FW: APEC TEL IPv6 Workshop
Forwarded for your information. I am not aware of any NZers attending and would be very interested to hear from anyone thinking of going. --- Frank March Senior Specialist Adviser, IT Policy Group Ministry of Economic Development, PO Box 1473, Wellington, New Zealand Phone (+64 4) 474 2908; Fax (+64 4) 474 2659; Mobile (+64) 21 042 9205 -----Original Message----- From: Crick, Gabrielle [mailto:Gabrielle.Crick(a)dcita.gov.au] Sent: Thursday, 13 February 2003 12:40 To: 'apectel-poc(a)lists.dcita.gov.au' Subject: APEC TEL IPv6 Workshop Dear colleagues The organisers of the APEC TEL IPv6 workshop invite APEC member economies to participate in the APEC TEL IPv6 workshop being held in Bangkok, Thailand on 20-21 March 2003, just prior to APEC TEL27 in Malaysia. The workshop will cover: Issues surrounding the current standard of Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) and how it limits the number of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses available globally. This lack of potential access will threaten all other efforts to bridge the digital divide. The need for policy makers, regulators, and decision makers in APEC economics to be familiar with issues in moving from IPv4 to IPv6 including transition, operation, financial impact, applications, security, and quality of service issues. Risks and benefits of adopting IPv6. For further information on the workshop and registration details please read the attached documents or go to www.totacademy.com. If you require additional information please contact either: Dr. Jack Treuhaft e-mail: treuhaj(a)algonquincollege.com Dr. Pongthiti Pongsilamanee e-mail: ppongs01(a)tot.co.th Kind regards Ms Gabrielle Crick Office of the APEC Telecommunications and Information Working Group Chair Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Level 1, 38 Sydney Ave, BARTON GPO Box 8771 Canberra 2601 AUSTRALIA Ph +61 2 6271 1296 Fax +61 2 6271 1800 _________________________________________________________________________ The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security Adviser of the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, telephone (02) 6271-1880 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. _________________________________________________________________________ http://www.govt.nz - connecting you to New Zealand central & local government services Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your computer.
On Wednesday, Feb 12, 2003, at 21:00 Canada/Eastern, Frank March wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Crick, Gabrielle [mailto:Gabrielle.Crick(a)dcita.gov.au] Sent: Thursday, 13 February 2003 12:40 To: 'apectel-poc(a)lists.dcita.gov.au' Subject: APEC TEL IPv6 Workshop
[...]
The workshop will cover:
Issues surrounding the current standard of Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) and how it limits the number of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses available globally. This lack of potential access will threaten all other efforts to bridge the digital divide.
Someone should tell these people that we are not running out of IPv4 addresses any time soon, and that the real pressing issue is how you make the routing system scale (an issue which IPv6 does not attempt to address).
The need for policy makers, regulators, and decision makers in APEC economics to be familiar with issues in moving from IPv4 to IPv6 including transition, operation, financial impact, applications, security, and quality of service issues.
Now *that* would be an interesting argument to hear, unless their point is that there is no need whatsoever for policy makers and regulators to even know what IPv6 is. Joe
I spotted these on the ISOC site recently: Waiting for IP version 6 by Geoff Huston (http://ispcolumn.isoc.org/2003-01/Waiting.html) and Response by IPv6 Forum to "Waiting for IP version 6" by Latif Ladid and Jim Bound (http://www.isoc.org/pubs/isp/ipv6response.shtml_
At 04:01 PM 2/13/2003 +1300, Andy Linton wrote:
I spotted these on the ISOC site recently:
Waiting for IP version 6 by Geoff Huston (http://ispcolumn.isoc.org/2003-01/Waiting.html)
and Response by IPv6 Forum to "Waiting for IP version 6" by Latif Ladid and Jim Bound (http://www.isoc.org/pubs/isp/ipv6response.shtml_
thanks - yes I must admit to more than a little frustration over the mythology that surrounds V6, and the pressing reasons why we should all migrate to it! After unloading into the column I appear to have irked the V6 folk more than a little, who then felt that they should respond. I'm still of the personal view that the only real benefit of V6 is the larger address space, and all the other dragons we fight from day to day (routing scaling, security, traffic engineering, dns, content routing, overlays, and the QoS thing are just the same in V6 as V4). So its not a feature-driven decision as to what to do - its more attempting to figure out when and how the high volume low level device world will more (and while there may be billions of V6 devices, each one will be worth not all that much evel using units of micro-cents, and will spend even less per device on its comms needs - so its not exactly a new El Dorado out there in v6-land!) But read and judge for yourself! regards, Geoff
I'm still of the personal view that the only real benefit of V6 is the larger address space, and all the other dragons we fight from day to day (routing scaling, security, traffic engineering, dns, content routing, overlays, and the QoS thing are just the same in V6 as V4).
