October 2013 - ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RIPE 554 Errata Page
by Wilhelm Boeddinghaus 17 Jan '14

17 Jan '14

Dear colleagues, as shortly discussed in Dublin I suggest to set up an errata page for the RIPE 554 document. Errors have been found, and we cannot change anything in the document without getting a new RIPE document number. But having to many different versions of the document confuses our audience. A errata page would make it possible to document minor but important changes of the content of the document. If the group says "yes" we could ask RIPE to help with a page like this. It should be easily reachable from the download page of RIPE554. Kind regards, Wilhelm Boeddinghaus

15 33

96 more bits... time for some magic after all?
by Shane Kerr 31 Oct '13

31 Oct '13

All, [ gah... hit the wrong key and sent this unfinished ] We saw two presentations by network architects at the RIPE meeting that used bits in their IPv6 addressing plan to carry meaning beyond simple network topology and packet routing. For example, declaring a specific bit in the address to be 1 for voice traffic or 0 otherwise. There are motivations for doing this, which may or may not be valid in any particular case. There are ways to lessen the amount of addresses consumed by this (for example by assigning /56 instead of /48 to end users). But I think that the important thing is that we have historically not considered this sort of use with address allocation policy. In face, RFC 2050bis was *just* published as RFC 7020: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7020/ This includes the long-standing historical goals of conservation, aggregation, and accuracy. Using bits in IPv6 networks for other purposes is orthogonal to those goals. What should we do about it? Cheers, -- Shane

11 22

[training] RIPE NCC Webinars - new dates
by Training Team 29 Oct '13

29 Oct '13

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce the launch of new dates for our Webinars. The RIPE NCC Webinars are live and take only one hour. You can interact with our trainers without leaving your desk. We focus on the topics and issues most important for LIRs. Register now at https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/e-learning/webinars Participation is limited to 20 people, so don't hesitate if you want to take part! If you have questions, please email <training(a)ripe.net>. We look forward to seeing you online. Kind regards, RIPE NCC Training Services

1 0

96 more bits... time for some magic after all?
by Shane Kerr 26 Oct '13

26 Oct '13

All, We saw two presentations by network architects at the RIPE meeting that used bits in their IPv6 addressing plan to carry meaning beyond simple network topology and packet routing. For example, declaring a specific bit in the address to be 1 for voice traffic or 0 otherwise. There are motivations for doing this, which may or may not be valid in any particular case. There are ways to lessen the amount of addresses consumed by this (for example by assigning /56 instead of /48 to end users). But I think that the important thing is that we have historically not considered this sort of use with address allocation policy. In face, RFC 2050bis was *just* published as RFC 7050: Cheers, -- Shane

2 1

Request for feedback on IETF I-D draft-v6ops-vyncke-balanced-ipv6-security
by Anfinsen, Ragnar 22 Oct '13

22 Oct '13

Dear all, The authors would like to invite the community to review and comment on IETF I-D draft-v6ops-vyncke-balanced-ipv6-security. <snip> Abstract This document describes how an IPv6 residential Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) can have a balanced security policy that allows for a mostly end-to-end connectivity while keeping the major threats outside of the home. It is based on an actual IPv6 deployment by Swisscom and proposes to allow all packets inbound/outbound EXCEPT for some layer-4 ports where attacks and vulnerabilities (such as weak passwords) are well-known. </snip> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-v6ops-vyncke-balanced-ipv6-security We have received feedback from the IETF community that there should not be any explicit list of ports to be blocked in the document. The authors feels that this list should be maintained by a neutral internet body, however we need suggestions from the community on who this could be solved. So basically there are a few options on who the list could be managed; * Let the ISP/Vendor define and maintain the list by them selves. * Let the community maintain such list using consensus. * Ask a neutral internet body (insert favorite here) to manage the list based on the actual threat picture. Please keep in mind that this draft is not meant to define an IDS/IPS style of functionality. We are only looking for how to solve the IPv6 firewall default on/off problem. This draft only covers the default list provided when the customer is begin connected. The customer can, depending on the ISP's policy, fully administer the firewall rules. Best Regards The authors; Eric Vyncke, Cisco Martin Gysi, Swisscom Guillaume Leclanche, Swisscom Ragnar Anfinsen, Altibox

2 1

IPv6 Only Network at RIPE 67
by Marco Hogewoning 21 Oct '13

21 Oct '13

"It's an IPv6 Working Group Initiative!" Dear Colleagues, Following the discussion at RIPE 66, the IPv6 Working Group is happy to provide you with an experimental network that is configured to offer only IPv6. This experimental network is not supported by the RIPE NCC or RIPE 67 Technical Team. We encourage everybody to connect to this network and test any websites, applications, hardware and software, and verify that they operate when an IPv4 address is no longer available. Important: This network is an experiment and is offered on a best-effort basis. We will try to maintain sufficient service levels and are happy to look into and help troubleshoot any issues you may encounter. If you rely on network connectivity for important business, we recommend you connect to the regular RIPE Meeting network. How to connect: - Make sure IPv6 is enabled on your device - Connect to SSID: IPV6ONLYEXP - Enter the password: iknowbesteffort The network provides NAT64 translation to connect to legacy services – please use the name server provided by the network to make use of this feature. We suggest you leave IPv4 enabled as this will be the scenario for most end users. Feedback: Please see Marco Hogewoning or Andrew Yourtchenko for any issues. We invite you to attend the IPv6 Working Group session on Thursday from 9:00-10:30 to discuss the results of this experiment. And of course you are welcome to follow up on this mailing list. Greetings, Marco Hogewoning Andrew Yourtchenko

12 34

[training] RIPE NCC Webinars - new dates
by Training Team 15 Oct '13

15 Oct '13

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce the launch of new dates for our Webinars. The RIPE NCC Webinars are live and take only one hour. You can interact with our trainers without leaving your desk. We focus on the topics and issues most important for LIRs. Register now at https://lirportal.ripe.net/training/courses Participation is limited to 20 people, so don't hesitate if you want to take part! If you have questions, please email <training(a)ripe.net>. We look forward to seeing you online. Kind regards, RIPE NCC Training Services

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: RIPE Atlas - Packet Size Matters
by Mirjam Kuehne 02 Oct '13

02 Oct '13

Dear colleagues, This new RIPE Labs article (contributed by Emile Aben) talks about trying to send large packets over the Internet. Above a certain size, these packets will have to be fragmented, which is known to cause problems. In both IPv4 and IPv6, we see approximately 10% of RIPE Atlas probes that are unsuccessful in pings with fragmented packets, while they don't encounter problems with smaller unfragmented packets. Please find the detailed results on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/ripe-atlas-packet-size-matters Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0