SIG: IPv6 (Technical), in conjunction with Global IPv6 Summit
Wednesday 26 February 2003, Taipei International Convention Center (TICC), Taipei, Taiwan
Minutes
Meeting commenced: 9:00 am
Chair: Kazu Yamamoto
The Chair introduced the session, which is a joint session of Global IPv6 Summit and the APNIC IPv6 SIG.
Contents
- APNIC IPv6 updates
- Introduction to IETF v6 ops
- Deployment of IPv6 networks
- Is IPv6 reverse delegation required?
- The Pan-European Ipv6 IX backbone: Towards deployment of IPv6 network in Europe
- IPv6 transition: Does there have to be one?
- APNIC IPv6 updates
- It was noted that since the new policy, there has been an increase in the number of allocations.
- There was a discussion of the number of reverse delegations in IPv6.
- Introduction to IETF v6 ops
- None.
- Deployment of IPv6 networks
- It was noted that DHCP is not the only mechanism available for deployment.
- It was explained that there is an RFC relevant to neighbour discovery and router advertisements.
- There were also general discussions relating to self configuration of routers.
- Is IPv6 reverse delegation required?
- None.
- The Pan-European Ipv6 IX backbone: Towards deployment of IPv6 network in Europe
- There was some discussion about the operation of the IX in London.
- IPv6 transition: Does there have to be one?
- None.
- None.
George Kuo, APNIC
This presentation was a summary of current IPv6 resource status. The presenter noted that IPv6 allocations by RIPE NCC have increased considerably in the past year.
Japan remains by far the highest user of IPv6 in this region; however, the number of economies in this region receiving allocations has been increasing steadily.
Since the change in IPv6 policy in 2001, 19 of the 61 eligible organisations have not yet upgraded their allocation size. APNIC asked these organisations why they had not upgraded. Some were unaware of the policy, some were too busy to apply, some misunderstood the fee implications, and some felt that the upgrade was not necessary.
The presenter discussed some statistics of IPv6 use, including routing statistics and whois registrations.
Questions and discussion
Jun-Ichiro Itojun Hagino, IIJ Research Labs
This presentation discussed the work of the v6ops Working Group. The presenter noted that IPv6 has now hit critical mass and that the basic specifications are complete, the advanced specifications are almost done, and there is daily use of fully deployed IPv6 services.
The ngtrans Working Group had focused on transition technologies, but there was still a clear vision required for how and when transitional mechanisms and tools would be required. ngtans has been shut down. IPv6 is now being specifically referenced by ipngwg and v6ops, but all IETF working groups are required to consider IPv6.
The v6ops group is concentrating on case studies and development, analysing security, and monitoring transitional tools.
The presenter invited all participants to join the v6ops mailing list and contribute any experience they have gained.
Questions and discussion
Raj Gulani, Cisco
This presentation discussed the scope of IPv6 deployment and some typical deployment scenarios.
The presenter noted that IPv6 and IPv4 are going to have to coexist for a long time and, therefore, application transition must be the main focus. He stressed that applications must be one of the main drivers of IPv6 deployment.
Different customers and service providers will all have different needs, so incremental upgrades will be the key to deployment. The presenter discussed case studies for the three main options for deployment, namely, tunnelling, dedicated data link layers on native IPv6, and dual stack networks.
The presentation also suggested a solution for large scale IPv6 deployment.
Questions and discussion
Tomohiro Fujisaki, NTT
This presentation provided a brief introduction to the IPv6 Operations Study Group in Japan and discussed its current activities, especially in relation to IPv6 reverse delegation issues.
The presenter noted that at the Second JPNIC Open Policy Meeting, a question arose as to the necessity of DNS delegation in IPv6. This prompted some study by the IPv6 Ops group.
Currently, reverse DNS is used as a security check, to verify client location, to improve readability, and to make groups of IP addresses.
The presenter noted that reverse lookup is potentially difficult in IPv6 due to the number of addresses, which makes DNS maintenance difficult. He also noted that there will be many unmanaged networks and that there is inconsistency in the transition period from ip6.int to ip6.arpa.
The presenter noted that few nodes with EUI-64 addresses have a reverse lookup entry.
He also noted that privacy will be more important in the P2P environment that IPv6 will provide. He mentioned some techniques that may be used in IPv6 reverse DNS lookups in the future.
Questions and discussion
Jordi Palet, Consulintel
This presentation discussed the background and operations of Euro6IX project, which intends to build a scalable and native IPv6 backbone for Europe to support the fast introduction of IPv6 in Europe.
Euro6IX is for research on advanced network services, not for commercial traffic. The main members of Euro6IX are the some of the major telcos in Europe, involved through their research labs. There are also universities, industrial organisations, and other business involved.
The project is funded by the European Community, but many of the links are donated by the telcos.
The presenter outlined the tools and services being developed by the Euro6IX project.
Questions and discussion
Mark Williams, Nortel
This presentation discussed some past transitions. The presenter argued that the only real driver to the current transition is the shortage of IPv4, which has made NATS and other techniques necessary. He explained there is currently no killer IPv6 application that can't be done with IPv4.
It was noted that there are many current Internet drafts relating to security in IPv6. It was also noted that protocol translation is an important current issue. He noted that because the current Internet does not have transparency, it is not likely that any killer apps requiring transparency will be developed.
The presenter argued that we should not talk about transition, but simply about deployment. He suggested that the main force on networks to deploy will be the increase in the number of IPv6 mobile users.
Questions and discussion
Meeting closed: 10:45 am
Minuted by: Gerard Ross
Open action items
