- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Multi-Stakeholder Forum on Internet Standards Deployment
by MARTIN Ruediger 27 Nov '25

27 Nov '25

Hi all, The European Commission is setting up a Multi-Stakeholder Forum on Internet Standards Deployment, looking into strengthening the deployment of existing standards and operational best practices in four areas: - IPv6 - modern E-mail communication standards - DNS security - Routing security & hygiene The initiative was presented during its conceptual phase at RIPE 90 in the cooperation working group. The idea is to bring together valuable deployment expertise to capture proven approaches in multi-stakeholder guidelines that support broad and coordinated adoption across sectors. Participation is open to anyone with relevant experience and interest. More information and how to join: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/european-commission-seeks-par… Some of you may have seen this elsewhere; sharing it here as well since it may be relevant to this list. Best, Rüdiger ---- Rüdiger MARTIN Internet Governance [cid:image001.jpg@01DC5FB5.FCCF5E00] European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content and Technology (CONNECT) L-51 DCS B-1049 Brussels/Belgium +32 2 298 82 50 Ruediger.MARTIN(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:Ruediger.MARTIN@ec.europa.eu>

1 0

Draft minutes IPv6 working group sessionat ripe 91
by Raymond Jetten 21 Nov '25

21 Nov '25

Dear IPv6 working group, The draft minutes for the IPv6 WG session at RIPE 91 are ready, A very big thank you to the scribe Kjerstin Burdiek for doing them. Please take a look and let us know if you would like any changes. If there are no comments, they will be published on the website on Friday, 28 November. Date: Thursday, 23 October 09:00 - 10:30 (UTC+3) Chairs: Christian Seitz, Raymond Jetten, Wolfgang Tremmel Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek Status: Draft View the recordings View the stenography transcript View the chat logs 1. Welcome and announcement of the new co-chair The presentation is available at: https://ripe91.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/sessions/37/RTKFBS/ Co-chair Christian Seitz opened the session and introduced the agenda. The minutes from RIPE 90 were approved. Co-chair Raymond Jetten's term had ended, and Wolfgang Tremmel was selected as the new co-chair. However, co-chair Nico Schotellius had resigned, so Raymond Jetten would take over his term until RIPE 94. 2. IPv6: What does it cost to do nothing? Dmitry Melnik, RIPE NCC The presentation is available at: https://ripe91.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/sessions/37/8YZNF9/ Dmitry explained the long-term costs of not implementing IPv6. He noted that the average IPv6 adoption rate worldwide was about 42%. He explained how a number of organisations were investing in NAT, which was only a temporary solution to the IPv4 shortage. Dmitry pointed out that it made no sense to try to solve the IPv4 shortage when there was more than enough IPv6. Some of the costs from not switching to IPv6 included leasing IPv4, operational costs and the equipment needed for NAT. Altogether, these extra costs compared to dual-stack added up to an additional $1.2 - 2.1 million spent over 5 years. Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT Training+Consulting GmbH, said that although Dmitry had shown the same traffic growth for IPv4 and IPv6, IPv6 was really growing faster. So IPv4 had an even less favourable outlook than what Dmitry had presented, and the actual cost was higher. Dmitry said he had calculated using IPv4 through a NAT system. Benedikt said he understood and that if someone did not do dual-stack, it would cost even more money to stay with IPv4. Dmitry thanked him for his comment. Yannis Nikolopoulos, Orizon Telecom, said the time was long past to convince people to do dual-stack. Most existing operators already did this. Instead, it was time to convince new operators to get IPv6, but not through dual-stack. Dmitry thanked him and said his calculation would also be true for cases like migration to IPv6-mostly. Dave Phelan, APNIC, said that in his region, the type of network deployed depended on the type of users and therefore the type of traffic. For residential users, who mainly used content, networks were usually IPv6. Enterprises were the problem here because they did not want to deploy IPv6. Dmitry said this presentation was more for medium to large operators. He agreed that IPv6 deployment was needed for content operators, and the community needed to engage them and help with enterprise networks. Sebastian Becker, Deutsche Telekom AG, agreed with the points about enterprise. He then mentioned that smart devices in homes often could not do IPv6. So even if operators fully deployed IPv6, there would still be IPv4 traffic as long as people used these devices. He encouraged people to stop buying them. Gilles Massen, Fondation Restena, said the industry was weak on teaching, as students often learned primarily about IPv4. He said operators should try to convince teachers to update their courses. Saiidnajib Saidislomzoda, CJSC Babilon-Mobile, asked if investments in IPv6 could be seen not only as a technical upgrade but as a step toward financial sustainability for network operators. Saiidnajib also asked what initial steps Dmitry recommended for companies that wanted to start IPv6 deployment but were limited by budget and resources. Dmitry said yes to the first question. To the second, he recommended changing internal procedures. Benedikt Stockebrand said that if operators needed IPv6 in some area, they should address that first. Otherwise, they should first implement it somewhere easy, such as where not much budget or not many employees were required. If a company had a student working for them, they could ask this student to look into implementing IPv6. 