October 2017 - ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Looking for a secon opinion on using ULA along with GUA for residential access
by Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN 01 Nov '17

01 Nov '17

Hello, During the evaluation of a new model of CPE for our residential access we found one of the suppliers providing an option to announce a ULA prefix in addition to the GUA prefix obtained from DHCP-PD. I would like some second opinions regarding auch a practice. >From my point of view, if ULA is enabled: - it allows the client's LAN to stay IPv6-enabled even when the internet connection is down. It is a simpler version compared to the use of link-locals. - if the "auto" version of the setting is used, the ULA prefix will risk changing when changing the CPE, which is less than optimal. If ULA is disabled: - business as usual; when internet is down the client will only have RFC1918 (v4) + link-local (v6) So, is it worth enabling an additional ULA on the LAN ? -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN

3 2

Happy Eyeballs reporting
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 27 Oct '17

27 Oct '17

Hi all, After my presentation this week on Dubai about this topic, I got several folks telling me that they believe this is very interesting. Here is again the link to the document: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-palet-ietf-v6ops-he-reporting-00 And to the slides from this week: https://ripe75.ripe.net/presentations/129-ipv6-hev2-v2.pdf The major concern is privacy issues. My response to that is that we have the same when we log other protocols, including CGN, etc., in addition to that, for signaling the ISP that there is a problem, we don’t really need to log the complete source IPv6 address that doesn’t work, just the prefix, and also, we have a simpler alternative. If the logging is only for the destination IPv6 address and not the source one, I think in a big % of the cases, is sufficient for the ISP to know that there is some problem from its network to the failed destination (so the ISP could replicate the failure from any other source address in its network to the same destination). This logic, I believe, will only fail if the problem is specific to the “interior” of the customer network, which will be out of the scope of the ISP (and even do, the ISP will be able to tell the user --- hey this destination works from my network, not from yours, so something got broken inside your network). I’m going to submit a new version of this document on Sunday, so if you have inputs, please, let me know ASAP. Thanks in advance for your inputs ! Regards, Jordi ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

1 0

Unique /64 per host
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 25 Oct '17

25 Oct '17

This is the draft we mention in the WG meeting: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-ho… Regards, Jordi ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

2 1

RIPE75 - IPv6 fragmentation tool - Grafical solution - Opensource
by Stefan Jakob 25 Oct '17

25 Oct '17

Hi IPv6 Folks, Two colleagues of mine (Lorenz Schäfer under guidance of Jürgen Geinitz) created a grafical open source tool (python tk) to play around with your IPv6 space. The tool is inspired by Painting by Numbers presented at RIPE68 by Helge Holz. [1] --- README.md snip --- Description: This tool should make assigning of IPv6-address-blocks more manageable and easier to comprehend by showing the availible address space in an 8-bit matrix. In the left frame you can create radiobuttons, assigning them a name, colour and finally a certain address-space, which will be colored in the matrix and displayed in a label accordingly. --- README.md snap --- Since I am attending RIPE75 and some people didn't know about the tool, you chance to get a live demo today (maybe after the IPv6 WG) # long URL https://github.com/lorenz-schaefer/IPv6-address-space-fragmentation-tool # short URL https://goo.gl/KmyBLZ Rgds, SJ [1] https://ripe68.ripe.net/presentations/344-Painting_by_Numbers.pdf Beste Grüße, Stefan Jakob -- DENIC eG, Kaiserstraße 75 - 77, 60329 Frankfurt am Main, GERMANY E-Mail: jakob(a)denic.de, Fon: +49 69 27235-142, Fax: -235 https://www.denic.de Angaben nach § 25a Absatz 1 GenG: DENIC eG (Sitz: Frankfurt am Main) Vorstand: Helga Krüger, Martin Küchenthal, Andreas Musielak, Dr. Jörg Schweiger Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Thomas Keller Eingetragen unter Nr. 770 im Genossenschaftsregister, Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main

1 0

Captive portal over IPv6
by Shahin Gharghi 24 Oct '17

24 Oct '17

Dear all, I have a public WiFi service which connects people to internet via hotspot (captive portal). I want to assign IPv6 addresses to users in dual-stack, but my captive portal doesn't support. Do you know any captive portal that supports IPv6? Both hardware and software models works for me. Thank you -- Shahin Gharghi

2 1

RIPE74 meeting minutes
by Jen Linkova 24 Oct '17

24 Oct '17

I've just realized (as I do every 6 months....) that I should have sent a link for the meeting minutes from the previous meeting... Here we are: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ipv6/minutes/ipv6-working-group-mi… Please review and let us know if anything should be changed. Thanks! -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry on behalf of IPV6 WG chairs

1 0

IPv6 Radius Attributes
by Shahin Gharghi 21 Oct '17

21 Oct '17

Dear all, Do you have any idea how many IPv6 Radius Attributes are supported by Cisco? I need to send Framed-IPv6-Prefix (Attr 97) to radius server or find a way to send assigned IPv6 of PPPoE connection(both SLAAC and DHCPv6) to radius server. -- Shahin Gharghi

2 2

RIPE-690 document is now published...
by Jan Zorz - Go6 20 Oct '17

20 Oct '17

Dear RIPE IPv6 WG community, In past year you have heard a lot about this "Best Current Operational Practice for Operators: IPv6 prefix assignment for end-users - persistent vs non-persistent, and what size to choose" BCOP document draft that many of you also co-authored or contributed to - and I would like to thank chairs of IPv6 WG and also the whole community for all hard work and time, put in this BCOP. The document was recently published as RIPE-690!!! https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-690/ Congratulations to everyone and thnx also to RIPE NCC staff for transforming the draft into a RIPE document!!! Cheers and see you all in Dubai next week, Jan Zorz

4 3

Fwd: [Int-area] Liaison statement received from ITU-T regarding a "Reference Model of IPv6 Addressing Plan for Internet of Things Deployment"
by Rob Evans 05 Oct '17

05 Oct '17

Hi, This seems to cover areas where RIPE IPv6/IoT people might have some expertise. Cheers, Rob Forwarded message: > From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan(a)gmail.com> > To: 6lo(a)ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6(a)ietf.org>, 6tisch(a)ietf.org, int-area > <int-area(a)ietf.org>, int-dir(a)ietf.org, iot-dir(a)ietf.org, its(a)ietf.org, > lp-wan(a)ietf.org, lwip(a)ietf.org > Subject: [Int-area] Liaison statement received from ITU-T regarding a > "Reference Model of IPv6 Addressing Plan for Internet of Things > Deployment" > Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 22:53:45 -0400 > > Hi all, > The IETF has received a liaison statement from the ITU-T that their > Study Group SG20 is inviting inputs from the IETF regarding a work > item titled "Reference Model of IPv6 Addressing Plan for Internet of > Things > Deployment” and the deadline for providing inputs is 2018/01/28. The > statement can be found at > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1546/ > > I have no further info and I am trying to get access to the referenced > documents. I just want to provide a heads up while that is in process. > > Thanks > Suresh > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area(a)ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

5 5