > http://www.arin.net/regserv/initial-isp.html On the positive side, I think this is a good thing to start debating micro allocations for IPv6. In addition to the exchange points, the root server folx have debated the type of allocation (all IPv6 roots in one block vs separate small blocks vs size of the blocks). It would be good to hear what the ARIN membership would desire to carry within their routing tables regarding roots and other critical infrastructure needs for IPv6. On the negative side, would it be premature to debate this since one has not put any stake in the ground on what goes to the left of the /48 wrt IANA, RIR's and LIR's/ISP's? Does it matter? Mark -- Mark Kosters markk at netsol.com Verisign Applied Research PGP Key fingerprint = 1A 2A 92 F8 8E D3 47 F9 15 65 80 87 68 13 F6 48 From tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk Thu May 10 05:05:06 2001 From: tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:05:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: Exchange point requests for IPv6 address space In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010509160949.007bb700@pobox3.genuity.com> Message-ID: The statement on the RIPE mailing list was as follows; this suggests that /48's are considered in the exchange context. I would expect the meeting minutes to be available soon on the www.ripe.net site, which should include some discussion details. ----------------- Dear colleagues, At RIPE 39 last week in Bologna the issue of IPv6 address assignments to Internet Exchange Points was discussed (see also my mail from 24 April 2001 to these lists). There was consensus to assign a /64 to an isolated Exchange Point. It was further suggested to assign the agreed standard assignment size to a site (currently a /48) to a group of inter-connected Exchange Points. An Internet Exchange Point was defined as follows: 3 or more ASes and 3 or more separate entities attached to a LAN (the same infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and more are welcome to join. The RIPE NCC proposes to proceed with assignments for Exchange Points under the above policy. Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC ----------------- On Wed, 9 May 2001, J. Scott Marcus wrote: > At 12:57 05/09/2001 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > > > >> The ARIN region currently has a policy in place for exchange > >> points that applies to IPv4. This policy can be found under > >> the heading "Micro-allocations" at > >> http://www.arin.net/regserv/initial-isp.html > >> > >> Should ARIN consider expanding this policy to apply to IPv6? > > > >Yes. It should expand the current micro-allocation policy to include IPv6 > >registrations. Organizations requiring IPv6 address space under the > >micro-allocation policy should be able to petition ARIN directly. There > >should be no specification of block size in the policy, as it is both > >ARIN's and the requesting organization's responsibility to determine an > >appropriately-sized block, just like in v4 today. > > > Makes sense. > > Richard, you said that the consensus was for a /64: > > >There was consensus to assign a /64 to an isolated Exchange > >Point. It was further suggested to assign a /48 to a group > >of inter-connected Exchange Points. The RIPE NCC has recently > >proposed to their mailing list to proceed with assignments for > >Exchange Points using these guidelines. > > > A /64 seems small -- recall that the IETF draft on IPv6 allocations (not > currently adopted as ARIN policy) says: > > "-Home network subscribers, connecting through on-demand or > always-on connections should received (sic) a /48. > - Small and large enterprises should received (sic) a /48... > > - Networks with a clearly expressed disinterest in subnetting > should received a /64. > - Mobile networks, such as vehicles, cellular phones should > received a static /64 prefix to allow the connection of multiple > devices and, depending on the architecture, a /128 for a > MobileIP care-of address [MobIPv6]. > - Subscribers with a single dial-up node preferring a transient > address should received a /128. > > Note that there seems to be little benefit in not giving a /48 if future > growth is anticipated..." > > So RIPE NCC felt that a /64 was more than adequate? > > Cheers, > - Scott > From richardj at arin.net Thu May 10 05:02:09 2001 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 05:02:09 -0400 Subject: Exchange point requests for IPv6 address space