- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

New on RIPE Labs: IPv6 RIPEness Through the Years
by Mirjam Kuehne 13 Apr '17

13 Apr '17

Dear colleagues, In 2010, we introduced IPv6 RIPEness to recognise Local Internet Registries in the RIPE NCC service region that had begun deploying IPv6. Seven years later, we looked at how the IPv6 RIPEness level of the RIPE NCC membership evolved over time. Please find some interesting results on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/ipv6-ripeness-through-the-years Kind regards, Mirjam Kuhne RIPE NCC

1 0

IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions
by Jan Zorz - Go6 13 Apr '17

13 Apr '17

Dear RIPE IPv6 WG, As promised at last RIPE meeting in Madrid, we produced a first draft of "Best Current Operational Practice for operators: IPv6 prefix assignment for end-users - static (stable) or dynamic (non-stable) and what size to choose." The aim of this document is to document the best current operational practice on what size of IPv6 prefix ISPs should assign/delegate to their customers and should they delegate it in a stable, static way or should it change over time. Please find the PDF attached and also accessible at: https://www.sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v1.pdf We are submitting this document to RIPE IPv6 WG (here) to check the technical validity of the document and also get consensus on it. We are also submitting it to RIPE BCOP TF to check if this is a real best operational practice and get consensus on it there. Please, read the document and send back comments to this mailing list. All feedback is more than welcome. On behalf of co-authors, Jan Žorž P.S: This document is not intended to document what practices may be in future and what they might look like, but to reflect the best methods of implementing IPv6 at the time of publication. Updates to this document will be published to reflect changes in best current practices where there are developments in standards and implementations.

13 30

ipv6-wg: SixXS is shutting down
by Pim van Pelt 28 Mar '17

28 Mar '17

Colleagues of RIPE's IPv6 working group, In 1999, Jeroen and I started SixXS, a project which aimed to provide IPv6 connectivity to users who wanted to learn about the network protocol and gain experience operating IPv6 networks. Our vision was to facilitate migration to IPv6 in content and access providers. We were able to provide IPv6 to 50’000+ individual users and companies in 140+ countries, using servers hosted at 40+ Internet providers in 30+ countries. We are incredibly proud of what we’ve accomplished together, and how many people have gotten to know all about IPv6 due to our combined efforts. We have completed a retrospective and rationale document, which details our experience developing and operating the SixXS tunnelbroker over the last 18 years. We have worked through our plans with the many dedicated ISPs that have been involved: https://www.sixxs.net/sunset/ We have reached out to users recently, giving them 6 weeks to make alternative plans. We have chosen a somewhat symbolic date of 2017-06-06 to turn down the SixXS service. Our website will remain as a tombstone. Please feel free to pass this along to any group or list you feel would benefit from it, and reach out to <info(a)sixxs.net> or to myself directly <pim(a)ipng.nl> if you have thoughts you’d like to share between now and then. Kindest Regards, Pim van Pelt and Jeroen Massar (SixXS founders) -- Pim van Pelt <pim(a)ipng.nl> PBVP1-RIPE - http://www.ipng.nl/

3 2

including a CLAT (464XLAT) SSID in RIPE meetings
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 24 Mar '17

24 Mar '17

Hi all, I was suggesting the NCC OPS team to include in the meeting network a VM machine that provides a “CLAT” SSID in the meeting network. They suggested that, same as it was done for the NAT64 SSID, the topic is discussed in the IPv6 WG, as there is not a “formal” procedure to agree on that. So, I checked with the IPv6 WG co-chairs and they asked me to foster this topic in the mailing list … so here we are. While 464XLAT has been extensively tested and deployed in the cellular world, I think most of the wireline and wireless (not cellular) ISPs, haven even heard about it or evaluated the potential for those environments, the same that happens probably with MAP-T/E. Having just a NAT64 gives the impression to the people that today you can deploy IPv6-only access to customers and we know is not the case, because the app. Even if 80% (which will take YEARS to happen) of the app developers “correct” their apps, you will still get many things broken in homes and offices. So is undesirable (in my opinion) to work (only) in that direction. And even more, those apps, hardware, etc., that will never be updated, will never work with a NAT64-only scenario. With 464XLAT (or MAP), you avoid deploying CGN, which is a high cost, and you provide the *same* functionality that today “regular” customers (residential, SMEs, even many big companies that don’t have to export IPv4 services outside their LANs). If we demonstrate this “live” in the RIPE meeting network, I think we can change some of the participant’s minds, and I believe the cost of that is really small, may be a couple of hours of one of your OPS team colleagues, as I’ve already done the work and I’m happy to help them on testing in their lab, document what I’ve done (already working on that), and anything else they may need. Also, if the NAT64 is already there, it becomes much easier, as only the VM with the CLAT is needed (unless you want to “separate” the NAT64 for each SSID). By the way, the plan is to have this also in the next meetings of other RIRs (already planned). So, opinions? 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.

