ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:02:59] My name is Alex Le Heux, I will be monitoring this session. ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:03:01] * brett has joined the channel. ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:03:06] --- ballroom has become available ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:03:25] If you want me to relay anything to the microphone, please say so clearly and state your full name and affiliation. ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:03:45] * mike_5459 has joined the channel. ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:12:27] (master) hehe don't use Macs :-> ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:12:41] (master) ..or only Macs ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:17:09] Gert Döring is starting his presentation about the global IPv6 routing table status. ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:18:07] * jluk has joined the channel. ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:18:11] ...and he is already finished. ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:18:39] (master) Hm good point, IPv6 just works nowerdays obviously :-> ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:20:02] The next agenda point is the expiry of 6bone address assignments. ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:20:39] (master) Well, i'd actually like to know about if we all start filtering or just "expire" the addresses and ignore 6.6.2006 practically... ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:21:07] (master) As in "do we encourage everyone to filter them"? ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:21:09] should I relay that to the microphone? ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:21:25] (master) yes please, Sascha Lenz, from de.ok ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:21:35] (jluk) So Gert is saying we should filter it ? ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:21:51] (master) hmja i think so just want clarification... i want to filter, too ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:21:56] --- juampe has become available ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:22:30] (master) ok, thanks ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:22:48] You're welcome :) ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:22:59] * Niels has joined the channel. ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:23:18] --- lorenzo has become available ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:23:26] (master) ACK ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:23:46] The next agenda point is IPv6 allocation policies. ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:28:40] --- arien@jabber.noc.ams-ix.net has become available ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:29:36] For those that joined us late: I am Alex Le Heux from the RIPE NCC and I am monitoring this session. ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:30:07] If you want me to relay anything to the microphone, please say so clearly and state your full name and affiliation. ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:32:23] (jluk) You don't need to be an 'ISP' as such to get PA v6 ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:33:44] (master) Hm, i don't see an "ISP" thing in the Policies either, Assigning Addresses is not only an ISP thing, but well ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:34:28] (Djinh) it doesn't say "ISP" as such, but there are the requirements of planning to assign to other organisations and announcing the aggregate. ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:34:38] (master) We have two proposals, IPv6 "PI" and getting rid off the 200-customer-rule for PA Allocations - do i miss anything else? ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:34:52] (jluk) Not that I'm aware of ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:34:55] (master) hm OK ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:35:07] (master) so, probably just discusse those two? :-) ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:35:30] (Djinh) there is also the /48 -> /56 proposal, but that's not about the initial allocation criteria ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:35:30] (master) they obviously can't be solved on the mailing lists ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:35:38] (jluk) The 200 rule is a complete waste of time. ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:35:43] (master) ok i totally missed that one than ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:36:00] (Djinh) It's 2005-08 ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:36:14] (master) hmja just found it, hm ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:39:26] The next agenda point is the Future of the working group. ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:39:33] (jluk) It seems that the only issues remaining with V6 are address policy issues. ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:39:57] (jluk) at least until there actually is something back from shim6 et al. ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:40:30] to the microphone: the ipv6-wg should focus on deployment experiences ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:40:36] carlos friacas, FCCN ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:40:56] gert doring gave a good example on the plenary (EOF?) ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:41:14] (jluk) That would be sensible - leave address policy to the AP wg ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:41:22] (master) Probably rather more aggressive... encourage Uplinks and customers for IPv6 ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:41:23] YEP ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:41:25] --- geoff has become available ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:41:32] (master) unfortunately i have a customer standing by me now *sigh* ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:42:16] (Niels) I'm surrounded by customers at meetings like this ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:42:18] (master) hmja the problem might be, not enough people have deployed IPv6... so, do something about that ... but no clue how, i'm not a marketing guy ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:42:24] the "what have i done on the last 12 months about ipv6 on my organization" topic should also be a nice topic ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:42:39] (master) niels: if i'd be at the meeting, i wouldn't have to comment on IRC ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:43:02] or the topic "what are the barriers to IPv6 inside my organization" ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:43:17] (jluk) Having moved out of the 'ISP' business, I've got v6 throughout my current organisation, but it's only available via tunnels ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:43:34] (Niels) cfriacas - lack of PI for my organisation is definitely keeping its usability down ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:43:40] (jluk) We need a push to the providers to give v6 at the CPE ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:43:53] if customers want it, yes ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:43:55] :-) ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:44:08] (Niels) jluk: waiting for mine to shape up :/ only promises so far ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:44:17] (master) yes, just let's focus on do something about that... any NEW, WORKING ideas what one could do about the deployment thing? (besides IPv6 PI, not again please) ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:44:38] (Djinh) ipv6 capable dsl routers maybe? ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:44:42] (master) i guess that's a good way to go with the WG, as long as there are some people who want to get active with that ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:45:12] (master) djinh: yes, for example, i don't see any out-of-the-box IPv6 capable Enduser DSL Routers in the market ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:45:17] (Niels) IPv6 capable PE routers; cisco stopping to suck with v6 support in e.g. GSR; Juniper not charging arm + leg for v6 support for e.g. ERX ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:45:21] i can come up with a presentation about the ipv6 capabilities of a DSL vendor... ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:45:27] (master) so, bug the producers ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:45:33] (Niels) and CPE support, as Djinh said, yes ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:45:42] --- geoff has left ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:46:04] cfriacas, you could contact the WG chair about that, I'm sure he would be delighted :) ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:46:05] (master) the problem is, that is not technical work but lobbying, not quite the right people to do that in the WG i guess?! ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:46:29] it would be great if other people (like jordi in the beginning) could present data about v6 traffic ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:46:40] (jluk) master: that's the thing - tecnically (leaving out PI) the V6 works. ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:46:58] The next agenda point is the depreciation of ip6.int ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:47:33] (master) correct ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:50:37] (master) Just some "press-releases" and contact the Holders of ip6.int delegations, that's it ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:53:01] The next agenda point is Developments/Initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region. ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:53:26] Here people can make short announcements of their initiatives. ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:54:10] (jluk) what was that URL ? ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:54:20] The next agenda item is Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan. ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:54:34] And then the AOB. ipv6@conference.ripe.net/2006-04-27.txt:[16:54:57] This session has now ended.