RIPE 36

Please mail comments/suggestions on:

• content to the Chair of the working group.
• format to [email protected].

Budapest 20000517
IPv6 Working Group


Chair: David Kessens
Scribe: Jeroen Bet
# of attendees: 74


A. Administrative stuff
- Appointment of scribe
- Agenda bashing

B. Status of 6bone
(David Kessens)

C. A presentation from the Ipv6 EVENT in Birmingham (UK) 20000510 by
(Stuart Prevost)

D. News from the IPv6 forum and meeting in Telluride
(Juergen Rauschenbach)

E. Status of IPv6 Allocation Guideline draft
(Joao)

F. European developments/initiatives regarding IPv6
(input from the audience)

G. Reports on on-going projects, success & failures stories on IPv6

H. Future plans for the working group

I. Input for the 2001 activisty plan of the RIPE NCC


Z. AOB


Action points from RIPE 35:
NONE

New action points from RIPE 36:
on the chair to summarize the discussion and to collect more
advise and post it to the IPv6 mailing list.


A. Administrative stuff
- Jeroen Bet was appointed scribe
- Agenda was approved with one addition: A presentation from the
Ipv6 EVENT in Birmingham (UK) 20000510 by Stuart Prevost
under C.


B. Status of 6bone
http://www.kessens.com/~david/presentations/

David Kessens: The number of sites, allocations have all increased
since 20000222. There are now 46 countries represented in 6BONE (was
42). The number of Queries have been once again decreased due to the
database downloads by members.


C. A presentation from the Ipv6 EVENT in Birmingham (UK) 20000510
http://www.ipv6forum.com/navbar/events/birmingham00/presentations/
Stuart Prevost

The IPv6 FORUM event in Birmingham, UK was organised by BT and
sponsored by Cisco. It was an overall promotion day for IPv6. The key
speakers were Chris Earnshaw (BT) who had a presentation called "The
new wave ISP" where he pleaded that ISP's should upgrade now, because
the longer the upgrade to IPv6 is postponed, the costlier it will
be.

Another presentation was by Peter Kirstein (University College London)
on the "new Internet" and Mario Campolargo (Head of research Networks
- - -European Commission) had a presentation on European Strategic
Initiatives. The key point here was that the demand for IPv6 has to be
there, you can't just say from now on we will use IPv6. Several
projects were supported and initiated by the European Commission to
promote IPv6.

There were several more presentations (Nokia, Ericsson, Telia and
others)in Birmingham. More information about the event including the
presentations is located at:


D. News from the IPv6 forum and meeting in Telluride
http://www.ipv6forum.com/
http://www.ipv6forum.com/navbar/events/telluride00/presentations/
(Juergen Rauschenbach)

The IPv6 forum has 5 new members, 2 from the US, 2 from the Asia
Pacific region and 1 from Europe. A list of members is located at:

A 2 day conference was held in Telluride (US) which included a one day
tutorial by Florent Parent and Regis Desmeules, Viagenie. Judy Estrin,
CTO and Senior Vice President, Cisco Systems gave a presentation
which called for *integration* of IPv6 not a *transition*. Furthermore
various vendors announced upgrades and new releases of their products
which are now compatible with IPv6.

will give you an overview of all the presentations during the summit.
There are also MP3 files of the key speeches as well as a PDF file of
the IPv6 tutorial.

The next big IPv6 thing is in London in June, and there is a summit in
Japan coming up at the end of the year. Also from November 29th until
December 1st there is a 3 day conference on IPv6 in Madrid.

E. Status of IPv6 Allocation Guideline draft
(Joao)

A discussion started following the discussions at the IETF meeting
held in Adelaide, especially on whether to use /48s, /56s, or /64s for
end-users. One of the obvious problems is the definition of an
end-user itself. The issue was raised in the ARIN meeting in Calgary
(20000403). The question popped up which direction to take? Should we
conserve address-space as much as possible or should we give end-users
a little more addresses to make it easier from an administrative point
of view.

Bill Manning pointed out that these were early days in the IPv6 world,
so should we decide on this issue now?

Gert Doering brought up the issue of administrative ease. If we issue
a /56, it will be easier for ISP's.

A lot of people felt that being a bit more flexible is ok but we
shouldn't be too flexible.

Stephen Burley said that giving an end-user more than what they needed
could create complications later on.

Some people felt that a /64 was too small but a /48 was too big for an
end-user so a /56 would be a good compromise.

Wilfried Woeber: we should be cautious about re-shuffling
policies. IPv6 is overall more interesting for large networks. Having
8 bits for subnets is not enough. Giving a /64 to any end user that is
not big enough to qualify for a /48 could cause problems.

Someone pointed out why there was a need to use fixed boundaries when
we all use CIDR.

David Kessens concluded from the arguments that the attendees brought
up that a /64 is not enough as a default assignment. If a LIR issues a
/56 or /48 for a default would this be reasonable?

Again there was no consensus over this. As the issue of /64 vs. /56 was
brought up in the IETF meeting in Adelaide, people started wondering
why the IETF is so terrified of giving all end-users 'only' a /64?

It seems that the IETF doesn't want NAT to be used with IPv6. Also
subnetting and bridging in a /64 is highly undesirable. Giving them a
/56 will give end-users the incentive not to do this.

Paul Wilson: There is no engineering reason to select a /48 opposed to
a /56. a /48 is big enough for any site. However a /48 is way too big
for a dial up account -> give them a /64. LIR's should give a /64 for
mobile phones, enough for one subnet. There would be no reason for
assigning more than a /56 for home use. Assign any length that a user
needs in the foreseeable future. We assume a home site will have one
provider but every household will have many side addresses. This so
far seems not to be anticipated. IPv6 will have to last forever, so do
not throw away address-space.

Is a floating boundary preferred?

Some attendees said yes. It will initiate the end-users thinking
process of how much they actually need. It is the ISP's decision of
how much address-space to give to an end-user. In fact this would be
the same principle that we use for IPv4.

There was no consensus over a floating boundary.

A question came up what the community will do with the bits we save in
the SLA space. What happens if an ISP runs out of space?

The question was left unanswered.

- - -> ACTION on the chair to summarize the discussion and to collect more
advise and post it to the IPv6 mailing list.

David Kessens concluded that we need to find a balance between
conservation and administrative flexibility.

F. European developments/initiatives regarding IPv6
topic was skipped because of lack of time
G. Reports on on-going projects, success & failures stories on IPv6
topic was skipped because of lack of time
H. Future plans for the working group
topic was skipped because of lack of time
I. Input for the 2001 activisty plan of the RIPE NCC
topic was skipped because of lack of time

Z. AOB

Bernard Tuy and Laurent Toutain invited all the attendees to the IPv6
platform demonstration which was set up by Laurent Toutain, Francis
Dupont, and Octavio Medina (all from ENST Bretagne).

Q: Should we set up a global mailing list for IPv6 issues? There are
several now in various regions and it might be an idea to coordinate
this. Especially for the discussion about the size of the assignments.


17.00 The meeting was closed