December 2011 - ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RIPE-501 replacement document - IPsec question to community - we need your input.
by Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si 27 Jan '12

27 Jan '12

Dear IPv6 community. (copy/paste from our internal discussion) The authors of RIPE-501 are finalizing the last comments from previous last call and would like community input for what to do with IPsec. All authors feel that IPsec should be a mandatory requirement for all devices although due to technical limitations, for mobile devices it will be optional. We are aware that RFC6434 made IPsec support a SHOULD rather than a MUST. From RFC 2119: SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course. The change was largely due to limitations found in low power devices and therefore we still feel the community is best served by requiring mandatory IPsec support in all other devices (hosts, routers or layer-3 switches, network security devices, load balancers) If we get this input from you this year, there is a great chance that we could put out the new/final draft out for discussion and/or maybe last-last-call before new year. For RIPE-501 authors group, Jan P.S: wishing happy new year, merry xmass, happiness, IPv6 and all that stuff in at least next year :)

16 35

Usenix: Google deploys IPv6 for internal network
by Carsten Schiefner 19 Dec '11

19 Dec '11

Dear all - maybe this: https://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/120911-usenix-google-deploys-ipv6-fo… is an interesting read-up for at least some of you... Best, -C.

2 2

Update in the RIPE document for IPv6 Allocation and Assignment policies
by Emilio Madaio 07 Dec '11

07 Dec '11

Dear colleagues, An editorial correction has been made to ripe-523 "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy". The updated document has been renumbered to ripe-538. It is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-538 There was a mismatch between the policy text and the index title for section 5.4.2. This mismatch occurred between the updates from ripe-421 to ripe-450. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. Kind regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

on RIPE-523 IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy
by Jac Kloots 05 Dec '11

05 Dec '11

While I was reading RIPE-523 I noticed a mismatch between titles in the indexand the paragraph itself. The index for 5.4.2 says: Assignments shorter than a /48 to a single End Site While the paragraph title is: Assignment of multiple /48s to a single End Site Any change on getting this in line? Regards, Jac -- Jac Kloots Network Services SURFnet bv

1 0