IPv6 SIG, Wednesday February 25, 11:05am-12:30 pm

KAZU YAMAMOTO:

OK, so let's get started. This is IPv6 technical SIG. So thank you for 
coming. So let's get started. For today's session, we will have three 
presentations. One is from APNIC and second one is from KRNIC and the 
other comes from Japan. But, before these three presentations, I would 
like to review action items first. The action item for IPv6 technical 
SIG is the charter. Now, the old ones is, "to review the status of 
IPv6 implementations, experimentation and testing around the region 
and to raise various issues relating to IPv6." This was old charter. 
And I posted a new one, possible new one, about one week ago and there 
is - I cannot find any objections to new one so this new one is 
approved already. So the new one is, "to share information on IPv6 
deployment around the region and to review technical and engineering 
issues relating to IPv6."

The concept is that, you know, I'd like to change the words to, you 
know, share information because recently for this kind of session, we 
just - we don't review the status of implementation but share 
information. So I would like to change the words. And Jun Murai, who 
is co-chair of this SIG, would like to to insert the word 
'engineering' because IPv6 is already on the market. So, you know, we 
would like to focus on engineering stuff. So this is, you know, 
sharing information and engineering is a point.

Anyway, the new charter already approved. So and this charter is 
already available on the Web. OK. Thank you. So let's go down to 
presentation. Let me call the first speaker. The first speaker is Tim 
Jones from APNIC. His title is 'IPv6 Allocation update'.

TIM JONES:

Good morning, everybody. As Kazu mentioned, my name's Tim Jones and 
I'm a hostmaster at APNIC. I'm here to give you an update on APNIC's 
allocation and assignment statistics for 2003. I'll also be making 
comparisons with other RIR statistics. Here's a quick overview of what 
I'll be covering this morning. We'll first take a look at a comparison 
of global RIR IPv6 stats and then have a look at APNIC-specific 
allocation and assignment statistics for 2003, then have a look at a 
snapshot of a v6 routing table and finally a summary of APNIC's Whois 
Database registrations for IPv6. Data used in this presentation is up 
to 1 January 2004.

So here's a summary of the /23 blocks allocated by the IR to the four 
RIRs. As you can see, APNIC has received three allocations, ARIN two, 
LACNIC one and RIPE five. Now, this data's quite similar to that 
presented at the last APNIC meeting in Korea. One difference - RIPE 
has received an additional allocation from IANA.

Here's a comparison of the allocations made by the four RIRs to the 
end of 2003. 506 allocations have been made in total globally. As you 
can see RIPE has made over half of these and APNIC just over a quarter 
with 130 allocations.

Now, this is a look at APNIC alone - cumulative number of allocations 
made between August '99 and the end of 2003. And you can see in the 
period between around May and October 2002, a large number of 
allocations were made by APNIC. Part of this period coincided with the 
introduction of the global v6 policy which may have encouraged some 
more organisations to start thinking about applying v6.

Coincidentally, in that year, 2002, APNIC made more allocations than 
in any other year - 45. If you compare that with last year, 2003, 37 
allocations were made. Apart from that area of steep growth which I 
just pointed out, the v6 growth rate, I think, has been fairly 
consistent in the AP region.

So this looks at which economies have received a v6 allocation from 
APNIC. 14 economies in total have received an allocation which is a 
fairly small number if you consider that the AP region is made up of 
62 economies. Both Taiwan and Korea have received fairly large 
numbers. However, it's obvious that Japan is leading the way with 
nearly half of the total number of allocations made in our region. One 
possible factor in Japan receiving so many allocations is that the 
Japanese Government is actually keen to deploy v6 and they offer tax 
incentives to ISPs, home appliance makers and any other organisation 
that's applying IPv6.

You may also be interested to know that last year, in 2003, APNIC made 
its largest single v6 allocation which was a /30 to an organisation in 
Japan.

RANDT BUSH:

Are those numbers of allocations or amount of space allocated?

TIM JONES: This slide here, Randy? These are the numbers of 
allocations.

RANDY BUSH:

I'm not sure what it means.

TIM JONES:

It's the number of /32 and /35 under the old policy allocations made.

This slide looks at the number of organisations who are allocated a 
/35 under the old policy who have upgraded to a /32. 50 organisations 
have made the upgrade and 12 are yet to upgrade. Once they start 
applying v6 and filtering on a /32 boundary becomes more prevalent, I 
would expect that they'll also make that upgrade. Also 67 /32s have 
been allocated by the Secretariat and one /30, as I mentioned 
previously, for a total of 130 allocations.