2 2

QUESTION FOR IPV6
by h.essa 22 Mar '17

22 Mar '17

Hi please Iwant spesific answer ; if I become LIR i WILL have package of IPV6 or onley Ipv4/22 THANKS

4 3

New on RIPE Labs: IPv6 Train The Trainer
by Nathalie Trenaman 20 Mar '17

20 Mar '17

Dear colleagues, I just published a RIPE Labs article about our IPv6 Train The Trainer project we are working on in the MENOG and ENOG region. We are very proud of our team of experienced, competent local trainers that are building IPv6 communities and spreading knowledge in their countries. You can read all about it here: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/nathalie_nathalie/ipv6-train-the-trainer <https://labs.ripe.net/Members/nathalie_nathalie/ipv6-train-the-trainer> Nathalie Künneke-Trenaman IPv6 Program Manager RIPE NCC

2 1

RIPE74 - call for presentations
by Jen Linkova 13 Mar '17

13 Mar '17

Hi there ;) If you'd like to present at IPv6 WG sessions at RIPE74 or have some ideas/suggestions for the agenda - please contact ipv6-wg-chairs(a)ripe.net. Thanks and see you in Budapest! --- On behalf of IPv6 WG Chairs, Jen Linkova aka Furry

1 0

Fwd: New I-D: SLAAC and DHCPv6 (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00.txt)
by Fernando Gont 28 Feb '17

28 Feb '17

Folks, FYI: <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00> Abstract: IPv6 has two different mechanisms for dynamic/automatic host configuration: SLAAC and DHCPv6. These two mechanisms allow for the configuration of IPv6 addresses and a number of network parameters. While there is overlap in the parameters that can be configured via these two protocols, different implementations support only subsets of such parameters with either mechanism, or have no support for DHCPv6 at all. This document analyzes a problem that arises from this situation, and mandates that all host implementations support RFC 6105 (DNS options for SLAAC) and the stateless DHCPv6 functionality in RFC 3315. This document is targetted at the IETF v6ops wg. Please send your comments there (if possible), but we'll be happy to discuss this doc on this list, too. Thanks! Fernando (and co-authors) -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: New I-D: SLAAC and DHCPv6 (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00.txt) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 05:13:25 -0300 From: Fernando Gont <fgont(a)si6networks.com> To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops(a)ietf.org> Folks, Based on a recent discussion regarding the problem of conveying DNS information in IPv6 networks, we have submitted this short I-D, in the hopes of getting the aforementioned problem solved. Your feedback will be appreciated. Thanks! Fernando (and co-autors) -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00.txt Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 23:51:03 -0800 From: internet-drafts(a)ietf.org To: Fernando Gont <fgont(a)si6networks.com>, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net>, Madelen Garcia Corbo <madelen.garcia16(a)gmail.com>, Madelen Corbo <madelen.garcia16(a)gmail.com>, Guillermo Gont <ggont(a)si6networks.com> A new version of I-D, draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Fernando Gont and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration Revision: 00 Title: On the Dynamic/Automatic Configuration of IPv6 Hosts Document date: 2017-02-27 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 6 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00… Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00 Abstract: IPv6 has two different mechanisms for dynamic/automatic host configuration: SLAAC and DHCPv6. These two mechanisms allow for the configuration of IPv6 addresses and a number of network parameters. While there is overlap in the parameters that can be configured via these two protocols, different implementations support only subsets of such parameters with either mechanism, or have no support for DHCPv6 at all. This document analyzes a problem that arises from this situation, and mandates that all host implementations support RFC 6105 (DNS options for SLAAC) and the stateless DHCPv6 functionality in RFC 3315. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Commercial Incentives of IPv6 Deployment
by Mirjam Kuehne 22 Feb '17

22 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, Please find a new article on RIPE Labs. It is based on the IPv6 Best Practices document published for the Internet Governance Forum 2016 by Izumi Okutani, Sumon A. Sabir and Wim Degezelle. https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/commercial-incentives-of-ipv6-deployme… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuhne RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Bugfixing IPv6 Deployment Statistics
by Mirjam Kuehne 20 Feb '17

20 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, Unfortunately we found a bug in the dataset that shows the percentage of ASes announcing an IPv6 prefix. Please find the details on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/bugfixing-ipv6-deployment-statistics Kind regards, Mirjam Kuhne RIPE NCC

1 0