Mailing List Archive: nsp: ipv6

Pinging RIPE

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

balla at staff

Nov 25, 2009, 1:27 AM

Post #1 of 7 (1007 views)
Permalink

Pinging RIPE

I'm having problem reaching www.ipv6.ripe.net from my network
(2a02:9a8::/32).

Can someone from RIPE contact me offlist to analyze the problem?

Thank you.

--
# Emanuele Balla # #
# System & Network Engineer # Cell: +39 348 7747907 #
# Spin s.r.l. # Phone: +39 040 9869090 #
# Trieste # Email: balla [at] staff #

chaz at chaz6

Nov 25, 2009, 1:31 AM

Post #2 of 7 (967 views)
Permalink

Re: Pinging RIPE [In reply to]

On 25/11/09 10:27, Emanuele Balla wrote:
> I'm having problem reaching www.ipv6.ripe.net from my network
> (2a02:9a8::/32).
>
> Can someone from RIPE contact me offlist to analyze the problem?
>
> Thank you.

Same problem here.

3: v1308-r72.cr0-r70.tc2-ams.nl.ip6.p80.net 22.199ms
4: ams-ix.he.net 22.781ms
5: no reply
6: no reply

chaz at chaz6

Nov 25, 2009, 2:09 AM

Post #3 of 7 (969 views)
Permalink

Re: Pinging RIPE [In reply to]

False alarm - sorry!

jhma at mcvax

Nov 25, 2009, 3:11 AM

Post #4 of 7 (962 views)
Permalink

Re: Pinging RIPE [In reply to]

--On 25 November 2009 10:27:04 +0100 Emanuele Balla <balla [at] staff>
wrote:

> I'm having problem reaching www.ipv6.ripe.net from my network
> (2a02:9a8::/32).
>
> Can someone from RIPE contact me offlist to analyze the problem?

The RIPE NCC currently has a /42 IPv6 assignment from Surfnet's /32
allocation.
One peer was leaking the RIPE NCC's prefix to the world despite having it
clearly
tagged "no-export" in the announcement. The BGP sessions with this peer
have
been disabled for the time being so IPv6 traffic from those networks not
directly
peering with the RIPE NCC at the AMS-IX should now flow via Surfnet as
intended.

With the implementation of policies which permit the RIPE NCC to assign
resources
to itself, there are plans to renumber the RIPE NCC into its own IPv6 PI
assignment in the coming months.

Regards,
James

--
James Aldridge, Senior Systems & Network Engineer, RIPE NCC

drc at virtualized

Nov 25, 2009, 6:38 AM

Post #5 of 7 (966 views)
Permalink

Re: Pinging RIPE [In reply to]

On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:11 AM, James Aldridge wrote:
> With the implementation of policies which permit the RIPE NCC to assign resources
> to itself, there are plans to renumber the RIPE NCC into its own IPv6 PI
> assignment in the coming months.

Out of curiosity, why?

Regards,
-drc

nick-lists at netability

Nov 25, 2009, 7:07 AM

Post #6 of 7 (960 views)
Permalink

Re: Pinging RIPE [In reply to]

On 25/11/2009 14:38, David Conrad wrote:
> Out of curiosity, why?

at least:

- political neutrality: ripes current v6 address space is allocated to
nl.surfnet and from a political neutrality point of view, some people may
have a problem with this (personally, I don't, but there's always the 1% of
people)
- reannouncement of some other ASN's address space: this space is highly
likely to to be filtered out using rir-aligned bogon filters, potentially
causing connectivity problems for RIPE
- reachability: RIPE have had consistent reachability problems with this
address block due to weird academic / commercial ipv6 prefix filtering
arrangements in east asia.

The RIPE NCC now has its own LIR (eu.ripencc, create by policy mandate),
and as it is a politically independent entity with its own routing and
address assignment requirements, it probably makes more sense for it to
manage its own address space.

Nick

jhma at mcvax

Nov 25, 2009, 7:12 AM

Post #7 of 7 (967 views)
Permalink

Re: Pinging RIPE [In reply to]

--On 25 November 2009 06:38:29 -0800 David Conrad <drc [at] virtualized>
wrote:

> On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:11 AM, James Aldridge wrote:
>> With the implementation of policies which permit the RIPE NCC to assign
>> resources to itself, there are plans to renumber the RIPE NCC into its
>> own IPv6 PI assignment in the coming months.
>
> Out of curiosity, why?

We are grateful for Surfnet providing us with IPv6 space when policies
didn't allow the RIPE NCC to assign IPv6 resources to itself but there are
several reasons for moving towards a PI assignment.

Surfnet don't like seeing parts of their address space being leaked to the
world; the RIPE NCC doesn't want to be dependent on any particular member;
using a more specific prefix out of someone else's PI allocation doesn't
fit well with the RIPE NCC's connectivity model and we experience
operational problems when our more specific prefix is leaked.

The approval of RIPE policies 2006-01 and 2009-02 earlier this year gives
us the opportunity to get our own address space and clean up the problems
with the current arrangement.

Regards,
James

--
Senior Systems & Network Engineer, RIPE NCC

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads