- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
by Shane Kerr 25 Sep '09

25 Sep '09

All, I checked Geoff Huston's IPv4 estimate again today: http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html Assuming he's correct, we have 4 more RIPE meetings until IANA runs out of IPv4 addresses: RIPE 59 (2009 Autumn) RIPE 60 (2010 Spring) RIPE 61 (2010 Autumn) RIPE 62 (2011 Spring) And... that's it! IANA is done with IPv4! Then the real fun begins as we enter the RIR IPv4 run-out period. We then have 1 or 2 RIPE meetings until the RIRs run out of IPv4 blocks to hand out: RIPE 63 (2011 Autumn) RIPE 64 (2012 Spring... maybe) So... what is going on in the RIPE IPv6 working group at this critical phase? Since the last RIPE meeting there have been messages from the RIPE NCC about their IPv6ActNow stuff and a survey, and some messages about the minutes. The only thread with any content has been one about IPv6 minimum allocation sizes (thanks Marco!). This is not much. Since this group isn't actually doing anything, I propose we: 1. Shut down this working group after the next RIPE meeting. 2. Move discussion of IPv6 issues to other working groups (since "IPv6 issues" will become "IP issues" very soon anyway). Cheers, -- Shane

18 30

Simulation of the future IPv4 world at RIPE meetings?
by Shane Kerr 25 Sep '09

25 Sep '09

All, Perhaps we should begin preparing ourselves for the future IPv4 world by simulating various levels of IPv4 exhaustion at future RIPE meetings? I can imagine a few stages: 1. We can no longer give public IPv4 addresses to attendees. RFC 1918 for everyone, but with 1:1 mapping to public addresses. 2. The entire meeting gets NAT'ed to a single /24. 3. The entire meeting gets NAT'ed to a single IP address. Of course, this is the easy side. People are already accustomed to living behind NAT with their laptops. (They might be a little more annoyed when Google Maps won't work because there aren't enough ports to handle all the simultaneous open connections.) To be fair, we should also disable IPv4 for access to the meeting itself, as this is the first problem that new entrants to the Internet will have. But this is a huge burden on RIPE NCC staff and remote participants, so this will have to wait. :) -- Shane

7 8

Call for agenda items RIPE59
by David Kessens 10 Sep '09

10 Sep '09

Hi, I would like to hereby solicit your input for agenda items for our working group session for RIPE 59. We are scheduled to meet: Tue Oct 6, 16.00-18.00, Corinthia Hotel, Lisbon, Portugal All items that are of interest for the operational community regarding the deployment of IPv6 will be considered. Whether a proposal is brief or long, with powerpoint or no powerpoint, you have your own presentation or just a suggestion for a presenter, all proposals are welcome. Thanks, David Kessens ---