Also, five new economies have received an allocation since the new 
policy was implemented - Papua New Guinea, India, Indonesia, 
Philippines and New Zealand. I think it's quite encouraging to see 
that these economies are starting to deploy v6 in our region.

Now, this next section of my presentation looks at v6 assignments and 
experimental allocations that have been made by APNIC. So 10 IXP 
assignments in total have been made, six in 2002 and four last year. 
On top of that, APNIC has also made six critical infrastructure 
assignments.

Now, experimental allocations, APNIC has received two applications 
under the experimental allocation policy. However, after evaluating 
their requests and consulting with the member, they both - in both 
these cases, they actually received a normal /32 allocations rather 
than an experimental one.

This slide just shows which economies have received those IXP 
assignments. Korea, Japan, New Zealand have each received two. China, 
Hong Kong, Taiwan and Indonesia have received one each. Five of these 
are /64s which were made under the old policy and the other five are 
/48s. If there's anyone here who received a /64 under the old policy, 
you can come to APNIC and request an upgrade to a /48. However, you 
will have to return that /64 and renumber your network.

Similarly, this slide looks at economies that have received a critical 
infrastructure assignment. Australia, Taiwan and Korea - one apiece 
and Japan - three. These assignments are made to route DNS operators, 
GTLDs, ccTLDs, RIRs, NIRs and the IANA. Now, here's a look at a 
snapshot of the IPv6 routing table. And not surprisingly, the /32 
prefix is the most prevalent in the routing table. This corresponds 
with the current RIR minimum allocation size. There's also a number of 
/35s, the old minimum allocation side and 61 /48s which could also be 
IXP assignments and maybe also customer assignments that have been 
announced that really shouldn't be.

Now, this slide takes a more APNIC-specific view of the data from the 
previous one. It's APNIC allocations which have been announced. So, 
out of the 130 allocations made, 86 of these are being announced 
globally. This is around 66%. At the last meeting in Korea when this 
presentation was given, that figure was about 60%, so there's been a 
slight increase. However, fluctuations in the routing table when the 
snapshot was taken can also affect this data. As I'm sure you are 
aware, the global policy requires that all customer assignments are 
registered in the APNIC Whois Database. Not surprisingly, the /48, the 
minimum customer assignment size, is the most registered in the APNIC 
Whois.

If you'd like some more information on this topic, and here are some 
URLs.

These are updated regularly. OK, so that's the end of my presentation. 
Does anybody have any questions?

KAZU YAMAMOTO:

I think APNIC assigned a /30 to one organisation. Does this mean the 
organisation already allocated a /32 - so you assign a /30. Right?

A. No, that was the initial allocation and they justified receiving 
more than their /32.

Q. Oh, really?

A. Yeah. Any other questions OK, thank you.

RANDY BUSH:

The RIPE data showed RIPE having more allocations. At the recent RIPE 
meeting in Amsterdam, we also saw the actual address space as opposed 
to numbers of allocations. That's more useable because you can 
understand the size of things. The RIPE region has allocated and is 
allocating more IPv6 space. Does the RIPE region actually have more 
deployment of IPv6? Is there more traffic of IPv6 in Europe? Or is 
there something in policy which makes it easier for them to get it 
which means people are accumulating address space? Do we have any 
feeling as to why this difference and why what is really a surprising 
result and one we do not expect?

TIM JONES:

I actually tried to get some information for this presentation to 
clarify why RIPE is allocating more v6 address space. Is there anyone 
here from RIPE NCC who could maybe clarify why that's so, because I'm 
not too sure, Randy. No? OK. Sorry about that.

KAZU YAMAMOTO:

OK. Let me call the second speaker. Billy Cheon is here talking about 
IPv6 .kr DNS deployment status in Korea.

BILLY CHEON:

Nice to meet you. My name is Billy from Korea Network Information 
Center. I'm really happy to tell you about IPv6 .kr DNS deployment 
plan. Actually here - I'm not the one who is in charge of this 
project. My colleague is supposed to make presentation here but on 
behalf of him - I mean, he didn't make it this time so, anyway... 

First, I would like to tell you the background why we planned the .kr 
DNS deployment plan and also I will tell you the goals of the project 
and then strategies and main tasks for the project and the schedule 
and I'd like to close my presentation with an output.

OK, first, Korean Government drew up a comprehensive plan for 
commercial IPv6 deployment by the year of 2005 and also there is 
increasing needs for early introduction of .kr DNS that can be basis 
for IPv4 and IPv6 application services.

