From narten at watson.ibm.com Fri Oct 19 12:07:11 2001 From: narten at watson.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 12:07:11 -0400 Subject: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE Message-ID: <200110191607.MAA05890@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> 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. From gerard at apnic.net Tue Oct 23 04:32:13 2001 From: gerard at apnic.net (Gerard Ross) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:32:13 +1000 Subject: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE In-Reply-To: <200110191607.MAA05890@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: 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 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. > From jfleming at anet.com Tue Oct 23 10:36:00 2001 From: jfleming at anet.com (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:36:00 -0500 Subject: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE References: Message-ID: <000901c15bd0$1244aba0$3e00a8c0@pamela> Why would people pay for IPv6 Address Space when IPv8 Address Space is FREE ? 2047 IPv8 Blocks have been FREEly allocated to IN-ADDR. 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. 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::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" To: 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 > 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. > > > > From jfleming at anet.com Tue Oct 23 10:57:18 2001 From: jfleming at anet.com (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:57:18 -0500 Subject: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE References: Message-ID: <002101c15bd3$041078e0$3e00a8c0@pamela> Is APNIC part of the US or USA ? http://www.apnic.net/apnic-bin/attendee_list.pl?event-id=1 Bush Randy Network Startup Resource Center US Caro Andrea ARIN US Chiao Ching Vitty Inc USA Chou Li-Fang RealNames Corporation USA Conrad David Nominum, Inc. USA Crain John ICANN U.S.A. Deering Steve Cisco Systems, Inc. USA Hamlin Susan ARIN US Huberman David Global Crossing USA Jacobsen Ole Cisco Systems USA Jimmerson Richard ARIN USA Lu Ping Cable and Wireless Global Networks USA Manning Bill EP.NET USA Nobile Leslie ARIN USA O'Connell Sue-Anne ARIN U.S.A. Plzak Raymond ARIN US Roseman Barbara Global Crossing USA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerard Ross" To: 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 > 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. > > > > From cathym at arin.net Tue Oct 23 11:47:24 2001 From: cathym at arin.net (Cathy Murphy) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:47:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [OT] Re: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE In-Reply-To: <002101c15bd3$041078e0$3e00a8c0@pamela> Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Jim Fleming wrote: > Is APNIC part of the US or USA ? > > http://www.apnic.net/apnic-bin/attendee_list.pl?event-id=1 Jim - The fact that participants from the US attended the recent APNIC meeting has no bearing on IPv6 policy discussions, which is the purpose of this list. Cathy Murphy Speaking only for myself, that gets me in enough trouble... From jfleming at anet.com Tue Oct 23 12:07:31 2001 From: jfleming at anet.com (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:07:31 -0500 Subject: [OT] Re: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE References: Message-ID: <003e01c15bdc$d3354160$3e00a8c0@pamela> "APNIC has established the global list." http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/ipv6-wg/current/msg00165.html RE: IPv6 Network Plans (Forcasting) To: "'Turchanyi Geza'" , "'Dave Pratt'" Subject: RE: IPv6 Network Plans (Forcasting) From: "Ray Plzak" Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:56:22 -0400 Cc: , Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Reply-To: Sender: owner-ipv6-wg at ripe.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- APNIC has established the global list. Hopefully you will see an announcement from RIPE NCC shortly. Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ipv6-wg at ripe.net > [mailto:owner-ipv6-wg at ripe.net]On Behalf Of > Turchanyi Geza > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 9:37 AM > To: Dave Pratt > Cc: lir-wg at ripe.net; ipv6-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: IPv6 Network Plans (Forcasting) > > > > Dave and all, > > Untill now I postponed my comments, waiting for the global > mailing list. > However, as there is still no mailing list, I would like to make some > comments now. > > The firs lesson what I learned from the IPv4 address > allocation history, > that allocating addresses for ever has good consequences for early > adopters and bad consequences for the late adopters. > > Early adopter should have some benefit, however, > colonialisation of the > address space should be avoided. > > The IPv6 address space is not as big as it seems to be, as the > limiting effects of the multihoming, renumbering and > aggregation are not > clear yet. > > Therefore I suggest to introduce sliding allocation time > window (ATW). The > size > of the ATW can be fine tuned by future policies, however, > this could never > reduce the already allocated address space allocation time, however, > might increase it. > > For example, the ATW can be set initially for 10 year. Any > ISP (LIR) will > receive its address block for 3ATW, and any customer of the LIR will > receive its address block for ATW. > > When the ATW expire, It should be checked, that the old > policy is still > valid. If yes, tha allocation can be extended for an other > ATW period of > time. If not, the customer will receive a now address block > according to > the new policy, and with the customer should renumber its > network within > the new ATW period of time and give back the old address space. > > When all customer of a LIR should have already migrated to > the new address > block, then the LIR should give back its address block, and > this can be > reused later on by others, according to the new policy. > > In this long enough allocation policy we can > run the network > minimize burocracy > save the future > > Best, > > Geza > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cathy Murphy" To: "Jim Fleming" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 10:47 AM Subject: [OT] Re: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE > > On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Jim Fleming wrote: > > > Is APNIC part of the US or USA ? > > > > http://www.apnic.net/apnic-bin/attendee_list.pl?event-id=1 > > Jim - > > The fact that participants from the US attended the recent APNIC meeting > has no bearing on IPv6 policy discussions, which is the purpose of this > list. > > Cathy Murphy > > Speaking only for myself, that gets me in enough trouble... > > > >