1 0

Re: ipv6-wg digest, Vol 1 #413 - 3 msgs
by Turchanyi Geza 08 Sep '09

08 Sep '09

Hi, for your MPLS backbone you still could reserve a few IPv4 addresses to use. The first place where you won't have enough addresses will be at your costumer's side. (All ISP has more costumers than backbone routers) Do you know while the Broadband Forum has no clear ideas even now how to support IPv6? This is a bit more important question, I think... Best, Geza On 9/8/09, ipv6-wg-request(a)ripe.net <ipv6-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Send ipv6-wg mailing list submissions to > ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ipv6-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > ipv6-wg-admin(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of ipv6-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Re: LDP over Ipv6 (Isacco Fontana) > 2. Re: Re: LDP over Ipv6 (Gert Doering) > 3. Re: Re: LDP over Ipv6 (Mark Tinka) > > --__--__-- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:36:13 +0200 > From: Isacco Fontana <isacco.fontana(a)trentinonetwork.it> > To: mtinka(a)globaltransit.net > CC: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: LDP over Ipv6 > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > --------------010708050001040605090703 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Do you think we can start discussion with big vendors (Cisco/Juniper) ? > > Mark Tinka ha scritto: >> On Monday 07 September 2009 05:06:47 am Isacco Fontana=20 >> wrote: >> >> =20 >>> I think this (LPD over ipv6) is not a customer >>> (isp/carrier) demand but a real problem when RIRs stop to >>> allocate ipv4 addresses. How ISP/Carriers can build a new >>> mpls backbone If big vendor not support the IPv6 over >>> LDP and isp can't make request for new ipv4 blocks ? >>> =20 >> >> Given how much money vendors are making from MPLS, it might=20 >> be safe to say they'll have support for it when v4 runs out.=20 >> The only question is which customer will be big enough for=20 >> them to get it in there :-). >> >> My main concern is, given how much traffic is being carried=20 >> by MPLS today (for better or worse), the earlier vendors put=20 >> out native support for it in v6, the quicker bugs can be=20 >> worked out. Even if support became available today, I'd=20 >> probably feel safer not deploying it at least 3 releases=20 >> from when it's launched, looking at the current state of v6=20 >> debug (or lack thereof) for folk that have deployed it. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Mark. >> =20 > > > --=20 > > Ing. Isacco Fontana > > Trentino Network s.r.l. > A socio Unico > > Direzione Servizi > Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete > > Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO > Tel (+39) 0461.020200 > Fax (+39) 0461.020201 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Cap. Soc. sottoscritto =A4 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA 0= > 1904880224 E-mail: sede(a)trentinonetwork.it > Societ=E0 soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Auton= > oma di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > --------------010708050001040605090703 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> > <html> > <head> > <meta content=3D"text/html;charset=3DISO-8859-15" > http-equiv=3D"Content-Type"> > </head> > <body bgcolor=3D"#ffffff" text=3D"#000000"> > Do you think we can start discussion with big vendors (Cisco/Juniper) ?<b= > r> > <br> > Mark Tinka ha scritto: > <blockquote cite=3D"mid:200909071256.17702.mtinka@globaltransit.net" > type=3D"cite"> > <pre wrap=3D"">On Monday 07 September 2009 05:06:47 am Isacco Fontana=20 > wrote: > > </pre> > <blockquote type=3D"cite"> > <pre wrap=3D"">I think this (LPD over ipv6) is not a customer > (isp/carrier) demand but a real problem when RIRs stop to > allocate ipv4 addresses. How ISP/Carriers can build a new > mpls backbone If big vendor not support the IPv6 over > LDP and isp can't make request for new ipv4 blocks ? > </pre> > </blockquote> > <pre wrap=3D""> > Given how much money vendors are making from MPLS, it might=20 > be safe to say they'll have support for it when v4 runs out.