Under these circumstances, KRNIC planned for IPv6 .kr DNS with three 
goals. That is - KRNIC is going to establish IPv6 .kr DNS query 
service and also, KRNIC is going to establish IPv4 and IPv6 dual 
network for .kr DNS and KRNIC is also going to launch IPv6 .kr DNS 
trial service connecting with KOREAv6 network. I mean, to give you 
some information about KOREAv6 network - KOREAv6 is a sort of local 
test network which invites every interested organisation who each has 
IPv6 address space. They can join and then they can test IPv6 net 
cooperability.

With these goals, this is the strategy of our project. First, KRNIC is 
going to separate - I mean establish separate IPv6 .kr secondary DNS, 
keeping stability in IPv4 .kr DNS service. KRNIC has been learning 
IPv4 .kr DNS service. We place priority on v4 .kr DNS. And internally, 
we think it is important to cooperate in between departments in KRNIC 
inside. So after we establish the IPv6 .kr DNS, we will connect with 
organisations outside KRNIC such as NCA or ETRI and KOREAv6 network.

And this is tasks to be done for the project. First - KRNIC is going 
to establish IPv6 .kr DNS and trial services. For this tests, I think, 
first we have to establish dual-network for IPv4 and v6 .kr DNS. And 
after establishing the network and we are going to - we're going to 
have internal tests. And then, after internal tests, we're going to 
connect with KOREAv6, that is IPv6-based test network. And if it is 
needed in the future, we're going to upgrade the bandwidth of the 
leased line for the IPv6 network according to future IPv6 DNS traffic. 
And this topology shows how we're going to make the .kr DNS. The right 
side here - this part is for our IPv6 DNS network. We're going to have 
an additional leased line for DNS service and also additional server 
for IPv6 DNS here. Also, we're going to upgrade our domain 
registration system for IPv6 nameserver information registration and 
adding an IPv6 search function in Whois search.

And lastly, we will launch trial service in connection with other 
organisations. And, by cooperation with other organisations, KRNIC is 
expecting that we can share knowledge for DNS operation by running the 
DNS website. And another thing our research target is new technology 
with IPv6 DNS like EDNS or dynamic update to overcome 512 byte UDP 
limits. And this is schedule. At the moment, KRNIC is in the initial 
stage. We just draw up the plan and we bench marked from Japan case 
and Moonv6 project from USA. So hopefully we can get some comments 
from you guys, especially Japan. In general, we draw up IPv6 .kr DNS 
deployment plan now. We are thinking to establish IPv6 network and 
IPv6 .kr DNS from February to March and then we also upgrade a domain 
registration system till this August. And after establishing the 
upgrade, we are thinking of launching IPv6 .kr DNS trial service from 
June.

And then, if it's possible, we are going to expand the trial service, 
I mean we’re going to invite more organisations if they are interested 
locally. If the service is a little bit stabilised, we, KRNIC is 
thinking of launching other site for IPv6 DNS. This is for sharing the 
knowledge for IPv6 DNS. And, from September to November, we are going 
to make IPv6 - development IPv6 DNS operation guidelines for our 
actual operators and we are going to send this to ISPs and other 
people who is interested.

OK, lastly, this is output we are thinking. IPv6 .kr DNS and network. 
We are going to - that is, we are going to establish by this March. 
And then, we also launch a portal site for sharing IPv6 DNS 
technology. And lastly, we will draw up a DNS operation guidelines for 
operators. That's it.

Thank you.

Do you have any questions?

KAZU YAMAMOTO:

Could you go back to the schedule slide. So when, for example, Korean 
company can register, you know, IPv6 DNS record to the .kr? So, for 
this time schedule, when, for example, Korean company can register 
their IPv6 DNS record to you? You make .kr IPv6 already, right? Then 
go down to co.kr or something. Then, one company in Korea may share 
DNS IPv6 already?

A. Yes.

KAZU YAMAMOTO:

When the company can register such a record to under co.kr? I just - 
somewhere between June and December?

BILLY CHEON:

Yes, I think. I'm sorry.

KAZU YAMAMOTO:

If you know when actually private companies enjoy this kind of 
service? When they can gain benefit from this trial service? Well, 
would you explain what IPv6 .kr DNS trial service is up to?

BILLY CHEON:

Sorry. Since I don't have much technical - it's kind of difficult for 
me to give you a clear answer. I mean, if you have a question -

KAZU YAMAMOTO:

Is there anybody who is in charge of .jp?

BILLY CHEON:

I don't see anyone from - I mean this. I don't think there is anyone 
from Korea. Sorry. Sorry for that.

KAZU YAMAMOTO:

When you go back to Korea, when you talk this stuff to your 
colleagues, please send a message to IPv6 SIG mailing list.

BILLY CHEON:

OK. I will, yes.

Any other questions?

KAZU YAMAMOTO:

OK let me call the last speaker. Our last speaker is Kenichi Kanayama. 
He's going to talk about IPv6 in Japan.