In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010509160949.007bb700@pobox3.genuity.com> Message-ID: <004d01c0d92f$e6f24020$4cab1e26@snoopy> Hello Scott, > Richard, you said that the consensus was for a /64: > A /64 seems small > So RIPE NCC felt that a /64 was more than adequate? I believe it was discussed during the RIPE meeting that not more than a /127 was needed to connect two peers at an exchange point. -Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-v6wg at arin.net [mailto:owner-v6wg at arin.net]On Behalf Of J. > Scott Marcus > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 4:10 PM > To: Richard Jimmerson; David R Huberman > Cc: v6wg at arin.net > Subject: Re: Exchange point requests for IPv6 address space > > > At 12:57 05/09/2001 -0700, David R Huberman wrote: > > > >> The ARIN region currently has a policy in place for exchange > >> points that applies to IPv4. This policy can be found under > >> the heading "Micro-allocations" at > >> http://www.arin.net/regserv/initial-isp.html > >> > >> Should ARIN consider expanding this policy to apply to IPv6? > > > >Yes. It should expand the current micro-allocation policy to > include IPv6 > >registrations. Organizations requiring IPv6 address space under the > >micro-allocation policy should be able to petition ARIN > directly. There > >should be no specification of block size in the policy, as it is both > >ARIN's and the requesting organization's responsibility to > determine an > >appropriately-sized block, just like in v4 today. > > > Makes sense. > > Richard, you said that the consensus was for a /64: > > >There was consensus to assign a /64 to an isolated Exchange > >Point. It was further suggested to assign a /48 to a group > >of inter-connected Exchange Points. The RIPE NCC has recently > >proposed to their mailing list to proceed with assignments for > >Exchange Points using these guidelines. > > > A /64 seems small -- recall that the IETF draft on IPv6 > allocations (not > currently adopted as ARIN policy) says: > > "-Home network subscribers, connecting through on-demand or > always-on connections should received (sic) a /48. > - Small and large enterprises should received (sic) a /48... > > - Networks with a clearly expressed disinterest in subnetting > should received a /64. > - Mobile networks, such as vehicles, cellular phones should > received a static /64 prefix to allow the connection of multiple > devices and, depending on the architecture, a /128 for a > MobileIP care-of address [MobIPv6]. > - Subscribers with a single dial-up node preferring a transient > address should received a /128. > > Note that there seems to be little benefit in not giving a > /48 if future > growth is anticipated..." > > So RIPE NCC felt that a /64 was more than adequate? > > Cheers, > - Scott From richardj at arin.net Thu May 10 05:13:40 2001 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 05:13:40 -0400 Subject: Exchange point requests for IPv6 address space In-Reply-To: <20010509200549.B4441@slam.admin.cto.netsol.com> Message-ID: <004e01c0d931$8183d760$4cab1e26@snoopy> Hello Mark, > would it be premature to debate this since one has > not put any stake in the ground on what goes to the left of > the /48 wrt IANA, RIR's and LIR's/ISP's? Does it matter? As discussed at the RIPE meeting, if it is true not more than a /127 is needed to connect two peers at an exchange point, there should not be a need to consider an allocation larger than a /64 or /48 for exchange points. We do plan to soon begin a discussion on this mailing list about what goes to the left of the /48. -Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-v6wg at arin.net [mailto:owner-v6wg at arin.net]On > Behalf Of Mark > Kosters > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 8:06 PM > To: Richard Jimmerson > Cc: v6wg at arin.net > Subject: Re: Exchange point requests for IPv6 address space > > > On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 08:23:23AM -0400, Richard Jimmerson wrote: > > The ARIN region currently has a policy in place for exchange > > points that applies to IPv4. This policy can be found under > > the heading "Micro-allocations" at > > http://www.arin.net/regserv/initial-isp.html > > On the positive side, I think this is a good thing to start > debating micro > allocations for IPv6. In addition to the exchange points, the > root server > folx have debated the type of allocation (all IPv6 roots in > one block vs > separate small blocks vs size of the blocks). It would be > good to hear what the > ARIN membership would