- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

New on RIPE Labs: Measuring IPv6 Capability of RIPE Atlas Probes
by Mirjam Kuehne 12 Jun '13

12 Jun '13

Dear colleagues, Please see a new article on RIPE Labs contributed by Stephane Bortzmeyer: How Many RIPE Atlas Probes Believe They Have IPv6 (But Are Wrong)? https://labs.ripe.net/Members/stephane_bortzmeyer/how-many-atlas-probes-bel… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

5 4

Request to verify ipv6 addressing scheme in my diagram
by Maninder Singh 12 Jun '13

12 Jun '13

Hi Team, I have created a small IPv6 based corporate network diagram and want an expert to validate if the addressing scheme used is fine or not. I am attaching the diagram where I have created the network. Can you please assist me with validation of the address scheme and the network. If need be, I can speak to you on telephone or Skype too. But request you to help me by checking the diagram. Thanks Maninder Singh

3 3

Policy Proposal 2012-10 "Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis" implemented
by Kjell Leknes 11 Jun '13

11 Jun '13

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that RIPE Policy Proposal 2012-10, "Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs per-LIR basis", has been implemented. The full policy proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-10 [Open URL] The updated RIPE Document 589, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy", can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-589 [Open URL] You can request this extension by submitting the IPv6 Additional Allocation Request Form through the LIR Portal, or by emailing it to hostmaster(a)ripe.net If you have any questions, please contact ncc(a)ripe.net Regards, Kjell Leknes Registration Services RIPE NCC

1 0

Call for Papers: RIPE 67
by Shane Kerr 07 Jun '13

07 Jun '13

All, This call for papers was sent to the RIPE list yesterday, and thought it might be of interest to participants in this working group. IPv6 is of interest to everyone, so a lot of IPv6-related topics are appropriate for the plenary... don't be afraid! :) Cheers, -- Shane Begin forwarded message: Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 10:42:39 +0200 From: Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil(a)gmail.com> To: "ripe-list(a)ripe.net" <ripe-list(a)ripe.net> Subject: Call for Papers: RIPE 67 Dear colleagues, Please find the CFP for RIPE 67 below. Note that the deadline for submissions is 4 August 2013 Kind regards Filiz Yilmaz for the RIPE Programme Committee http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-meetings/pc --------------------------------------------------- Call for Papers: RIPE 67 A RIPE Meeting is an open event where Internet Service Providers, network operators and other interested parties get together. Although the meeting is mostly technical, it is also a chance for people to meet and network with others in their field. RIPE 67 will take place on 14-18 October 2013 in Athens, Greece. The RIPE Programme Committee (PC) is now seeking content proposals from the RIPE community for the Plenary, BoF and Tutorial sessions at RIPE 67. The PC is looking for presentations covering topics of network engineering and operations, including but not limited to: - IPv6 deployment - Managing IPv4 scarcity in operations - Commercial transactions of IPv4 addresses - Data center technologies - Network and DNS operations - Internet governance and regulatory practices - Network and routing security - Content delivery - Internet peering and mobile data exchange Submissions Attendees of the RIPE meetings are quite sensitive to keeping presentations non-commercial, and product marketing talks are strongly discouraged. Repeated audience feedback shows that the most successful talks focus on operational experience, research results, or case studies. For example, presenters wishing to describe a commercial solution should focus on the underlying technology and not attempt a product demonstration. Presenters who are proposing a panel or BoF are encouraged to include speakers from several (perhaps even competing) companies and/or a neutral facilitator. In addition to presentations selected in advance for the Plenary, the RIPE PC also offers several time slots for “Lightning Talks” which are selected immediately before or during the conference. The following requirements apply: - Proposals for Plenary talks, BoFs, Panels and Tutorials must be submitted for full consideration no later than 4 August 2013, using the meeting submission system at: https://ripe67.ripe.net/submit-topic/ Proposals submitted after this date will be considered on a space-available basis. - Presenters should indicate how much time they will require (30 minutes for Plenary talks is a common maximum duration, although some talks can be longer). - Proposals for talks will only be considered by the PC if they contain at least draft presentation slides (slides may be updated later on). For panels, proposals must contain a clear description as well as names of invited panelists, presenters and moderators. - Due to potential technical issues, it is expected that most if not all presenters/panelists will be physically present at the RIPE meeting. - Tutorials are sessions with educational content and are alotted about 2 hours. - BOFs (Birds of a Feather sessions) are informal gatherings on topics of shared interest among RIPE Meeting attendees. Technical facilities and logistical support are limited and provided based on best effort and availability. - Lightning talks should also be submitted using the meeting submission system. They must be short (10 minutes maximum) and often involve more timely topics. They can be submitted at any time. The allocation of lightning talk slots will be announced one day prior to the relevant session. If you have any questions or requests concerning content submissions, please email pc [at] ripe [dot] net. ------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: One Year Later - Who's Doing What With IPv6?
by Mirjam Kuehne 06 Jun '13

06 Jun '13

Dear colleagues, On the anniversary of the World IPv6 Launch, this new article takes a look at the readiness of networks to deploy IPv6, using statistics from the RIPE NCC service region and beyond: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/antony_gollan/one-year-later-whos-doing-what-… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [ipv6-wg] RIPE 554 Errata Page
by Merike Kaeo 28 May '13

28 May '13

OK, just got caught up on thread... On Tue 28/05/13 5:13 AM , Tim Chown <tjc(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > On 28 May 2013, at 13:00, "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" wrote: > > > On 5/28/13 1:12 PM, MarcoH wrote: > >> As was just discussing with Jan here in St Petersburg, I'm getting a > bit confused about where we are heading. > >> > >> Do we still want to compile a list of errors and find a way to "attach" > this to the 554 document as an errata? > >> > >> Or are we now gaining momentum to do a full revision and release a new > document superseding 554? Which of course should incorporate all the fixes > as well (and probably introduce some new mistakes) > >> > > This is a complex question now ;) > > > > I suggest that I make two lists - one with mistakes and errata material > in another one with significant changes suggestions. > > > > For a quick fix we could process "errata" small changes and when the > other list with bigger changes grows enough that we collectively decide we > need a new version of the document - we go and change it. > > > > Would that work? > > That sounds good. Works for me too. The one known issue for RIPE 554 is (and has been for a long time as Sander pointed out), the fact that we should have had RFC6105 instead of RFC 4862 since the intent was to make RA filtering mandatory. Jan has approached me a few times to see about helping edit a newer version and I am OK with that as long as there are enough changes to warrant a completely new document. We don't want to turn out a new RIPE doc every time one new v6 related RFC is published but certainly we should keep track of enhancements and modifications on best practices as deployments continue and then turn out a new document (and obsolete previous one(s)). - merike

2 1

Reminder:Cosmetic Surgery Project, new revised RIPE Policy, document for IPv6 database objects
by Emilio Madaio 28 May '13

28 May '13

Dear colleagues, As part of the Cosmetic Surgery Project, the RIPE NCC is moving forward with a review of the policy document ripe-513, "Value of the "status:" and "assignment-size:" attributes in INET6NUM objects for sub-assigned PA space". At the request of the proposers of the original policy proposal that produced ripe-513, we’re sending a reminder about the document review and inviting the IPv6 Working Group Mailing List and Database Working Group Mailing List subscribers to participate in the review process. A draft of the policy document is now online and ready for community review at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-doc… We encourage you to read the edited draft of ripe-513 and send any comments to <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> by 10 June 2013. Kind Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

2 1

[training] RIPE NCC Training Courses July-September 2013
by Training Team 27 May '13

27 May '13

Dear Colleagues, Our training team travels the RIPE NCC service region to deliver training courses to our members without any additional cost. Over the next few months, we'll be in Rome, Chisinau, Munich, Moscow, Prague, London, Ljubljana, Yerevan, Malmö, Istanbul, Amsterdam. Visit the following page to register and to check which training courses we are giving in your area: https://lirportal.ripe.net/training/courses The RIPE NCC delivers the following training courses: - LIR Training Course - Database Training Course (new) - IPv6 for LIRs Training Course - Routing Security Training Course For more information visit: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/courses With kind regards, Rumy Spratley-Kanis Training Services Manager

1 0

MERIT Darknet Experiment, Guidance Sought in Routing WG
by Daniel Karrenberg 15 May '13

15 May '13

Some of you may remember the short discussion here last November about the MERIT Darknet experiment and the subsequent change in our permission to MERIT. This RIPE meeting we have heard a presentation from MERIT/US-DHS about first results: https://ripe66.ripe.net/presentations/121-v6darknet-ripe2013.pdf Given this, the RIPE NCC is seeking guidance on what our permission to MERIT should be in the future. Here are a couple of slides which we will present in the routing-wg: https://ripe66.ripe.net/presentations/259-20130515-v6-darknet.key.pdf Any reactions are welcome. I suggest to have any discussion over on routing-wg(a)ripe.net. Daniel

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Implementing Fifth Start IPv6 RIPEness
by Mirjam Kuehne 13 May '13

13 May '13

Dear colleagues, In this new article on RIPE Labs we present the first results of a fifth star for IPv6 RIPEness. This is a way to measure real IPv6 deployment in the RIPE NCC service region: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/ipv6-ripeness-implementing-the-5th-… We would like to receive your feedback on a number of open question raised in the article. We also hope to see many of you at the IPv6 WG meeting in Dublin later this week where these results will be presented. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE 66 Draft Agenda version 2
by Marco Hogewoning 02 May '13

02 May '13

Dear Colleagues, Attached a copy of the latest draft agenda. As you may notice, this time round we opted for a couple of longer talks, which makes the speakers list a bit shorter than normal. Should there be any other topic you wish to discuss or you think we missed some important developments, please let us know. Your IPv6 WG Chairs, Marco, David and Shane Session 1 – Wednesday, 15 May 13:00 – 15:30 (Main Room) A) Welcome and Administrative Business B) “Implementing Full IPv6 Support: More than Binding to an AF_INET6 Socket” Bert Hubert, PowerDNS/Netherlabs C) "non-working clients" - TBC Andrew Yourtchenko, Cisco D) “The latest developments in DHCPv6″ Tomek Mrugalski, Internet Software Consortium Session 2 – Thursday, 16 May 09:00 – 10:30 (Side Room) A) "Measuring Effectiveness of Happy Eyeballs" - TBC B) "IPv6 RIPEness Fifth Star" Vesna Manojlovic, RIPE NCC C) IPv6 Measurements Panel Organisers: - Marco Hogewoning, RIPE NCC - Meredith Whittaker, Google/M-Lab Panellist: - Geoff Huston, APNIC - Mark Townsley, Cisco - Steve Nash, Arbor Networks (TBC) - Heidi Kivekäs, FICORA (TBC) X) Close

1 0

[training] New RIPE NCC IPv6 E-Learning tutorials
by Sandra Bras 02 May '13

02 May '13

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce the launch of four new videos on IPv6 Transition Mechanisms as part of our online training. The topics include: - 6in4 - 6RD - NAT64 - DS-Lite You can watch them online at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/e-learning/ipv6/transition-mecha… Stay tuned! We plan to announce more exciting E-Learning news in the coming months. RIPE NCC E-Learning tutorials are provided as a free service available to everyone. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at: e-learning(a)ripe.net. Happy learning, Sandra Brás Trainer / E-Learning Project Manager

2 1

SI6 Networks' IPv6 Toolkit v1.3.4 released!
by Fernando Gont 18 Apr '13

18 Apr '13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Folks, We have just released SI6 Networks' IPv6 Toolkit v1.3.4: a security assessment and troubleshooting toolkit for the IPv6 protocol suite. The toolkit is available at: <http://www.si6networks.com/tools/ipv6toolkit>, where you can find a the usual tarball, a GPG-signed version of it, a link to the toolkit's GIT repository, etc. This release features: * IPv6-host tracking support in the scan6 tool. * A new tool, address6, to analyze IPv6 addresses * Minor bug fixes The toolkit runs on (at least) the latest versions of Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and MacOS. Please send any bug reports and/or feature requests to <fgont(a)si6networks.com>. As always, you can get the latest news on IPv6 security research and tools by following us on Twitter: @SI6Networks. And if you're into IPv6 hacking, please consider joining the ipv6hackers mailing list: <http://www.si6networks.com/community/mailing-lists.html>. Thanks! Best regards, - -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont(a)si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRcFgsAAoJEK4lDVUdTnSSbY4QAJQmNVPUzF93uGEGtBiOGDWk f3ccsoaHQnTfXLNM5/qXIGMmT3WBGXTIotaLQKlKqfoEyqPclnKkehoS/gGyw/Vm GfOeNBZaZcAUB+2v57KfmKMxZx9mSk986iWVZwFYLqJ6cLu468WtffavrSw0He7U qjZNBrJ9NDTi2QOVLpRTGgH+pcflnR+EzcHCJIxxKVQL4loqxiPMThjhbi60+JGU bqTJq3jHqAnLxoWBwS0sSPWX6+x4i1HV0w10SuchUD9SWQ194KCcgke97tpa8mwQ YeYKnVls+yjy0ZEt69xgICGdARqASLXmtuwFhHZRTF89DFW2BUAR9KNWvbmRr3ii +JI4vHCWn9naXG6GTuCX1Hhlgi32eTOX9JM+siOMSGcBJRCe+zX/qzL/3rZvkRRb V/cyIXZyoh5/B7fGnR0x4KgPmzblGOURBxh8patxiYuyPW1sRIaF2E+P1XhKRCkn TLUI5Y/H3ZBIyONaIbL857X4qabpxAlNUAYmMmXWK+HMG5QSPWco5T0XMPSipXIO UEuDrr6AsD1rIQwQeyAN1zFasOO5CJx1kCDXWQboFBbub4aABMjmrRH45WAmiexZ kI8DDoLCoiF/f/pJd5nQi37LMDtbB2aF23l/ycWvzGQJ2ijStA7VDlELByqF8Kj2 Q/VoJObsdf6uhB9siNKG =0yAb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science
by nelsonsteves＠hushmail.com 12 Apr '13

12 Apr '13

We are researchers from different parts of the world and conducted a study on the world’s biggest bogus computer science conference WORLDCOMP ( http://sites.google.com/site/worlddump1 ) organized by Prof. Hamid Arabnia from University of Georgia, USA. We submitted a fake paper to WORLDCOMP 2011 and again (the same paper with a modified title) to WORLDCOMP 2012. This paper had numerous fundamental mistakes. Sample statements from that paper include: (1). Binary logic is fuzzy logic and vice versa (2). Pascal developed fuzzy logic (3). Object oriented languages do not exhibit any polymorphism or inheritance (4). TCP and IP are synonyms and are part of OSI model (5). Distributed systems deal with only one computer (6). Laptop is an example for a super computer (7). Operating system is an example for computer hardware Also, our paper did not express any conceptual meaning. However, it was accepted both the times without any modifications (and without any reviews) and we were invited to submit the final paper and a payment of $500+ fee to present the paper. We decided to use the fee for better purposes than making Prof. Hamid Arabnia (Chairman of WORLDCOMP) rich. After that, we received few reminders from WORLDCOMP to pay the fee but we never responded. We MUST say that you should look at the above website if you have any thoughts to submit a paper to WORLDCOMP. DBLP and other indexing agencies have stopped indexing WORLDCOMP’s proceedings since 2011 due to its fakeness. See http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/icai/index.html for of one of the conferences of WORLDCOMP and notice that there is no listing after 2010. See http://sites.google.com/site/dumpconf for comments from well-known researchers about WORLDCOMP. If WORLDCOMP is not fake then why did DBLP suddenly stopped listing the proceedings after? The status of your WORLDCOMP papers can be changed from “scientific” to “other” (i.e., junk or non-technical) at any time. See the comments http://www.mail-archive.com/tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu/msg05168.html of a respected researcher on this. Better not to have a paper than having it in WORLDCOMP and spoil the resume and peace of mind forever! Our study revealed that WORLDCOMP is a money making business, using University of Georgia mask, for Prof. Hamid Arabnia. He is throwing out a small chunk of that money (around 20 dollars per paper published in WORLDCOMP’s proceedings) to his puppet (Mr. Ashu Solo or A.M.G. Solo) who publicizes WORLDCOMP and also defends it at various forums, using fake/anonymous names. The puppet uses fake names and defames other conferences to divert traffic to WORLDCOMP. He also makes anonymous phone calls and threatens the critiques of WORLDCOMP (see Item 7 in Section 5 of http://sites.google.com/site/dumpconf ).That is, the puppet does all his best to get a maximum number of papers published at WORLDCOMP to get more money into his (and Prof. Hamid Arabnia’s) pockets. Monte Carlo Resort (the venue of WORLDCOMP until 2012) has refused to provide the venue for WORLDCOMP’13 because of the fears of their image being tarnished due to WORLDCOMP’s fraudulent activities. WORLDCOMP’13 will be held at a different resort. WORLDCOMP will not be held after 2013. The paper submission deadline for WORLDCOMP’13 was March 18 and it was extended to April 6 and now it is extended to April 20 (it may be extended again) but still there are no committee members, no reviewers, and there is no conference Chairman. The only contact details available on WORLDCOMP’s website is just an email address! Prof. Hamid Arabnia expends the deadline to get more papers (means, more registration fee into his pocket!). Let us make a direct request to Prof. Hamid arabnia: publish all reviews for all the papers (after blocking identifiable details) since 2000 conference. Reveal the names and affiliations of all the reviewers (for each year) and how many papers each reviewer had reviewed on average. We also request him to look at the Open Challenge at https://sites.google.com/site/moneycomp1 Sorry for posting to multiple lists. Spreading the word is the only way to stop this bogus conference. Please forward this message to other mailing lists and people. We are shocked with Prof. Hamid Arabnia and his puppet’s activities http://worldcomp-fake-bogus.blogspot.com Search Google using the keyword worldcomp fake for additional links.

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Networks with IPv6 over Time - A Short Update
by Mirjam Kuehne 04 Apr '13

04 Apr '13

Dear colleagues, Please find on RIPE Labs a short update on the percentage of networks announcing IPv6 prefixes: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/networks-with-ipv6-over-time-a-shor… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Host tracking in IPv6 (SI6 Networks' IPv6 toolkit v1.3.3)
by Fernando Gont 12 Mar '13

12 Mar '13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Folks, We have released the SI6 Networks' IPv6 Toolkit v1.3.3. It is available at: <http://www.si6networks.com/tools/ipv6toolkit> (including a gpg-signed tarball). This minor update incorporates the "--tgt-known-iids" option, which can be used to track IPv6 nodes across networks, even if they employ the so-called "Privacy Address" (and yes, that includes Microsoft Windows systems). Thanks, - -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont(a)si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRP1xLAAoJEK4lDVUdTnSSfIEP/RFTBQCqW7/RNozsE5dRV758 40sM7NuAV0ewWdtsqCKwZf5Bpmz2xU9auGjL1ziC5mjfyv67Dd3jofV0M/UH9h4W MGVvC+9Eb7Db04En39hFMelsLrmD/47SHdmpmo+wmY1tcDPZZNsVm/4j1Hy8Kgi2 CrfA5qPwpmQxv0c/7N1+a9x2uXyJmAUoPO3+7PE+DwR/Hvq1gzUjqtfNGmIA2buM U5SpPVb7T6Ilg7YVFSq4ilzxxaVoECKJ5qGkJQrdyXU0x6dRHupmktIR1PJ2d9Xv Xzhkm6davlvKj/TveFHVECQLWKn0D/5VdIKi4MixREJoiwAqYVMxWxDNg5wv+Cyr vWazB/Uy8q/qu8wHISfzWU6AdscRQnofVfygJ/EEw3m5LN8e6fLuUjFKRQsmeubv yr1bZvElmLYcRgIYpZzqgxJSr9ej2/SQZja2krKFxRdYbSk9UQf1pzHo18QJ7iPj vk2vESqqye9J1LKaZ62SEnPSolqClYAm9VtR1G8US6frHZhkFg9sUMcmTPNBABAh g9J1JtTXVtVfGspnpwAH2Dt+cfJYihjHmOe7y+8hPIwe0clpX1c5ZSulGDa7UcnS L1cuKou+mEBlGB9HmNMhTXnQ4PrtyDZeRyzvPXd1tAa3xJil2y+hP+dGOJe53O9G 5sQkHiLX+TlNrJUO6vH5 =DBUb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
by Jaganbabu Rajamanickam 27 Feb '13

27 Feb '13

LinkedIn ------------ I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. - Jaganbabu Jaganbabu Rajamanickam Proejct Lead at EION Wireless Ottawa, Canada Area Confirm that you know Jaganbabu Rajamanickam: https://www.linkedin.com/e/-7e51ej-hdov10qo-7/isd/11340161886/ayqAzc3P/?hs=… -- You are receiving Invitation to Connect emails. Click to unsubscribe: http://www.linkedin.com/e/-7e51ej-hdov10qo-7/vxTpXYYFvSzqO5NkzSCGc4WXbIp/go… (c) 2012 LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA.

1 0

[training] RIPE NCC Training Courses April-June 2013
by Training Mailbox 25 Feb '13

25 Feb '13

Dear Colleagues, Our training team travels the RIPE NCC service region to deliver training courses to our members without any additional cost. Over the next few months, we'll be in Sarajevo, Leeds, Dubai, Berlin, Amsterdam, Warsaw, Vaduz, St. Petersburg, Marseilles, Madrid, Budapest, Helsinki. Visit the following page to register and to check which training courses we are giving in your area: https://lirportal.ripe.net/training/courses The RIPE NCC delivers the following training courses: - LIR Training Course - Database Training Course (new) - IPv6 for LIRs Training Course - Routing Security Training Course For more information visit: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/courses With kind regards, Rumy Spratley-Kanis Training Services Manager

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: SI6 IPv6 Toolkit v1.3.1 Released
by Mirjam Kuehne 22 Feb '13

22 Feb '13

Dear colleagues, Please find a new article on RIPE Labs contributed by Fernando Gont: SI6 IPv6 Toolkit v1.3.1 Released https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/si6-ipv6-toolkit-v1.3.1-released Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

SI6 Networks' IPv6 Toolkit v1.3 released!
by Fernando Gont 16 Feb '13

16 Feb '13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Folks, We are pleased to release the SI6 Networks' IPv6 Toolkit v1.3: a security assessment and trouble-shooting toolkit for the IPv6 protocol suite. The toolkit is available at: <http://www.si6networks.com/tools/ipv6toolkit>, where you can find a the usual tarball, a PGP-signed version of it, a link to the toolkit's GIT repository, etc. This release has a number of features: * It includes a full-fledged IPv6 address scanning tool (scan6) -- probably the only comprehensive IPv6 address scanning tool out there. Check out all the newly incorporated features! * It includes support for tunnels (in most of the tools). So if you are currently employing e.g. a free IPv6 tunnel to connect to the IPv6 Internet, you'll now be able t play with the tools using your tunnel. * Adds features that have been in our "todo list" for a while: + It includes manual pages in troff format for all the tools. + It includes a makefile, to easily build and install the tools, configuration file, manuals, etc., on your local system. The toolkit runs on (at least) the latest versions of Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Mac OS X. Please send any bug reports and/or feature requests to <fgont(a)si6networks.com>. As always, you can get the latest news on IPv6 security research and tools by following us on Twitter: @SI6Networks. Thanks! Best regards, - -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont(a)si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRH9bJAAoJEK4lDVUdTnSSLzcQALIxgi8HwQkVwLllvV4k0r6L 8ujKx7MDIsyzYZLPSy0sfItHb9g+FJWcSEgpXy2mRoxre9CkRL/sXhlFSHxJWavA zpj5jkIq1IxATuydBj2y4a8UX1IjRsGIouMQAyh9JR0el1hHnLDqnoF0M6/BZ673 c0L4DBiZ3vvX5DzKnR9Ajp3zKydw+N1wkaIqMObWTnXy1FqKABeVo23Ab3Bv3UO+ ++sPRVMePTG+wl0i2E/tPLUYXmrNnrIg+q7TBNDEIGtAufBesjYAOpVZ5/+n7Zit A5e/IA/QAV1MoMnUSvLW6TV5mwK7bV1G1YPpVs5YI78o0ylja7L9vUKh5rff43d4 My3FCNKpkWYH2/qt4rB2A10eUkTyBf7FILYaf+jzacK8/1K/HXySmul2pQ9Uf3ja SE6gpyf4V7aUgkWNF3rsFbWCCmYviwVWI4qwK7rSmVvdziJtxWcRqDQnqE1qZN3k zyjW6Bvb64hnIrH5DD5Ub0gi9N2e8/vYnZA2o1XOo3/Z3Tzt1M9pq+WPpny3cTNM w+B2FtCnBGV0ZK617Mj0UIowZJPE1q/AWImJLuhZwCq3XI8U5lO3uX3r7Ic1v4XW xKTGw21v7WJP+nmIxul2MhKwuIcvlp8f4SYZLDp5fizkohpbIBDqbjbTtjGaE/R4 DQ7dmEOIzBt9fKUq9u9Z =n2U7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Regarding RIPE 554
by jaganbabu rajamanickam 06 Feb '13

06 Feb '13

Hello , I am new to RIPE, I was going through the RIPE 554 "Requirement for enterprise / ISP grade Layer 2 switch". I saw list of requirements like a. MLDv2 snooping [RFC4541] b. DHCPv6 filtering [RFC3315] c. Router Advertisement (RA) filtering [RFC4862] d. Dynamic "IPv6 Neighbor solicitation/advertisement" inspection [RFC4861] e. Neighbor Unreachability Detection [NUD, RFC4861] filtering f. Duplicate Address Detection [DAD, RFC4429] snooping and filtering Is there any RFC or draft compliance should be followed for the above. The RFC mentioned above are the protocol RFC and not specific to snooping or filtering. While RIPE 554 testing, what they test against? Thanx, Jags

1 0

Linux as 6RD BR
by Torbjörn Eklöv 24 Jan '13

24 Jan '13

Hi, I am trying to set up a Ubuntu 12.04 as 6RD border router but I can't get it work ok. Google don't give so many hints so I have used http://en.usenet.digipedia.org/thread/18960/18958/ as source. My setup: <script> #My 6rd domain, iproute ( 20111117-1ubuntu2 ) package in Ubuntu 12.04 can only use /32….. PREFIX="2001:db8" # My 6RD BR IP BRIP=1.1.99.1 #Create "loopback", i have tried to use eth0 as BR-interface but it's same problem. ip link add type veth ip a a dev veth0 $BRIP ip l set veth0 up #Create 6rd tunnel interface ip tunnel add 6rd mode sit local $BRIP dev veth0 ttl 64 ip addr add ${PREFIX}::1/32 dev 6rd ip tunnel 6rd dev 6rd 6rd-prefix ${PREFIX}::/32 ip link set 6rd up #Enable IPv6 routing sysctl -w net.ipv6.conf.all.forwarding=1 </script> Then I set up option 212 with: option 6rd code 212 = { integer 8, integer 8, ip6-address, array of ip-address }; option 6rd 0 32 2001:db8:: 1.1.99.1; The problem is that when I use the tunnel ( ping6 ${PREFIX}::1 for example ) I get "icmp port unreachable" for the traffic ( protocol 41 ) to BRIP/1.1.99.1 The icmp originates from my BRIP so everything looks ok. except that it don't work. :) A route to 2001:db8::/32 through dev 6rd is automatically created when I run my script. Has anyone done this or used other OS like *BSD, other Linux or what should I do??? I have tried to use the newest iproute2 package from source but it don't help either. /Torbjörn Eklöv mobil: 070 - 683 51 75 Lync: torbjorn.eklov(a)interlan.se<mailto:torbjorn.eklov@interlan.se> Skype: torbjorn.eklov http://www.interlan.se http://www.dnssecandipv6.se<http://www.dnssecandipv6.se/>

2 2

Last Mile: COMPUTATION TOOLS 2013 || May 27 - June 1, 2013 - Valencia, Spain
by Sandra Sendra 11 Jan '13

11 Jan '13

INVITATION: ================= Please consider to contribute to and/or forward to the appropriate groups the following opportunity to submit and publish original scientific results to COMPUTATION TOOLS 2013. The submission deadline is extended to January 27, 2013. Authors of selected papers will be invited to submit extended article versions to one of the IARIA Journals: http://www.iariajournals.org ================= ============== COMPUTATION TOOLS 2013 | Call for Papers =============== CALL FOR PAPERS, TUTORIALS, PANELS COMPUTATION TOOLS 2013, The Fourth International Conference on Computational Logics, Algebras, Programming, Tools, and Benchmarking May 27 - June 1, 2013 - Valencia, Spain General page: http://www.iaria.org/conferences2013/COMPUTATIONTOOLS13.html Call for Papers: http://www.iaria.org/conferences2013/CfPCOMPUTATIONTOOLS13.html - regular papers - short papers (work in progress) - posters Submission page: http://www.iaria.org/conferences2013/SubmitCOMPUTATIONTOOLS13.html Submission deadline: January 27, 2013 Sponsored by IARIA, www.iaria.org Extended versions of selected papers will be published in IARIA Journals: http://www.iariajournals.org Print proceedings will be available via Curran Associates, Inc.: http://www.proceedings.com/9769.html Articles will be archived in the free access ThinkMind Digital Library: http://www.thinkmind.org Please note the Poster and Work in Progress options. The topics suggested by the conference can be discussed in term of concepts, state of the art, research, standards, implementations, running experiments, applications, and industrial case studies. Authors are invited to submit complete unpublished papers, which are not under review in any other conference or journal in the following, but not limited to, topic areas. All tracks are open to both research and industry contributions, in terms of Regular papers, Posters, Work in progress, Technical/marketing/business presentations, Demos, Tutorials, and Panels. Before submission, please check and conform with the Editorial rules: http://www.iaria.org/editorialrules.html COMPUTATION TOOLS 2013 Topics (topics and submission details: see CfP on the site) Logics Reasoning logics; Fuzzy logics; Semantic logics; Temporal logics; Emotion logics; Ambiant logics; Modal logics; Description logics; Computational tree logic; Computational logics and constraints; Quantum computational logics; Executable computational logics; Monadic computational logics; Many-valued computational logics; Computability logic Algebras Computational algebras; K-theories, C*-algebras, Index theory; Algebraic and topological K-theory; Geometric group theory and group C*-algebras; Noncommutative geometry and topology; Pseudodifferential operators on singular manifolds; Topological invariants of non-simply connected manifolds; Deformation quantization; Lambda calculus; Relation algebra; Algebras for symbolic computation; Constructive algebras Advanced computation techniques Machine learning; Fuzzy theory/computation/logic; (Artificial) neuronal networks; Distributed artificial intelligence; Genetic algorithms; Analytic tableaux; Autonomous agent-based techniques; Knowledge-based systems and automated reasoning; Logical issues in knowledge representation /non-monotonic reasoning/belief; Dempster-Shafer theory; Concurrent computation and planning; Deduction and reasoning Specialized programming languages Logic programming; Specialized computation languages; Real-time computation languages; Embedded-computing languages; Programming semantics; Content-driven programming; Multimedia-oriented programming; Context-driven programming; Service-oriented programming; Pattern-oriented programming; Regenerative programming; Progressive programming; Sensing-oriented programming; Mobile-ubiquity-oriented computing; Compilation issues Tools for distributed computation Platforms for distributed computing; Specification and verification of programs and systems; Techniques for cloud computing; On-request resource allocation mechanisms; Security and privacy techniques; Computational benchmarking metrics, criteria and methodologies; Distributed debug and on-fly repairing; Inference of schemas, integrity constraints in computational applications; Real-world applications, experiments, projects ------------------------------------------- Committee: http://www.iaria.org/conferences2013/ComCOMPUTATIONTOOLS13.html ================================================

1 0

Minutes of RIPE 65
by MarcoH 04 Jan '13

04 Jan '13

Dear working group members, Thank you all for participating in our last gathering during RIPE 65 in Amsterdam. The archives have been published on the website, in case you missed something. Attached are the minutes of our sessions. Many thanks to the RIPE NCC staff for making them. If you have any additions or corrections, please reply to this email before November 28th, 23:59 UTC. If no comments are made, we will declare these final and ask the RIPE NCC to publish them. In the meantime we have started preparing for RIPE 66, which will take place in Dublin from 13-17 May 2013. If you are busy deploying IPv6 or maybe if you don't, please contribute by sharing your experiences. Respond to the Call for Papers as published on http://ripe66.ripe.net. Or if you want some time in our working group, contact us at ipv6-wg-chair at ripe dot net. Thank you, Marco, David and Shane ====================================================================================== RIPE 65 IPv6 Working Group Date: Session I - 26 September 2012, 14:00 - 15:30, Session II - Thursday, 27 September 2012, 09:00 – 10:30 Scribe: Alex Band (Session I), Matt Parker (Session II) WG chairs: David Kessens, Shane Kerr, Marco Hogewoning A. Welcome and administrative items * Agenda bashing * Minutes of RIPE 64 * Announcements B. Implementing IPv6 in RCS & RDS Network- Liviu Pislaru, RCS & RDS The presentation is available at: https://ripe65.ripe.net/presentations/135-RDS-IPv6-ripe65.pdf Lorenzo Colitti, Google, commented that Liviu has real working v6 on the network and that address needs will mostly come from new customers. If those customers have an IPv6 capable CPE, they can just use something like MAP instead of NAT, and use stateless solutions. Marty Hannigan, Akamai, commented that the traffic stats were particularly impressive. He added that the entire Akamai platform is IPv6 enabled but on World IPv6 day, customers had to opt-in, which is why you would see mixed results on that day for Akamai traffic. With regards to the latency, he said he was going to research why that occurred and report back. Gert Doering, Address Policy WG co-Chair, said that he is happy that Liviu is showing the world that this kind of IPv6 deployment can actually be done. He added that Germany has had IPv6 for about 15 years, but no large broadband provider is offering it. He hopes that this example will make things happen. Lorenzo asked if large broadband providers in Germany are using the same technology as RCS & RDS use. Jan Zorz, Go6, said he hoped that there would be more presentations like this from different countries. Jan said he gathered from Liviu’s presentation that he was planning to move from dynamic /64 delegations to /56. He asked if he was planning to make it static or if they would continue to use dynamic “madness”. Liviu responded that they will continue to use the dynamic /56 addressing scheme for residential customers. For business customers they will use a static /48 delegation. Tahar Schaa, Cassini Consulting GmbH, asked if the DD-WRT CPE firmware they adapted for this project is available somewhere. Liviu replied that he's happy to offer the image. Lorenzo commented that you can just buy a D-Link or Linksys CPE and it'll support IPv6. He said you could go to the World IPv6 Launch web pages and can find information about IPv6 capable CPEs. He added that his point was that you don't need to customise a DD-WRT firmware to get v6 support nowadays. *C. World IPv6 Launch*- Yannis Nikolopoulos, OTE The presentation is available at: https://ripe65.ripe.net/presentations/139-ripe65-yanodd-ote-depl-w6l.pdf Mark Townsley, Cisc, clarified that OTE’s World IPv6 Launch issues only affected single-stack customers. He suggested to just give everybody dual-stack to solve the problem. Yannis replied that is was easier said than done. Mark Townsley, Cisco, commented that if you can't solve a problem with a certain vendor, you should simply change vendors. Lorenzo Colittli, Google, asked if all of the CPEs in the field that are causing issues are going to be replaced. Yannis responded that they would be replaced if the new firmware doesn't solve the issue, but that it wouldn’t happen overnight. Lorenzo asked, assuming the CPE issues never get fixed, does it mean that you can never deploy IPv6. Yannis replied that there are also other issues at play, like the fact they're moving from ADSL to VDSL. In total, they're looking at around 50,000 to 100,000 customers. In addition, OTE is deploying a lot of new IPv6-capable CPEs that don't have any issues. Lorenzo replied that until all v6 issues are resolved, v6 cannot be deployed. Yannis said that the issue affects 20,000 CPEs out of 1.4 million. Lorenzo said that there would be some other network in the world with the same CPE who could be suffering from the same issues. It would really help if OTE discloses manufacturer name. Yannis said no. Alan Steel, via chat, asked if it wouldn't be easier to just disable IPv6 in that particular CPE setup. Yannis responded that this is an option that they considered, and it's still on the table in case the new firmware doesn't solve the issues. Eric Kline, Google, asked if OTE would consider a Hellenic IPv6 launch event. Yannis said he was a bit unclear on what an event would entail. Eric commented that Japan had a similar event to attract attention to IPv6 and that the same might be beneficial for the Greek community. Yannis sareplied that OTE has a task force to promote IPv6. D. IPv6 deployment in Forthnet- Anastasios Chatzithomaoglou, Forthnet The presentation is available at: https://ripe65.ripe.net/presentations/171-Forthnet_IPv6_-_RIPE_65_-_26.09.2… Shane Kerr, ISC, asked about the PCP requirement and commented that PCP is still being standardised. Anastasios confirmed that they have CPE beta firmware based on the drafts. Jan Zorz commented that DS Lite is a terrible idea and there are better options available now. He added that he really liked the timeline and commented that the general theme of the projects shared today show that they take a lot of time. Shane Kerr, ISC, asked why Forthnet does not use a DHCP IPv6 server. Anastasios responded that they currently don't have any service that uses DHCP and they don't want to go with custom hardware. Mark Townsley, Cisco, said that there are better alternatives than DS Lite available. He asked if there was a moment when Forthnet thought that they should stop and focus on another project. Anastasios responded that they would have considered that if they had more time. The reality is that it took them 18 firmware revisions to get to the point they are now. It's a complicated process. Marks said that MAP would work better for them. E. IPv6 CPE Survey 2012- Marco Hogewoning, RIPE NCC The presentation is available at: https://ripe65.ripe.net/presentations/205-CPE-Survey.pdf Lorenzo asked for a feature request to have two fields added: one with the post-interoperability test, the other where you would link to a page where the results of the test are stored. Mark Townsley, Cisco, said that when considering transition techniques, the overview should only display true IPv6 functionality and those that are actually available from a service provider, so things like IPoE, PPPoE and 6RD. This means leaving things like DS Lite and MAP out, which offer IPv4 connectivity. Tahar Schaa, Cassini Consulting GmbH, asked to have alternative firmwares like DD-WRT listed. Marco replied that they deliberately focused on CPEs that provide off-the-shelf functionality. F. IPv6 RIPEness- Emile Aben, RIPE NCC The presentation is available at: https://ripe65.ripe.net/presentations/200-ripeness-morestars-emileaben.pdf Jan Zorz thanked Emile for bringing weighting into the system. He said he thinks that the results will be less unfair. Wilhelm Boeddinghaus, Strato Germany, commented that he didn't like the weighting because Google and Facebook always skew the numbers. Strato has about four million domains that are IPv6 capable, but none of them make it onto the Alexa list because they’re not nationally or even regionally used. He said he thought the sheer number of websites could be an important metric as well. Emile clarified that big hosters are depending on their customers to turn on IPv6. So if you have 1,000 websites in the Alexa 1 Million, then they will just weigh those. Iljitsch van Beijnum asked why the RIPE NCC is considering changing the limit. Emile responded that everybody should really deploy IPv6; this year's 1% is next year's 2%, so why not. Iljitsch replied that when you do, you can't compare the numbers over the years. Marco asked about showing Provider Independent End User space. Emile says that that can be measured separately if people are interested. Session II H. Welcome back David opened the session and welcomed the attendees.He noted that the presentations and topics in this session would be IETF oriented.He introduced his co-Chairs, Marco Hogewoning and Shane Kerr. I. L2 issues and solutions - Eric Vyncke, Cisco The presentation is available at: https://ripe65.ripe.net/presentations/129-vyncke_-_layer-2_security_ipv6_RI… Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT, commented that the reasoning Eric gave in his presentation (regarding the remote attacks) was very important. He said that another way to prevent L2 issues is to put machines that don’t trust each other in separate networks and that this is the most fundamental design in a lot of cases. Eric agreed that this was what he was talking about with host isolation.He explained it as a single host but it could also be applied to a group of hosts. Benedikt added that they now have working multicast routing.Therefore the one reason that forced them to put machines into the same network (broadcast routing – or the lack of effective IPv4 multicast routing) is gone. This can help to solve a lot of problems with minimum effort. Iljitsch van Beijnum, bgpexpert.com, added jokingly that it seems to be a bad idea to be on the same Layer 2 network as someone who is planning to attack you. Eric agreed with the point and replied by asking, rhetorically, whether Iljitsch was using the WiFi network at the conference. J. IETF work on operational security for an IPv6 network - Merike Kaeo, Double Shot Security The presentation is available at: https://ripe65.ripe.net/presentations/241-RIPE65-v6sec-in-opsec.pdf Merike Kaeo asked the audience if anybody was using SEND in their environment. Nobody responded. Iljitsch van Beijnum, bgpexpert.com, asked whether anybody in the room would like to use SEND if it was possible for them. Marco Hogewoning, WG co-Chair, counted four hands raised. Benedikt noted that there is one reason not to use SEND; as soon as you use cryptography in any way you are requiring extra CPU cycles and therefore are more vulnerable to DoS attacks.The combination of remote attacks and the operational requirements of SEND could cause the routers to struggle with CPU load.This is perhaps another reason why SEND is not being used. K. KATR Catalogue of (IPv6) routers - Ondrej Filip, CZ.NIC The presentation is available at: https://ripe65.ripe.net/presentations/234-KATR-Ripe-2012-09-1.pdf Jan Zorz, Go6, asked Ondrej whom they were communicating with at the committee. Ondrej replied that he was not sure and added that they had wanted to get the status of “IPv6 approved laboratory” but that the process had taken more than three years so they had decided not to proceed. Jan explained that the IPv6 Ready Logo group is busy working on the specifications for their tests – they expect this to be completed in November 2012.He asked Ondrej whether cz.nic had already specified all of their tests. Ondrej responded that it was possible and suggested meeting up outside of the session to work on this together. Merike Kaeo, Double Shot Security, commented that this was really important work.She said she also performed some testing of CPEs advertised as IPv6 compliant and experienced some problems.She wanted to configure a /64 on her WAN, a/64 on her LAN and enable two v6 DNS servers.Unfortunately the majority of devices could not support that.The devices that would support the setup required manual configuration of IPv4.She asked Ondrej whether they could also test the CPEs to check if the run native IPv6. Ondrej confirmed that they do test whether the CPEs work without IPv4 but that he is not sure if it includes supporting all of the features that Merike mentioned.They will think about adding this to their specifications. L. IETF Work on transitioning techniques for multicast traffic - Tom Taylor, PT Taylor Consulting The presentation is available at: https://ripe65.ripe.net/presentations/133-RIPE_IPv6_-_Multicast_Transition.… David Kessens, IPv6 Working Group co-Chair, remarked for the record that this is a ‘Working Group’.Therefore, if Tom proposes something and receives input he is happy about that.Even if sometimes it is a negative conclusion, that is fine, we are all here to work together. M. Why NAT64 must win - Andy Davidson The presentation is available at: https://ripe65.ripe.net/presentations/246-nat64-must-win.pdf Shane Kerr, ISC, thanked Andy for the controversy.He asked Andy to clarify his statement that MAP doesn’t address the issue of exhaustion. Andy explained that as your user/subscriber base grows you have to pinch more ports from users, which will “spongify” their user experience. An audience speaker asked Andy to clarify the term “spongify”. Andy explained that if you reduce the number of ports available to a user they become unable to use more interactive applications. Shane remarked that NAT does the same thing. Andy concurred. Shane commented that NAT is necessary for this type of transition technology and therefore MAP addresses conservation in exactly the same way that any other NAT port translation does. Andy replied that it addresses conservation in the same way that CIDR did – it takes a number of addresses and enables us to use them more effectively by thinking in new ways about efficiency. Shane said that this is all they could ever hope for.He asked if Andy is a fan of NAT 64 because it adds pain. Andy replied that it provides an incentive to avoid pain – a good incentive in his opinion. Lorenzo Colitti, Google, said that Shane’s point is that NAT 64 and MAP do exactly the same thing regarding exhaustion.So NAT 64 can’t claim an advantage over MAP on that point.Lorenzo noted that the main problem with NAT 64 is that it is not deployable today.He added that Cameron would like to deploy NAT 64 but he cannot because no manufacturer will ever ship a device that cannot run Skype.This is in an environment where terminals churn every two years, the network is ready and, per Cameron’s studies, 90% of apps do support v6.Lorenzo added that you couldn’t use an imperfect substitute to replace what you have today.So the closest thing is 464 but that’s IPv4 over carrier pigeon, you can’t run it on a wireline network. Lorenzo also questioned what the band reconditions would need to be for them to be able to deploy NAT 64 and when the breakage would be acceptably low enough. He didn’t think they were at that point yet. Andy agreed that this is a point he wants to reach and that if they want to take genuine steps towards a v6 native end-to-end Internet, the transitional technology that they choose needs to take account of that.He added that MAP would probably cause fewer breakages than the other transitional technologies that require users to have v4 address space of some kind. This is because there is less state in places where you don’t want state. His added that the long-term view is the most important and that ultimately they should be able to turn off these transitional technologies. Jan stated that the idea of A plus B was to give an alternative to evil, fat, big stateful CGN.MAP is a stateless version of A plus B that is well defined and has been further developed by guys from Cisco.He asked Andy why he is suggesting that a stateful solution is the best one to choose. Andy responded that this is definitely the long-term view.If he had to pick a technology today, which he needed to use tomorrow, he would choose MAP.However, what he would like to see in five years’ time is an Internet that can cope with NAT64 for new builds.It provides the last bit of incentive that may be necessary to turn off transitional technologies in the future.He said that they get the Internet that they deserve. Jan asked if Andy could put in his slides at the beginning that stateful is bad. Andy replied that stateful is always bad, pain is bad, but there is a place for it. Benedikt noted that pain is actually good in this situation because it makes people change their habits.He added that a lot of people don’t realise how painful the lack of support for literal IP addresses is.He also noted that a transitional technology that can be useful for business customers (though not for home users or ISPs) is Application Gateways. Andy responded that in his opinion Application Layer Gateways could be more painful than putting state in place where NAT64 does. Benedikt replied that they are less painful if you have to use them anyway for security reasons and if you can get away with using them and nothing else. Ondřej Caletka, CESNET, z.s.p.o., mentioned that NAT64 needs DNS 64 to operate and, by design, DNS64 breaks DNSSEC. Iljitsch van Beijnum, bgpexpert.com and co-author of DNS 64 and NAT 64, explained several scenarios for the implementation of DNS 64 and DNSSEC showing how common problems could be avoided.Iljitsch asked whether people in the room would be interested in asking the IETF to start working on ways to make literals work through NAT 64. No hands were raised Mark Townsley, Cisco, said that the stateless technologies like 6RD and MAP can be run inline with the existing edge routers. So unlike stateful technologies like DS Light, NAT 444, and even NAT 4 you don’t need to add a bunch of special purpose boxes. Andy acknowledged this but reiterated that it does not address the exhaustion issue.He added that there are reasons to like and dislike all of the transition technologies but in his opinion none of them will be perfect because none of them are native IPv6. Erik Kline, Google, applauded Andy’s focus on supporting native IPv6 and commented that if there were an ISP providing a NAT64 IPv6-only service in his area then he would buy it and try it. N. Results of the 2012 Global IPv6 Survey - Maarten Botterman, GNKS Consult The presentation is available at: https://ripe65.ripe.net/presentations/127-RIPE_65_Global_IPv6_Deployment_Su… Ivan Beveridge, Betfair Ltd, asked who the target group was for the survey. Maarten responded that the population was invited to respond via the RIR mailing lists.About one third were ISPs and the rest were other parties.The population hasn’t changed significantly over time so the results are comparable to previous surveys. O. Wrap up and discussion on future work David Kessens, IPv6 WG co-Chair, remarked that it was a little unfortunate that this session ran in parallel with the Address Policy Working Group session – they would work to ensure that this wouldn’t happen again.He thanked everyone for attending and closed the session. P. Closing

1 1

RIPE NCC Webinars - new dates
by Training Mailbox 21 Dec '12

21 Dec '12

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce the launch of new dates for our Webinars for LIRs. The RIPE NCC Webinars are live, one hour online training courses that allow participants to interact with our trainers without leaving their desks. We focus on the topics and issues most important for LIRs. Register now at https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/e-learning/webinars Participation is limited to 20 people, so don't hesitate if you want to take part! If you have questions, please email <e-learning(a)ripe.net>. We look forward to seeing you online. Kind regards, RIPE NCC Training Services

1 1