=20 > The only question is which customer will be big enough for=20 > them to get it in there :-). > > My main concern is, given how much traffic is being carried=20 > by MPLS today (for better or worse), the earlier vendors put=20 > out native support for it in v6, the quicker bugs can be=20 > worked out. Even if support became available today, I'd=20 > probably feel safer not deploying it at least 3 releases=20 > from when it's launched, looking at the current state of v6=20 > debug (or lack thereof) for folk that have deployed it. > > Cheers, > > Mark. > </pre> > </blockquote> > <br> > <br> > <pre class=3D"moz-signature" cols=3D"72">--=20 > > Ing. Isacco Fontana > > Trentino Network s.r.l. > A socio Unico > > Direzione Servizi > Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete > > Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO > Tel (+39) 0461.020200 > Fax (+39) 0461.020201 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Cap. Soc. sottoscritto =A4 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA 0= > 1904880224 E-mail: <a class=3D"moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href=3D"mailto:s= > ede(a)trentinonetwork.it">sede(a)trentinonetwork.it</a> > Societ=E0 soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Auton= > oma di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= > -------------------------------------------------------</pre> > </body> > </html> > > --------------010708050001040605090703-- > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 17:39:12 +0200 > From: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> > To: Isacco Fontana <isacco.fontana(a)trentinonetwork.it> > Cc: mtinka(a)globaltransit.net, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: LDP over Ipv6 > > Hi, > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 05:36:13PM +0200, Isacco Fontana wrote: >> Do you think we can start discussion with big vendors (Cisco/Juniper) ? > > Of course. Go to your vendor, tell him "we are not going to buy your > gear if you are not shipping LDP-over-IPv6"! > > If you're waving with enough money, they might even listen. But as long > as everybody is just grumbling to himself, the vendors might truthfully > say "noone has asked yet". > > Gert > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 3 > From: Mark Tinka <mtinka(a)globaltransit.net> > Reply-To: mtinka(a)globaltransit.net > Organization: Global Transit International > To: Isacco Fontana <isacco.fontana(a)trentinonetwork.it> > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: LDP over Ipv6 > Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:08:11 +0800 > Cc: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net > > --nextPart1744977.BctdEMcGiX > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Content-Disposition: inline > > On Monday 07 September 2009 11:36:13 pm Isacco Fontana=20 > wrote: > >> Do you think we can start discussion with big vendors >> (Cisco/Juniper) ? > > Gert is right, the more we "collectively" speak to our=20 > vendors, the quicker they will likely implement the=20 > technology (it's not new, it's already been documented). > > =46or instance, I've been pushing Cisco and Juniper for an=20 > MPLS control plane for v6 for nearly 2 years now, but this=20 > isn't enough. Vendors tend to listen if: > > a) there is a collective. > > or > > b) as Gert and myself have already mentioned, you're waving > wads of cash their way. > > Cheers, > > Mark. > > --nextPart1744977.BctdEMcGiX > Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc > Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iQIcBAABAgAGBQJKpa57AAoJEGcZuYTeKm+GhrgQAKRZt6scEjKCuwXqcJizc4AX > bv5D27EYduzotX1POj1PM/VCQmt/PunMZJ9V0BIyYiNKu2k7tR+x7+Ki/kM0GrvZ > Bhj2vyXyXCOx41DFfL8Qrj3htJolNTj5cLbuxSq/F5NmgD2XsqxtbOd+orGLu4Ch > BzJG1/Rf+sotzobSVmrOB+47LCNrAbXYLH2MseFFw/JeMQUK+7XOX7gqx8V5qtjs > Sm8ovQEoYvguelW79mZxwH35SeGZO44m2SJnJxX8o21GG+jiN6PY1q3haJO10ycN > dg7ZKic2r9g9h40T6ajeCCI5zgGXRUzrXJ9eXCaAbaxJfuKt/dOzdYBDwCkldYmo > 9sFQKkNmTzV/4uPDlrxPPfLEtlQUdcXqQVdjeWqoGPOdrLCZlV+GrpjZKBB5Qm9H > pR7TnxP8e1YVk4s+SqCW0f09PRn0Z+LJOonYyRHN9266WduNRfMcm+MNomRkeIlN > fNl9aDAPer2tzrxbLTbUN+fPMNZJy32FwLuoumkQ80ts9q1/YVweb5pODPwlrBEk > 4lxQusghMw8Kx9CXk2TaZ9MzOFr7KXrOa+j6r+RBBjhIJDDrQcj96LVnBmfV4Mn2 > z1DuK4SzOF1NuCVgy3tJzSybYneJpf1bkB5gIL50nngBlnjV36CWSEyObjdxUE4n > dED+kJlqDSaPTMwobLp3 > =xvej > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --nextPart1744977.BctdEMcGiX-- > > > > > End of ipv6-wg Digest >

