- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

New on RIPE Labs: Simplifying IPv6 Addressing for Customers - Part 1
by Mirjam Kuehne 11 Jul '17

11 Jul '17

Dear colleagues, One of the main issues when an ISP is planning to deliver IPv6 services is to decide how to address the customers. In this first of two articles Jordi Palet Martinez looks into one of the issues related to IPv6 addressing for customers: the value of “persistence”. https://labs.ripe.net/Members/jordipaletm/simplifying-ipv6-addressing-of-cu… Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

2 2

IPv6 operations discussions
by Lee Howard 16 Jun '17

16 Jun '17

The IETF v6ops working group is chartered to improve the operation of IPv6. We have several active documents right now that would benefit from broader operator feedback. For instance, there is current active discussion on: Requirements for IPv6 Routers <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs> This document provides a list of requirements for operators’ routers. Is it clear and exhaustive? Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis> What transition technologies should all CPE vendors put in their devices? The current version proposes all of: 464xlat, DS-Lite, lw4o6, MAP-E, MAP-T, 6in4, and 6rd, as well as IPv4 multicast over IPv6. There are related documents that split out some requirements for further discussion. Happy Eyeballs Version 2: Better Connectivity Using Concurrency <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis> Is this a useful update to the existing Happy Eyeballs specification (rfc6555)? Should we update Happy Eyeballs? Considerations For Using Unique Local Addresses <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-considerations> Are ULAs useful, or are they a natural and risky predecessor to IPv6 NAT? It would help future IPv6 operations if current operators would read these documents and comment on them on the mailing list: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops Note Well that comments become part of the IETF record, and thank you for them. Lee v6ops co-chair

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Finding Open DNS Resolvers on IPv6
by Mirjam Kuehne 16 Jun '17

16 Jun '17

Dear colleagues, Please read this new article by Luuk Hendriks on how to find open DNS resolvers on IPv6: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/luuk_hendriks/finding-open-dns-resolvers-on-i… Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: What Stops IPv6 Traffic in a Dual-stack ISP?
by Mirjam Kuehne 14 Jun '17

14 Jun '17

Dear colleagues, Enric Pujol, network data analyst, is looking at barriers for dual-stack ISPs to carry IPv6 traffic: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/what-stops-ipv6-traffic-in-a-dual-stac… Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

1 0

plea for increase participation in v6ops/IETF
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 13 Jun '17

13 Jun '17

Hello all, At the last LACNIC event, I mentioned on a couple of occasions the need for ISPs in the region, especially small and medium-sized ones, to participate in the decisions taken in the IETF IPv6 Operations Working Group (v6ops). I’m sending this here as well, as I believe the situation also apply to this region. When I asked among the attendees how many participate in v6ops, only one person raised his hand. What does it mean to participate in the mailing list? Follow some emails (sometimes only 1-2 a week, sometimes they can be several in a day), and therefore learn about what is being discussed and give your opinion and, given that decisions are made by Consensus, influence them. What consequences has NOT participating? That decisions against your interests/opinions could be taken, and obviously do not consider your perspective in the standards. Generally large operators are involved, which implies that your interests are not sufficiently represented, and in general are contrary to yours. Your "vote/opinion" is not worth more than yours, but the big one is present and the small/medium NO! I give you a very concrete example. The serious problem that small and medium ISPs have, is to continue offering IPv6 and IPv4 services to their customers, when they already do not have IPv4 addresses. Only the biggest ISPs have a great purchasing power and can influence the manufacturers to do for them what they need. One possibility to solve it, extending the life of IPv4, but not necessarily deploying IPv6, is using CGN, which is also very expensive, and breaks many things. The solution is simple. Deploying IPv6-only services in the last mile, which involves using transition mechanisms, such as 464XLAT that has been deployed on millions of smartphones worldwide, so that applications continue to operate transparently as they "believe" they have IPv4. What is the problem, then? That manufacturers of CPEs are based on an old specification (RFC7084) that does not contemplate these transition mechanisms, so when a small/medium ISP asks a manufacturer for a firmware upgrade or a new CPE, they do not include that solution and perhaps they offer it with an extra cost. In my view, this should change, and that is why I am working on a number of documents, including RFC7084-bis (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis/), To update this situation, but there is opposition from large ISPs and virtually no small/medium "talks" about it, and in fact these large ISPs deny the situation. In addition, the document also specifies the "automated" support of those cases in which the user installs other routers (which is very common as we all know, and will be more and more in IPv6, IoT, etc.), behind the router installed by the ISP, through homenet (HNCP). I am not asking for your support for my documents, but for understanding the problem and the solution that is being proposed and/or possible new ones, and for the opinion of not only those very few “big ones”, but also of many small and medium, who are most affected. If you want to subscribe to this list, search for "subscribing" at: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops You can see the files of the discussion in: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=v6ops I remind you that participating in the IETF does not require a presence in the meetings, as consensus is agreed in the list. 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 use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: 12 Steps to Enable IPv6 in an ISP Network
by Mirjam Kuehne 08 Jun '17

08 Jun '17

Dear colleagues, Please find this new article by Jordi Palet Martinez on RIPE Labs: "12 Steps to Enable IPv6 in an ISP Network" https://labs.ripe.net/Members/jordipaletm/12-steps-to-enable-ipv6-in-an-isp… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuhne RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: 6th Anniversary of IPv6 Day and the next RIPE NCC Hackathon
by Mirjam Kuehne 06 Jun '17

06 Jun '17

Dear colleagues, We're celebrating the 6th anniversary of IPv6 Day with two IPv6 related articles on RIPE Labs: 6th Anniversary of the World IPv6 Day: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/nathalie_nathalie/6th-anniversary-of-the-worl… and Save the Date for the RIPE NCC IPv6 Hackathon in October: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/becha/save-the-date-ripe-ncc-hackathon-versio… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuhne RIPE NCC

1 0

New IPv6 Support for Governments Programme
by Mirjam Kuehne 17 May '17

17 May '17

Dear colleagues, Governments planning IPv6 deployments can now access assistance through our new IPv6 Support for Governments Programme. This is part of our ongoing efforts to work more closely with governments and encourage IPv6 adoption throughout our service region. We have explained our approach in more detail in a RIPE Labs article here: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/arne_kiessling/ipv6-support-for-governments-p… We have also documented this on our website here: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/ipv6-for-governments If you represent a government that is planning to make an IPv6 allocation request, please get in touch with us by emailing <IPv6forGov(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuhne RIPE NCC

1 0

IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document - draft v.2 for review.
by Jan Zorz - Go6 16 May '17

16 May '17

Dear RIPE IPv6 WG, As promised at BCOP TF meeting on Monday, the co-authors present at the RIPE74 meeting gathered on Tuesday afternoon and did some editorial work, addressing majority of the comments and suggestions we got from the community based on first version of the draft. Draft version 2 is now available for reading at https://sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v2.pdf We'll have a short "lightning talk" in Thursday IPv6 WG session, please go and read the document (those that have enough time and energy), so we get more feedback and input for further improvements (if needed). See you all in couple of hours! For co-authors team, Jan Žorž

7 15

RIPE73 meeting minutes
by Jen Linkova 08 May '17

08 May '17

Hello, I know I should have sent this email long time ago but better late than never... Anyway, the meeting minutes for RIPE73 IPv6 WG sessions could be found at https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ipv6/minutes/minutes-from-the-ipv6… Please review them (especially if you said anything at the mic), and let us know if there are any errors/omissions. Again, sorry for being late with sending this email. I'd also like to thank RIPE NCC for providing the meeting minutes! -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry on behalf of IPv6 WG chairs.

1 0