KENICHI KANAYAMA:

Good afternoon. I'm Kenichi Kanayama from Intec Netcore in Japan. I 
show some data of measured data. This is the contents of the 
demonstration. First approach for IPv6 deployment metrics. Then next - 
a method to measure IPv6 deployment rate using .JP domain. And last I 
show some data we measure. This is approach for IPv6 deployment 
metrics. We think - for appeal of IPv6 deployment, it's important to 
keep measuring the set of specific metrics. IAJapan - Internet 
Association Japan - has a plan to start the investigation to measure 
the degree of IPv6 deployment from April of 2004 in Japan. And this 
committee members - ISP/IX operators, research community and so on. I 
include Intec Netcore. Only one IPv6 deployment metric is not enough, 
for example, to measuring the IPv6 deployment. For example, the number 
of IPv6 addresses registered or the number of information of BGP and 
so on.

So, we made the set of IPv6 deployment metrics. And this is IPv6 
deployment metrics set we made. The four categories are like this. The 
scale of IPv6 Internet. IPv6 deployment ratio. Stability of IPv6 
Internet. Characteristics and tendency of IPv6 traffic. From there I 
explain about each category. The scale of IPv6 Internet. I go through 
addresses. Routing information. Traffic. For example, I explain about 
addresses. The number of IPv6 address blocks which has been allocated 
for LIRs by RIRs. Number of /32s. The scale of IPv6 Internet.

RANDY BUSH:

Could you also keep track of how much space in terms of host count, 
not just the number of allocations. The same of the routing. It's 
not... how many routing entries is interesting, but how much address 
space it represents is almost more interesting. Same issue that I was 
bringing up last time. Make sense?

KAZU YAMAMOTO:

He needs time.

RANDY BUSH:

I understand.

KENICHI KANAYAMA:

I go next. I next explain about routing information. IP traffic. 
DNS/mail/web deployment rate. And analysis of access to application. 
How to calculate the ratio is like this. For example, about routing 
information, the number of ASs announcing IPv6 prefixes divided by the 
number of ASs announcing IPv4. And today I will explain about this 
criteria. DNS/mail/web deployment rate. This measurement uses .JP DNS 
records. I will explain the detail of this later. In the next category 
is stability of IPv6 Internet. And characters of tendency of IPv6 
traffic. The criteria is this. And I explain about the method of .JP 
DNS records statistics. The purpose is to measure the ratio of .JP 
domains, which DNS/SMTP/web services supports IPv6. This statistics is 
operated in cooperation with JPRS. JPRS is only one .JP registry.

I will explain the method. The method is looking up the following DNS 
records for all .JP domains and taking the statistics of the results. 
We count the number of NS records which has AAAA records. And the MX 
records which has AAAA records. The web service counts the number of 
www.domainname which has AAAA records. This method does not count the 
actual - this method is to measure the ratio of IPv6 and IPv4. We 
measure the data about IPv6 and IPv4 using the same method.

Can I show you some data we measured on trial? The ratio of .JP 
domains which DNS/SMTP/web supports IPv6 to IPv4. The top is NS, the 
middle is web statistics and the bottom is MX. I will show you about 
the detail of web service of .JP domains. This shows the ratio of .JP 
domains which web supports IPv6 by SLD.

AC. AD. ED and so on. You can see this top line is about 8 AC JP 
domain. It supports IPv6. It's about 5%. Generally, it's 10% and IPv6 
supports of ISBs will be 10% soon in Japan, I suppose so.

If you have any interest or question, please contact us and we are 
ready to cooperate with any domain registry in other countries. Thank 
you very much for listening.

KAZU YAMAMOTO:

Can you go back to the previous line? The top line is AD. The top line 
is about AD. Not AC.

KENICHI KANAYAMA: Yes.

KAZU YAMAMOTO:

The typist mistyped. The line go down. Down to July and September. I 
think the line - I think the line should increase. Do you know why 
this happened?

KENICHI KANAYAMA:

This is ratio. The ratio is calculated by IPv6. My guess is some 
error. That should be increasing, but it's not. The Web domain is 
where it's also increasing.

KAZU YAMAMOTO:

Talking about AD. JPNIC member - they don't increase rapidly.

RANDY BUSH:

I'm not sure - I suspect these numbers are small enough that two 
servers going off-line for a week will show.

KAZU YAMAMOTO:

Any other questions to him? OK, so all three speakers have already 
made their presentations. So I'd like to ask any other issues for IPv6 
SIG? Nothing. So we can finish this session earlier than I expected. 
We can go to lunch earlier. OK. OK, so, let's close this session with 
a big hand to the speakers.

APPLAUSE