desire to carry within their routing > tables regarding > roots and other critical infrastructure needs for IPv6. > > On the negative side, would it be premature to debate this > since one has > not put any stake in the ground on what goes to the left of > the /48 wrt IANA, > RIR's and LIR's/ISP's? Does it matter? > > Mark > > -- > > Mark Kosters markk at netsol.com Verisign > Applied Research > PGP Key fingerprint = 1A 2A 92 F8 8E D3 47 F9 15 65 80 87 > 68 13 F6 48 From memsvcs at arin.net Thu May 10 07:38:35 2001 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 07:38:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: ARIN IPv6 Working Group Chair Message-ID: Bill Manning has resigned his position as co-chair of the ARIN IPv6 WG. Thomas Narten will remain as the Chair of the WG. We thank Bill for his service to the Internet community. Ray Plzak President From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Thu May 10 08:11:27 2001 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 12:11:27 +0000 (UCT) Subject: ARIN IPv6 Working Group Chair In-Reply-To: from "Member Services" at May 10, 2001 07:38:35 AM Message-ID: <200105101211.MAA19500@vacation.karoshi.com> > Bill Manning has resigned his position as co-chair of the ARIN IPv6 WG. > Thomas Narten will remain as the Chair of the WG. We thank Bill for his > service to the Internet community. > > Ray Plzak > President More accurately, Bill was asked to resign. --bill From randy at psg.com Thu May 10 07:52:22 2001 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 04:52:22 -0700 Subject: Exchange point requests for IPv6 address space References: <3.0.5.32.20010509160949.007bb700@pobox3.genuity.com> <004d01c0d92f$e6f24020$4cab1e26@snoopy> Message-ID: as defined, a single exchange point is a lan (atm-type cloud being added). this uses a /64. randy From plzak at arin.net Thu May 10 08:08:07 2001 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 08:08:07 -0400 Subject: ARIN IPv6 Working Group Chair In-Reply-To: <200105101211.MAA19500@vacation.karoshi.com> Message-ID: <001301c0d949$e04a9c80$e5fc95c0@arin.net> Bill, Perhaps you don't remember saying this and other similar things the other day: "I've asked Ray if he will allow me to step down." Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-v6wg at arin.net [mailto:owner-v6wg at arin.net]On Behalf Of > bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 8:11 AM > To: Member Services > Cc: arin-announce at arin.net; v6wg at arin.net > Subject: Re: ARIN IPv6 Working Group Chair > > > > Bill Manning has resigned his position as co-chair of the > ARIN IPv6 WG. > > Thomas Narten will remain as the Chair of the WG. We thank > Bill for his > > service to the Internet community. > > > > Ray Plzak > > President > > More accurately, Bill was asked to resign. > > --bill From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Thu May 10 08:43:38 2001 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 12:43:38 +0000 (UCT) Subject: ARIN IPv6 Working Group Chair In-Reply-To: <001301c0d949$e04a9c80$e5fc95c0@arin.net> from "Ray Plzak" at May 10, 2001 08:08:07 AM Message-ID: <200105101243.MAA19557@vacation.karoshi.com> I was asking questions, not tendering a resignation. If you had answered the question in the affirmative, I might have actually tendered a resignation. > Bill, > > Perhaps you don't remember saying this and other similar things the other > day: > > "I've asked Ray if he will allow me to step down." > > Ray > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-v6wg at arin.net [mailto:owner-v6wg at arin.net]On Behalf Of > > bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 8:11 AM > > To: Member Services > > Cc: arin-announce at arin.net; v6wg at arin.net > > Subject: Re: ARIN IPv6 Working Group Chair > > > > > > > Bill Manning has resigned his position as co-chair of the > > ARIN IPv6 WG. > > > Thomas Narten will remain as the Chair of the WG. We thank > > Bill for his > > > service to the Internet community. > > > > > > Ray Plzak > > > President > > > > More accurately, Bill was asked to resign. > > > > --bill > From smarcus at genuity.com Thu May 10 11:39:31 2001 From: smarcus at genuity.com (J. Scott Marcus) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 11:39:31 -0400 Subject: Exchange point requests for IPv6 address space In-Reply-To: <004d01c0d92f$e6f24020$4cab1e26@snoopy> References: <3.0.5.32.20010509160949.007bb700@pobox3.genuity.com> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010510113931.00a36db0@pobox3.genuity.com> At 