3. IPv6 in large Organisations - Lessons learned Wilhelm Boeddinghaus, Route 128 GmbH The presentation is available at: https://ripe91.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/sessions/37/UEK3QK/ Wilhelm presented about the challenges in training employees of large organisations on implementing IPv6. He noted the problem began even in universities, where there was a lack of proper networking education. On top of this, he had observed that his customers at enterprises did not want to spend much time and money on implementing IPv6 and so often did not pursue training on this. His training team had therefore shortened their courses so that these customers had time to attend. There was also a lack of interest and preparedness for IPv6 implementation. Many server administrators did not want to learn about the details of BGP and did not have an inventory of specific data they were running on their networks. This was a problem because they needed this inventory as a starting point to see if their infrastructure was capable of running IPv6. However, he found operators sometimes delayed implementing IPv6 by spending years on doing inventory. Wilhelm said operators should instead start as soon as they can, probably through some smaller starting point, not through tackling the whole network at first. Jen Linkova, Google, asked what he thought about long-term infrastructure replacement plans. She noted it was important to think about upgrade plans early on while fixing existing infrastructure to make sure that any new equipment bought was actually capable of running IPv6. Wilhelm said organisations wanted new equipment that could run IPv6 but were not able to test new equipment to make sure of this. He noted many organisations used old equipment for as long as they could. Ondřej Caletka, RIPE NCC, said they had noticed suppliers for their internal systems discontinuing on-premises in favour of IAAA, which might be IPv4-only. So despite trying to do IPv6, they found new products were forcing IPv4, making it hard to switch. He asked if Wilhelm had also noticed this trend and if he knew of any solutions. Wilhelm said he had no solution. The problem was less the push to IPv4 and more that operators were being forced to use the cloud. It was an issue for European federal agencies to have their network management take place in an American cloud that could risk their privacy or be shut down, causing them to lose everything. These operators needed to use a European cloud or use just open source and run everything on-premises. Stefan Wahl, Route 128 % Open 7, said they had seen zero trust models that had caused IPv4 to be re-prioritised. He recommended checking the traffic and making sure it was IPv6 before shutting off IPv4. Mick O'Donovan, HEAnet CLG, asked if Wilhelm had seen enterprises' cybersecurity teams discouraging operators from switching to IPv6 or using public IPv4 and instead encouraging the use of NAT. Wilhelm said he saw this quite often, as uninformed IT teams often thought IPv6 was insecure. Mick said there was fearmongering, especially after a cyberattack, leading to some people not wanting any public addressing. Wilhelm said they would eventually have to deploy anyway. He recommended not working with organisations that refused to use IPv6 and noted there was a RIPE Document that said this as well. Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT Training+Consulting GmbH, said people often planned changes for when they retired so they could avoid doing them. He encouraged organisations to hang on to any IPv6 enthusiasts working for them who wanted to actually get things done. Saiidnajib Saidislomzoda, CJSC Babilon-Mobile, asked what Wilhelm recommended to overcome delays caused by over-planning and lack of training. Wilhelm said it was necessary to find a middle ground between too much and too little training. He recommended getting a consulting company to help with IPv6. Monika Ermert, elance, asked if he knew of any universities that were doing a good job in educating about IPv6. Wilhelm said he had not heard of any. Universities usually just taught theory, not how to run operating systems in day-to-day work or how to manage networking. It would be good if they taught more networking and protocol theory. Joerg Dorchain, MPI Informatics, said it was different at his institute. 4. DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for Android Jen Linkova, Google The presentation is available at: https://ripe91.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/sessions/37/YXRZB8/ Jen shared that Android could now support DHCPv6. To explain how, she went over some of the differences between IPv4 and IPv6. One advantage of IPv6 was that it usually had multiple addresses: stable, temporary and secured. This affected scalability and the effectiveness of SLAAC with a high number of devices. She explained how to use prefix delegation for hosts and noted that if prefix delegation was enabled, Android could run on only DHCPv6, even if the P-flag was not present. This meant that operators could get the best of both worlds by having the flexibility of SLAAC and a managed network with no scalability issues, at least with trusted hosts. Jan Žorž, ProVision, asked if there were plans to put prefix delegation into SLAAC. Jen said she had seen discussions on doing this, but she could not find a way to configure it. She offered to discuss it with him if he had more information about it. 5. Thanks, Wrap Up and Rate the Talks Raymond thanked attendees and closed the session. For Internal Use Only

1 0

CLAT for Windows: Private Preview
by Jen Linkova 19 Nov '25

19 Nov '25

Do you have an IPv6-mostly network? Do you have Windows devices which still consume precious IPv4 addresses? Great news, everyone, the future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed! https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/NetworkingBlog/windows-clat-enters… Pls sign up for the private preview! -- Cheers, Jen Linkova

1 0

Thank you for IPv6 WG @ RIPE91!
by Christian Seitz 25 Oct '25

25 Oct '25

Dear IPv6 Working Group mailing list members, I'd like to say thank you for the IPv6 WG session on Thursday morning. There have been good discussions after the presentations! For future meetings we'll also allow more time for discussion. In the past, we often had to keep the Q&A short because of the packed agenda. Thanks to the presenters Dmitriy Melnik, Wilhelm Boeddinghaus and Jen Linkova and everybody else who submitted a presentation, but has not been selected. Also thanks to Wolfgang Tremmel, our new co-chair, for his support, Raymond Jetten for his continued support until the end of Nicos term and to Nico Schottelius for his time as a co-chair. See you all in Edingburgh, and don't forget to rate the talks ;-) Ray, Wolfgang & Chris

1 0

anyone experienced this trouble with Fortinet (authenticator+firewall) and Windows AD
by jordi.palet＠consulintel.es 20 Oct '25

20 Oct '25

Hi all, Just wondering if this may be a bug or just some misconfiguration and someone in the list experienced this before. I’ve got this question from a dual-stack deployment, I will try to summarise it with the info I’ve got (not my deployment, just trying to help). Network using Windows AD and basically only Windows clients. The Windows clients are dual-stack and are authenticated in the AD. The DNS registers correctly both their IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. The Fortinet authenticator is pulling every few seconds via LDAP to the AD in order to “allow” certain groups of users to get access to Internet thru the firewall. The firewall rules are based on the user IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. It seems that this means that because the user has registered initially with IPv6 (as in dual stack takes precedence over IPv4), is reported by the authentication event from the AD to the Fortinet authenticator only the IPv6 address, so it is only gaining access to IPv6. So how you fix this in the authenticator so it gathers both the IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and consequently open the firewall for both IPv4 and IPv6 of this user? Right now it seems the only way to force the authenticator to recognise both the IPv4 and IPv6 addresses of the user is to reautenticate the user with both addresses. It looks to me strange that the authenticator only looks for the “registration event” with a single IP address and not both of them (IPv4 and IPv6, or even multiple IPv6 addresses - like the privacy one). I tried to help looking for Fortinet documents about this, but didn’t found anything relevant. Anyone has seen this behaviour before and/or has any idea about how to fix it? Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com 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.