with IPv6, we get the chance to allocate address ranges in a sane manner unlike what happened with IPv4. CIDR has not solved the routing table size problem. It was claimed by Ford et al in 1993 that routing tables in core routers could be reduced from 10,000 entries to 200 if addresses were re-allocated according to continental boundaries and service providers. P. Ford, Y. Rekhter, and H.-W. Braun. Improving the Routing and Addressing of the Internet protocol. IEEE Network, May 1993. Look at page 141 of TCP/IP Illustrated Volume 1 for more information. I don't think that anyone has claimed that IPv6 would solve all of the things you listed on your soap box. solve one problem at a time. routing and addressing is a big one. As for the "no one is using it" argument: someone give me a native IPv6 path out of NZ to the US and Asia. I can't use it if no one will deploy it and give me addresses to use.
On Friday, Feb 14, 2003, at 06:15 Canada/Eastern, Matthew Luckie wrote:
I'm still of the personal view that the only real benefit of V6 is the larger address space, and all the other dragons we fight from day to day (routing scaling, security, traffic engineering, dns, content routing, overlays, and the QoS thing are just the same in V6 as V4).
with IPv6, we get the chance to allocate address ranges in a sane manner unlike what happened with IPv4. CIDR has not solved the routing table size problem.
I think the concern is that even with the best intentions, operational reality will see people punching wholes in each others' aggregates almost immediately so that they can do things like inter-domain traffic engineering and edge multi-homing. Even if elegant solutions are found for those problems, a pure allocation model requires people to renumber their entire networks every time there's an upstream topology change (e.g. they change providers, or their provider changes providers). Certain aspects of renumbering networks with IPv6 are simplified (due to autoconfiguration, for example) but others are just as difficult as with IPv4 (static address configuration, DNS). The registries have never imposed any restrictions on how operators route assigned blocks of numbers on the Internet, and it's difficult to see exactly how they could start doing so. In the absense of a stick *or* a carrot, why would ISPs bother with the pain of renumbering, or impose that burden on their customers? Allocation of IPv6 addresses by the RIRs has already started, and it is being done in almost exactly the same way as IPv4 (financial barrier to entry, no reasonable request denied, no attention given to routing topology).
It was claimed by Ford et al in 1993 that routing tables in core routers could be reduced from 10,000 entries to 200 if addresses were re-allocated according to continental boundaries and service providers.
... which would take a massive coordinated effort, which would no doubt cause considerable instability on the internet, and which would start to be un-done almost immediately once complete since the topology of the Internet is not static.
As for the "no one is using it" argument: someone give me a native IPv6 path out of NZ to the US and Asia. I can't use it if no one will deploy it and give me addresses to use.
APNIC will give you addresses to use, today. All it would take to support v6 on the APE or the WIX would be for you to find at least one other ISP who wanted to play (there are plenty of options for acquiring v6 prefixes for the exchange fabrics themselves). If you're waiting for the big transit providers to support v6 before you use it, you'll be waiting a long time. Why not run it native in your network, run native over exchange points to reach peers, and tunnel out to other v6 islands in the mean time? Joe
The workshop will cover:
Issues surrounding the current standard of Internet Protocol version
4
(IPv4) and how it limits the number of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses available globally. This lack of potential access will threaten all other efforts to bridge the digital divide.
Someone should tell these people that we are not running out of IPv4 addresses any time soon, and that the real pressing issue is how you make the routing system scale (an issue which IPv6 does not attempt to address).
The need for policy makers, regulators, and decision makers in APEC economics to be familiar with issues in moving from IPv4 to IPv6 including transition, operation, financial impact, applications, security, and quality of service issues.
Now *that* would be an interesting argument to hear, unless their
Actually, the problem is with ISPs who do not want to fill out the paperwork RFC 2050 and the RIRs require. Paperwork that any reasonable ISP will do to keep track of who has what address. There is a belief that IPv6 will bypass RFC2050 and the RIR process. Strange as that sounds, it is what I'm running into. BTW - Check out the RIR update slides at this week's NANOG. The graphically illustrates that RFC2050, the constituent lead RIR model, and reclaiming legacy A allocations are working. point
is that there is no need whatsoever for policy makers and regulators to even know what IPv6 is.
Joe
_______________________________________________ Nznog mailing list Nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
participants (6)
-
Andy Linton -
Barry Raveendran Greene -
Frank March -
Geoff Huston -
Joe Abley -
Matthew Luckie