1 0

IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey Closed
by Paul Rendek 15 Jul '09

15 Jul '09

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, The IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey, conducted by TNO and GNKS Consult in cooperation with the RIPE NCC and sponsored by the European Commission, has now closed. More than 600 members of the RIPE community responded to the survey, which aims to collect data on the current and future use of IPv6 throughout the RIPE NCC service region. We wish to thank those from the community who took the time to complete the survey. The results of the IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey will be presented and discussed at RIPE 59 which takes place in Lisbon, Portugal from 5-9 October. More information and registration details are available at: http://ripe59.ripe.net/ The results of this survey will also be published on IPv6 Act Now website at: http://www.ipv6actnow.org If you have any questions about the survey or the results, please contact <ncc(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Paul Rendek Head of External Relations and Communications RIPE NCC

1 0

Mimimum allocation sizes
by Marco Hogewoning 12 Jul '09

12 Jul '09

Hi there, Quick question which google can't seem to find an answer, can anybody tell where I can find a list of IPv6 blocks managed by the different registries and what the minimum allocation size is. I'm specifically looking for those blocks which contain allocations smaller then a /32. I've traced down RIPE and ARIN, but the other three seem to be hard to find. TIA, MarcoH

7 7

IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey: Deadline Extended!
by Paul Rendek 06 Jul '09

06 Jul '09

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, The deadline for responding to the IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey has been extended to Friday, 10 July 2009. This survey is being conducted by TNO and GNKS Consult, working with the RIPE NCC and sponsored by the European Commission. The aim is to collect data on the current and future use of IPv6 throughout the RIPE NCC service region, and all members of the RIPE community are encouraged to participate. You can access the survey at: http://is-nri.com/take/?i=150597&h=1GwWe3dXXMcPrRrOw5s2yg The survey is composed of 16 questions and can be completed in 10-15 minutes. Results will be presented and discussed at RIPE 59 and published on IPv6 Act Now: http://ipv6actnow.org Please note that all data will be kept confidential at all times, and will only be disclosed on an aggregated level. For more information on the IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey, please see: http://www.ripe.net/news/ipv6-deployment-monitoring-survey.html We appreciate your time and interest in completing this survey. If you have any questions concerning the survey, please send an email to <info(a)gnksconsult.com>. Regards, Paul Rendek Head of External Relations and Communications RIPE NCC

