[ga] Fw: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE

["Jim Fleming" <jimfleming@prodigy.net>]

Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: 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@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@apnic.net>
> To: <v6wg@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@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@arin.net [mailto:owner-v6wg@arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > Thomas Narten
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 2:07 AM
> > > To: v6wg@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.
> > >
> >
> >
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html