05:02 05/10/2001 -0400, Richard Jimmerson wrote: >I believe it was discussed during the RIPE meeting that >not more than a /127 was needed to connect two peers at >an exchange point. Based on the following definition of an exchange point, a /127 seems marginal, not so? >An Internet Exchange Point was defined as follows: > >3 or more ASes and 3 or more separate entities attached to a LAN (the >same infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and more are welcome >to join. For a shared medium, which seems to be implied, each interface would be assigned a value in the right hand 64 bits based, typically, on MAC address or the like. So a /64 assignment would work (I agree with Randy), but would preclude expansion to provide subnetting. Most providers greatly prefer exchanges to operate at Layer 2 rather than Layer 3, so maybe that's OK. Perhaps I spoke too soon... I guess that subnetting can indeed be excluded. From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Thu May 10 12:15:56 2001 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:15:56 +0000 (UCT) Subject: Exchange point requests for IPv6 address space In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010510113931.00a36db0@pobox3.genuity.com> from "J. Scott Marcus" at May 10, 2001 11:39:31 AM Message-ID: <200105101615.QAA20006@vacation.karoshi.com> > > At 05:02 05/10/2001 -0400, Richard Jimmerson wrote: > > >I believe it was discussed during the RIPE meeting that > >not more than a /127 was needed to connect two peers at > >an exchange point. > > Based on the following definition of an exchange point, a /127 seems > marginal, not so? Thats the same as assigning a /31 to connect two peers at an exchange. This architectural approach is roughly akin to a dense mesh of point2point links. Most exchanges do not fit this addressing model. > >An Internet Exchange Point was defined as follows: > > > >3 or more ASes and 3 or more separate entities attached to a LAN (the > >same infrastructure) for the purpose of peering and more are welcome > >to join. Not bad, but there are a number of assumptions in there. As stated, its too restrictive. There are other, viable exchanges using different architectural designs. > For a shared medium, which seems to be implied, each interface would be > assigned a value in the right hand 64 bits based, typically, on MAC address > or the like. So a /64 assignment would work (I agree with Randy), but > would preclude expansion to provide subnetting. A /64 would work, for some architectures. For others, this might be problematic. > Most providers greatly prefer exchanges to operate at Layer 2 rather than > Layer 3, so maybe that's OK. Perhaps I spoke too soon... I guess that > subnetting can indeed be excluded. Restricting choices will lead to a fairly easy to implement policy. --bill From cjw at remarque.org Fri May 11 14:00:00 2001 From: cjw at remarque.org (Cathy Wittbrodt) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 11:00:00 -0700 Subject: Exchange point requests for IPv6 address space In-Reply-To: Message from Mark Kosters of "Wed, 09 May 2001 20:05:49 EDT." <20010509200549.B4441@slam.admin.cto.netsol.com> Message-ID: <200105111800.LAA04886@pox.remarque.org> The question that I have is.. Are the routing protocols used in v6 going to change significantly from the ones we have now? If not then provider aggregation is more important than ever. I think that discussing micro allocations in v6 without also addressing how they're going to be routed/aggregated, is a huge mistake. They go hand in hand. ---CJ From: Mark Kosters Subject: Re: Exchange point requests for IPv6 address space On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 08:23:23AM -0400, Richard Jimmerson wrote: > The ARIN region currently has a policy in place for exchange > points that applies to IPv4. This policy can be found under > the heading "Micro-allocations" at > http://www.arin.net/regserv/initial-isp.html On the positive side, I think this is a good thing to start debating micro allocations for IPv6. In addition to the exchange points, the root server folx have debated the type of allocation (all IPv6 roots in one block vs separate small blocks vs size of the blocks). It would be good to hear what the ARIN membership would desire to carry within their routing tables regarding roots and other critical infrastructure needs for IPv6. On the negative side, would it be premature to debate this since one has not put any stake in the ground on what goes to the left