1 0

Last Call: IPv6 Working Group Minutes RIPE 58
by David Kessens 30 Jun '09

30 Jun '09

Hi, I just received the draft minutes of our working group session during RIPE 58. I would appreciate if you could take a look at them. Please send requests for correction directly to me and Susannah and we will make sure they will get included in the final version. The minutes will be declared final by Friday July 10 if no comments are received that require another last call. A big thanks to Vesna for the detailed and high quality minutes! David Kessens --- IPv6 Working Group Minutes, RIPE58 Date: Tue, May 5, 2009, 16:00-18:00 Chair: David Kessens <david.kessens(a)nsn.com> Minutes: Vesna Manojlovic, RIPE NCC Jabber monitor: Fergal Cunningham, RIPE NCC Transcript available at: http://ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/steno-transcripts.php?steno=Main-0905… Webcast available at: rtsp://qtstreamer.ripe.net/ripe-58/ipv6-wg.mov A. Administrative Stuff David Kessens (WG chair) went through the agenda: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/ipv6-wg/2009/msg00009.html B. Developments/Initiatives Regarding IPv6 in the RIPE Region and Beyond B1: IPv6 peering BoF Paul Hoogsteder, Breedband Delft (community network) Paul announced that an informal session between old and new IPv6 peers would take place on Wednesday, 16:00 near the cloakroom. B2: Rumy Kanis, RIPE NCC, Training manager Rumy made a brief announcement that the RIPE NCC Training Department is busy recording testimonials from people in the community who have hands-on experience deploying IPv6. She asked if anyone is interested in being filmed and interviewed about their experiences with IPv6, they should contact training(a)ripe.net C. RIPE NCC IPv6 update http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/content/presentations/er-ipv6-rip… Erik Romijn, Information Services Erik announced that all of the RIPE NCC's external services have been available over IPv6 since January 2009. Lorenzo Colitti (Google) mentioned that one service does not support IPv6 - the socks proxy. It's internal only though. Erik said that he was only referring to public services. Patrik Falstrom asked if ROSIE (the RIPE Meeting website) counts as a non-external service? Erik responded that all ROSIE content can be accessed over IPv6 through the www.ripe.net web page, so you can actually see everything on ROSIE without having IPv4. Mohsen Souissi, AFNIC, asked how do you think you can motivate the operators managing the reverse delegations for IPv6 to get the transfer active for you so that your Hostcount++ will work in IPv6? Do you have any strategy to get it better than zero? Erik said that the first step is to get a zone transfer from a TLD. Mohsen said that the first step is reverse delegation. Andrei Robachevski, RIPE NCC, said that, for IPv6, we do not reverse DNS. We have to do this for IPv4. Because we can't transfer all the forward zones, we are just numerating all reverse zones. We can't do the same for IPv6 because IPv6 reverse DNS is big and sparse. So, the real problem here is that we have difficulty in actually transferring forward zones and therefore, we have difficulty counting IPv6 addresses there. He continued that the RIPE NCC's strategy is to convince operators to open the Access Control Lists (ACLs) for RIPE NCC IP addresses the zones can be transferred. For those operators who have some privacy issues or other considerations, we have developed a do-it-yourself kit to give to ccTLD operators. This software will count the hosts, anonymise the data and ship data back to us. An attendee asked that, since this is related to forward DNS, do you think it's a good idea to contact ccTLDs? Andrei responded that the RIPE NCC is using this idea but it's not 100% successful. David Kessens asked if there was an explanation for the huge number AAAA requests? Anand Buddhdev (RIPE NCC). Those quad-A queries are anomalous. They originate from broken versions of BIND. We suspect somebody is abusing them to send queries to the root. Gert Doering asked what about the RIPE NCC's internal network and the workstations? Macs are v6 capable. Are you keeping it on, between people working there and your internal services, or are you afraid of that? Erik said that on the RIPE NCC's wireless network, IPv6 is switched on and there are no problems. Gert said that that was his experience too: it just works. D. Google IPv6 update Lorenzo Colitti, Google Lorenzo explained that public IPv4 address space is going to go away. There is a business case for IPv6 because the alternatives are expensive. There is also an opportunity here - there is going to be a large pool of devices that will only be accessible and able to access using IPv6. If you are a content provider, then you might want to talk to them which means you need to have IPv6. It took google about a year-and-a-half to go from zero to being able to serve most services over IPv6. And we keep adding new ones. And with a very, very small team - just a handful of people. He continued, saying that if you are an exchange point operator or if you are an ISP, please do not charge separately for IPv6. Please absorb this cost in other ways because charging separately will hinder adoption and users and traffic can appear overnight. Extra data - measuring IPv6 query requests over IPv6: 0.25% of the total is over IPv6. 0.10% is over native, or not tunneled, IPv6. 2/3 is the proportion of requests that we serve as Google over IPv6. So two thirds of native IPv6 Internet appears to be enrolled in "Google over IPv6" program. Mat Ford (ISOC) commented that the "Google over IPv6 program" does not scale. He asked at which number of your users who would be affected by not being able to reach www.google.com over IPv6 do you say "I don't care"? Lorenzo answered that he did not don't but the magic number seems to be 10%. It depends on how situation evolves. We need to see better data on the "brokeness". It's hard to measure. Kostas Zorbadelos (OTC Greece) asked do you use the same load-balancing mechanism in IPv6 for IPv4. Lorenzo answered that Google tries to use the same infrastructure for both IPv4 & IPv6. The load-balancers are the same. Deploying separate hardware for IPv6 is not a good idea. Jasper Wonnink (fix6.net, via Jabber)asked when will the Google bot start crawling over IPv6? When there is AAAA available? Lorenzo stated that Google is working on this. CK Claffy said that he objected to Lorenzo's statement "Just because we can't see the traffic, that doesn't mean that IPv6 is not really happening". As a scientist, the traffic is the only measure that IPv6 is really being used. He said he knows how hard it is to measure the traffic and to get the traffic numbers but we should not be believing PowerPoint slides. This has has led us into a global telecommunications crisis, because we believed in numbers like "traffic is doubling every 90 days". That's a global example of how important is it to get traffic numbers, and what happens if you don't. He continued that the EU is going to conduct a survey. He said he wanted to make it clear that a survey is a substitute for the truth. It's not actual data. Lorenzo responded that CK was correct. He said that what he meant was do not expect smooth growth of IPv6 traffic. We are moving traffic from IPv4 to IPv6 because the user stacks, all else being equal, will prefer IPv6 to IPv4. KC said that he thought it would be good if Lorenzo's graph about IPv6 traffic had a Y axis with numbers and labels so that I could tell it wasn't going from 0 to 0.002. Lorenzo noted this. Gil Mason (Altna, via Jabber) asked how Google defines production quality? When is a network good enough to to be allowed to connect to Google over IPv6? Lorenzo responded that when we have a good connectivity and when the network is well supported. We like to see that the infrastructure is common, so that we don't get IPv6-specific failures. Randy Bush (IIJ) said that measurable spikes can be seen, as large customers change something - the way DNS resolves, client roll-outs, gateway services etc. He continued that it depends on what kind of electronic microscope you are using. There's very little traffic. Google's measurements are as useful as any other I've seen. Lorenzo said that 0.2% is coming over IPv6. There are daily patterns, not only spikes. KC added that there are no *numbers* in this data. we need to acknowledge what is the limitation of the data we are making available and what data we would need to answer the question for real. Lorenzo answered that client penetration is also a reasonable measure, or at least a measure we want to track. Mohsen Souissi said congratulations but the presentation is not serving the community because, if taken out of context, it does not make clear that this is just one of the measurements tools, and that you do not see all the traffic, nor other servers that get deployed every day. Lorenzo: These numbers only reflect IPv6 clients connected to our web site. Jasper asked if Google would roll out IPv6 for www.youtube and when? Lorenzo said that Google was working on all services but there are limitations in the hardware developer's time. It will come at some point. E. Report(s) about *actual* v6 traffic volume as compared to v4? *what's real* out there, not what's on Powerpoint? (input from the audience) Martin J. Levy,n Hurricane Electric http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/content/presentations/hurricane-6… Martin explained that real traffic numbers are available in my slides from the Google IPv6 conference. He continued that in his network, they do not have the same customer base on IPv4 and IPv6. Our stats about IPv6 can not be compared with IPv4. I want to show 6to4 and Teredo traffic. 6to4 is not a bad protocol. Teredo is a horrible protocol. On our backbone, we introduced several 6to4 relays, and localizing traffic made a big difference. It peaks at 20 Megabit. On Teredo, we were seeing hundreds of megs of Teredo traffic moving around. We deployed a Teredo service over the whole network, from 3 to 13, geographically dispersed. We were peaking around 150 megabits. Now we have 200-300 Megs of predominantly end user to end user traffic. The easiest way to get rid of the Teredo, is to enable IPv6. It may be a great measure of how many people want to access v6 but don't have it. An attendee asked how can we get rid of the horrible Teredo protocol? Martin answered that running stable relays will get us though this transition period. Randy Bush (IJJ) said that the optimist thinks the glass is half full; the pessimist thinks the glass is half empty. The engineer knows the glass is too big. Martin answered the majority. We had to run 6to4 on every Teredo relay, on the same box, or next to each other. An attendee commented that he does that with a dedicated connection between them. F. Global IPv6 routing table status http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/content/presentations/v6-routing-… Gert Doering Gert gave the routing table report. He asked are we growing fast enough? and said no, we are not. David Kessens said that the advantage is that we have time to talk about that issue at the next meeting. H. Overview of ISOC's current activity with regard to IPv6 deployment http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/content/presentations/isoc-ipv6.p… Matt Ford, ISOC I. Proposed EU IPv6 survey http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/content/presentations/proposed-eu… Maarten Botterman GNKS Consult Maarten explained that there was a commitment from the government to help make this happen, but for them to know what to do, they need to know where they can help the best. He said that the European Commission has contracted TNO to carry out deployment monitoring activity. There will be a survey conducted in June. He said that a draft survey is available for feedback. The results on an aggregate level will be public, and will be used for information to the European Commission on their policy preparation. Please contact maarten @ gnksconsult.com for more information. Mohsen Souissi (AFNIC) asked if there is any initiative to harmonise all those various measurements to have common understanding about what do we measure, what the methodology is etc? The tool was published at the last RIPE meeting. There may be many others. I feel frustrated, because there is no overall picture about who measures what. Maarten agreed. Leo Vegoda (ICANN) asked if Maarten meant RIPE NCC members only, or the 15,000 other organisations that have resources from RIPE NCC, but are not members? Maarten responded that he also meant non-members; anyone in the RIPE community. Leo said the RIPE Community are not the only people who are operating networks in Europe. Will you take a list from ARIN too? Maarten said no, the scope of this survey is limited. David Kessens made a few final comments: we are an operators' group, a technical forum, but it's also important to make sure that policy makers, decision makers and governments are well informed about the challenges that we are going to face in the next few years regarding this IPv4 exhaustion. He added that this is one of those projects that can contribute tremendously there, because it's basically an interface between those two worlds. So, I would very much like to encourage people to fill out the survey. -------------------------