4 7

Agenda for the ripe 91 meeting
by Raymond Jetten 15 Oct '25

15 Oct '25

Hello All, We are pleased to announce we have an agenda for the IPv6 Working group next week in Bucharest. https://ripe91.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/sessions/37/ We hope to see all of you next week at the meeting ! Christian Seitz & Raymond Jetten For Internal Use Only

1 0

RFC 9096 with dynamic IPv6 and radvd
by Max Emig 09 Oct '25

09 Oct '25

Hi all, what is the best way to implement https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9096.html#section-3.5 i.e. advertising stale prefixes with lifetime 0 with arguably the most popular Router Advertisement daemon? Yes, getting only dynamic IPv6 from consumer ISP is bad, but there are also other, more sensible usecases. This is concerning https://github.com/opnsense/core/issues/9261, which I may get involved in. Feel free to contact me off list to avoid clutter, my takeaway is that while FRITZ!Box and OpenWrt behave nicely, barely anything “more professional” does. Thanks Max

3 2

Co chair selection for the IPv6 WG
by Raymond Jetten 07 Oct '25

07 Oct '25

Dear members of the list. Today the deadline for showing interest for the position of IPv6 Co-Chair has ended. We had 2 candidates, but after introducing them to each other yesterday the other one decided to no longer run for this. So with 1 candidate left, we are honoured to announce that Wolfgang Tremmel will be the new co-chair of the ipv6 Working group. Feel free to show your support for Wolfgang on the list, we are very happy to have him. The official announcement will take place at the IPv6-wg session in Bucharest. Thanks and hope to see you in Bucharest. Christian and Ray For Internal Use Only

5 4

https://test-ipv6.com is announcing retirement
by Geert Jan de Groot 05 Oct '25

05 Oct '25

Hi folks, In past years, I have used https://test-ipv6.com/ as a quick "sanity test" when connecting to a network, using a guest network, or to check network configuration after making changes. I found it very useful for quick tests. Unfortunately, jfesler is announcing sunsetting the project, see https://retire.test-ipv6.com/. In the FAQ, it is mentioned "Q: Will I (jfesler) transfer the domain? A: I’d consider a reputable RIR or NIC organization serving the public interest taking things over." I wonder if a RIR or NIC organisation would consider taking over to run the service. I think it is too useful to just disappear, there are still too many not-quite-IPv6 networks, and personally I hope I don't lose the service. Thoughts, anyone? Geert Jan

3 3

APRICOT 2026: Call for Volunteers (Programme Committee)
by Mark Tinka 31 Aug '25

31 Aug '25

Hello all. The APRICOT 2026 Organising Committee would like to welcome everyone to join us in Jakarta, Indonesia, from 5th - 12th February 2026. The APRICOT 2026 PC (Programme Committee) is responsible for the solicitation and selection of suitable presentations and tutorial content for the APRICOT 2026 conference (https://2026.apricot.net/) We are now seeking VOLUNTEERS from the community to join the APRICOT 2026 PC to assist with the development of the programme for APRICOT 2026. Eligible PC candidates must have attended recent APRICOT events, be active members of their local NOG (Network Operators Group) in the Asia Pacific region, have broad technical knowledge of Internet operations, and have good familiarity with the format of APRICOT. Having constructive opinions and ideas about how the programme content might be improved is of high value too. PC members are expected to work very actively to solicit content, follow-through with speaker updates and review submissions for technical merit. The PC meets by conference call, weekly in frequency during the three months prior to APRICOT. While participation in the weekly calls is not obligatory, active participation in content reviews is required at all times to help the PC reach consensus. PC members who are unable to fully participate in the programme development will be excused from the PC. If you are interested in joining the PC and meet the above eligibility criteria, please send a brief note to "pc-chairs at apricot.net". The note must include affiliation (if any) and a brief description about why you would make a good addition to the PC. The PC Chairs will accept nominations received by 17:00hrs UTC+8 on Sunday 7th September 2025, and will announce the new PC shortly thereafter. Many thanks! Mark Tinka, Achie Atienza & Mark Duffell APRICOT 2026 Programme Committee Chairs

1 0