MinutesIPv6 technical SIGWednesday 1 September 2004, Sheraton Fiji Resort, Nadi, FijiMeeting commenced: 11:17 am Chair: Kazu Yamamoto The Chair introduced the session and thanked the sponsors. Review of previous open action items
Contents
George Kuo, APNIC This presentation describes IPv6 allocation and assignment information from APNIC, as well as relevant IPv6 routing table statistics. Currently, APNIC has made 164 allocations of IPv6 space. The statistics show that in the AP region, Japan continues to hold the greatest amount of address space, followed by Korea and Taiwan. So far, 55 of the 60 organisations that received a /35 allocation made under the original policy have returned to upgrade their allocation to /32. Questions and discussion Action items Toshiyuki Hosaka, JPNIC The presentation used statistics derived from the APNIC Whois Database to provide a breakdown of IPv6 assignment registration throughout the region. The presenter remarked that the relatively low number of /48 assignments visible in the database suggests that many LIRs are not properly registering their assignments. He urged all LIRs to register their assignments in accordance with APNIC policy. Questions and discussion Action items Jordi Palet, Consulintel Presentation [pdf] This presentation was intended to introduce a document developed in Europe to create guidelines for IPv6 assignments. The presenter noted that providing a /48 to every subscriber does not represent a waste of address space. The recommended assignment sizes in the document are: /47 for very large subscribers; /48 as the general assignment size; /64 when it is known that only subnet will be needed; and /128 when it is absolutely known that only one device will need to be connected. One of the main reasons for recommending larger allocations is to protect the routing tables. Questions and discussion Action items Bill Manning, USC/ISI Presentation [pdf] This presentation reviewed existing transition mechanisms and examined recommendations for successful deployment of IPv6. The presenter noted that the number of existing DNS mechanisms available can make transition complex. He argued that DNS is the primary application and that all other services should be subordinate to DNS in planning the transition. The presenter noted the work of Akira Kato and WIDE on the IPv6 impact at the resolver. He then discussed the transition experiences of several early adopters of native IPv6 deployment. There was a discussion of the work that was done before adding IPv6 glue into the root zone. The presenter discussed the ARIN transition in detail. It was noted that the US Department of Commerce called on ICANN to develop a full blown technical proposal for IPv6 deployment that would guarantee smooth and stable service. The presenter noted that even if operating systems are up to date, it may be necessary to update every application to IPv6. Finally, the presenter noted that for the roots and the TLDs, IPv6 looks to be imminent and the question will be pushing it down. Questions and discussion Action items Billy MH Cheon, KRNIC This presentation described the background and progress of the project to deploy IPv6 DNS services in Korea. The presenter noted that Korea is now in stage two of a six stage timeline to develop full IPv6 services. He noted that Korea and Japan had their IPv6 glue records added to the root by ICANN in July 2004. The strategy in Korea was based on two goals: to provide stable IPv6 DNS services and to share technology and information. After deployment, a trial service will be commenced and there will be sharing of DNS operational technologies and information. The presenter discussed KRDNSv6, which is the trial IPv6 DNS service, which was established in 2004. He discussed its aims, structure, and operations. Questions and discussion Action items Geoff Huston, APNIC This was a report on current activities in the IETF to provide solutions that would allow multihoming in IPv6 without overloading the routing system. RFC3582 attempts to enumerate the goals but provides no solutions. The presenter reviewed several proposed approaches to creating a new protocol element. Other proposed approaches involve modifying existing stacks, or modifying the IP layer. The presenter suggested that the most viable place to deal with the problem is just above routing but below IP fragmentation. The presenter noted that issues involved in changing the architecture of IPv6 are fundamental and complex. Finally, the presenter suggested that multihoming should be considered a routing problem rather than an addressing one, in which case the direction of the proposed solutions may be headed in the wrong direction. Questions and discussion Action items Presentation [pdf] Jordi Palet, Consulintel This presentation was prepared in response to several operators asking for allocations greater than /32. The presenter sought inputs from these large operators to find out more about their rationale. The presenter provided a detailed summary of responses from various large operators to specific questions about how they intend to deploy their IPv6 network. Questions and discussion Action items Meeting closed: 12:55 pm Minuted by: Gerard Ross Open action items
|