1 0

IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey Reminder
by Paul Rendek 30 Jun '09

30 Jun '09

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, This is a reminder that the IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey is online, and we encourage all members of the RIPE community to participate. The final date for submitting a response is Friday, 3 July 2009. You can access the survey at: http://is-nri.com/take/?i=150597&h=1GwWe3dXXMcPrRrOw5s2yg The survey is being conducted by TNO and GNKS Consult, working with the RIPE NCC and sponsored by the European Commission. The aim of the survey is to collect data on the current and future use of IPv6 throughout the RIPE NCC service region. The survey is composed of 16 questions and can be completed in 10-15 minutes. Results will be presented and discussed at RIPE 59 and published on IPv6 Act Now: http://ipv6actnow.org For more information on the IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey, please see: http://www.ripe.net/news/ipv6-deployment-monitoring-survey.html We appreciate your time and interest in completing this survey. If you have any questions concerning the survey, please send an email to <info(a)gnksconsult.com >. Regards, Paul Rendek Head of External Relations and Communications RIPE NCC

1 0

IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey Now Underway!
by Paul Rendek 19 Jun '09

19 Jun '09

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, As announced at RIPE 58, TNO and GNKS Consult are working with the RIPE NCC to conduct a survey, sponsored by the European Commission, on the current and future use of IPv6 throughout the RIPE NCC service region. The IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey is now online, and we encourage all members of the RIPE community to participate: http://is-nri.com/take/?i=150597&h=1GwWe3dXXMcPrRrOw5s2yg The purpose of the survey is to better understand where the community is moving, and what can be done to ensure the Internet community is ready for the widespread adoption of IPv6. The survey was developed in consultation with members of the RIPE community, and is inspired by the 2008 survey conducted by ARIN and CAIDA in North America. It is sponsored by the European Commission, which has actively supported the adoption of IPv6, in the interests of innovation and the continuing competitiveness of European industry. We encourage all organisations in the RIPE NCC service region to participate in this survey, which we hope will establish a comprehensive view of present IPv6 penetration and future plans for IPv6 deployment. By making the survey design similar to the ARIN/CAIDA survey, we hope that the results will contribute to a better global picture of current and future IPv6 deployment. The survey is composed of 16 questions and can be completed in 10-15 minutes. For those without IPv6 allocations or assignments, or who have not yet deployed IPv6, the questions will be fewer in number. The survey will close on 3 July 2009. Results of the IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey will be presented and discussed at RIPE 59, which will be held 5-9 October in Lisbon, Portugal. Results will also be published on IPv6 Act Now: http://ipv6actnow.org Please provide your name and contact information on the survey form if you wish to receive the draft survey analysis when available. Please also indicate whether you are willing to share additional data with the TNO and GNKS Consult IPv6 Deployment Monitoring team. We appreciate your time and interest in completing this survey. If you have any questions concerning the survey, please send an email to <info(a)gnksconsult.com >. Regards, Paul Rendek Head of External Relations and Communications RIPE NCC

5 5