of the /48 wrt IANA, RIR's and LIR's/ISP's? Does it matter? Mark -- Mark Kosters markk at netsol.com Verisign Applied Research PGP Key fingerprint = 1A 2A 92 F8 8E D3 47 F9 15 65 80 87 68 13 F6 48 From bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com Fri May 11 14:32:56 2001 From: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com (bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 18:32:56 +0000 (UCT) Subject: Exchange point requests for IPv6 address space In-Reply-To: <200105111800.LAA04886@pox.remarque.org> from "Cathy Wittbrodt" at May 11, 2001 11:00:00 AM Message-ID: <200105111832.SAA21430@vacation.karoshi.com> > > > The question that I have is.. > > Are the routing protocols used in v6 going to change significantly from > the ones we have now? If not then provider aggregation is more > important than ever. I think that discussing micro allocations in > v6 without also addressing how they're going to be routed/aggregated, > is a huge mistake. They go hand in hand. > Not wanting to answer for Mark here but: I know of three routing protocols that support IPv6 today: BGP RIP OSPF (sort of) The predominant ones are BGP and RIP. Routing architecture and protocol design are being done elsewhere... so I expect that discussing IPv6 micro-allocations is perhaps a bit premature. (See the recent Paul Francis draft on v6 multihoming... has some interesting ramifications for addressing policy. But I doubt it will fly. Too radical.) --bill From Marc.Blanchet at viagenie.qc.ca Sat May 12 09:55:54 2001 From: Marc.Blanchet at viagenie.qc.ca (Marc Blanchet) Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 09:55:54 -0400 Subject: Exchange point requests for IPv6 address space In-Reply-To: <200105111832.SAA21430@vacation.karoshi.com> References: <200105111800.LAA04886@pox.remarque.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20010512095517.05c53fa8@mail.viagenie.qc.ca> At/? 18:32 2001-05-11 +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com you wrote/vous ?criviez: > > > > > > The question that I have is.. > > > > Are the routing protocols used in v6 going to change significantly from > > the ones we have now? If not then provider aggregation is more > > important than ever. I think that discussing micro allocations in > > v6 without also addressing how they're going to be routed/aggregated, > > is a huge mistake. They go hand in hand. > > > >Not wanting to answer for Mark here but: I know of three routing >protocols that support IPv6 today: > BGP > RIP > OSPF (sort of) IS-IS. will see support from vendors soon. Marc. >The predominant ones are BGP and RIP. Routing architecture and protocol >design are being done elsewhere... so I expect that discussing >IPv6 micro-allocations is perhaps a bit premature. (See the recent >Paul Francis draft on v6 multihoming... has some interesting ramifications >for addressing policy. But I doubt it will fly. Too radical.) > >--bill From plzak at arin.net Thu May 17 08:44:50 2001 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 08:44:50 -0400 Subject: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing-recommendations-01.txt Message-ID: <002601c0decf$2a924740$e5fc95c0@arin.net> FYI Ray -----Original Message----- From: nsyracus at cnri.reston.va.us [mailto:nsyracus at cnri.reston.va.us]On Behalf Of Internet-Drafts at ietf.org Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 6:59 AM To: IETF-Announce: Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing-recommendations-01.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address Allocations Author(s) : A. Durand, T. Narten Filename : draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing-recommendations-01.txt Pages : 8 Date : 16-May-01 This document provides recommendations to the addressing registries(APNIC, ARIN and RIPE) on policies for assigning IPv6 address blocks to end sites. In particular, it recommends the assignment of /48 in the general case, /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed and /128 when it is absolutely known that one and only one device is connecting. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing-recommendatio ns-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing-recommendations-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv at ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing-recommendations-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. -------------- next part -------------- ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing-recommendations-01.txt