- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Announcement: RIPE NCC Training Courses
by Training 28 Jun '10

28 Jun '10

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC invites you to register for one of our upcoming training courses: - The LIR Training Course This course teaches LIRs how to request Internet number resources and interact with the RIPE NCC. A course outline is available at: http://www.ripe.net/training/lir/outline.html - The Routing Registry Training Course This course teaches LIRs how to use the RIPE Database for routing. A course outline is available at: http://www.ripe.net/training/rr/outline.html - The IPv6 Training Course This course teaches LIRs about the need for IPv6 and includes basic information on how to plan your deployment. A course outline is available at: http://www.ripe.net/training/ipv6/outline.html To see the location of upcoming courses and to register, please use the LIR Portal or complete the registration form on our website at: RIPE NCC Upcoming Courses List & Registration https://lirportal.ripe.net/lirportal/training/course-list.html If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at <training(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Rumy Kanis Training Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Announcement: RIPE NCC Training Courses
by Training 24 Jun '10

24 Jun '10

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC invites you to register for one of our upcoming training courses: - The LIR Training Course This course teaches LIRs how to request Internet number resources and interact with the RIPE NCC. A course outline is available at: http://www.ripe.net/training/lir/outline.html - The Routing Registry Training Course This course teaches LIRs how to use the RIPE Database for routing. A course outline is available at: http://www.ripe.net/training/rr/outline.html - The IPv6 Training Course This course teaches LIRs about the need for IPv6 and includes basic information on how to plan your deployment. A course outline is available at: http://www.ripe.net/training/ipv6/outline.html To see the location of upcoming courses and to register, please use the LIR Portal or complete the registration form on our website at: RIPE NCC Upcoming Courses List & Registration https://lirportal.ripe.net/lirportal/training/course-list.html If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at <training(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Rumy Kanis Training Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

List of IPv6 measurements published on RIPE Labs
by Mirjam Kuehne 22 Jun '10

22 Jun '10

[I am sorry if you receive this more than once.] Dear colleagues, Please see two articles related to IPv6 Measurements recently published on RIPE Labs: 1. A list of IPv6 measurements various people and organisations are doing with a short description and pointers to the actual results of the measurements http://labs.ripe.net/content/ipv6-measurement-compilation 2. An interview with Alain Durand about the IPv6 measurements he is doing at Comcast together with the University of Pennsylvania http://labs.ripe.net/content/ipv6-monitor We would like to get feedback from you about the measurements presented. How would you chose to measure the growing deployment of IPv6? Have you set criteria for when you will deploy IPv6? Let us know what information and analysis would be helpful to assist you in the deployment of IPv6. And would measurements influence your decision to deploy IPv6 or not? Please go to the forum at http://labs.ripe.net/node/ipv6-measurements or contact me directly at labs(a)ripe.net. Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 1

Bad routes
by Jan Hugo Prins 22 Jun '10

22 Jun '10

Hi everyone, I suppose this is some testing of someone, but I would think that the following routes are bad. Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path * i1000::/8 2001:1540:800:4000::2:1 90 0 16243 286 174 376 376 376 i *> 2001:1540:800:4000::3:1 90 0 16243 286 174 376 376 376 i * i10c0:1100::/24 2001:1540:800:4000::2:1 90 0 16243 24875 6453 6939 30160 46385 174 376 376 376 851 i *> 2001:1540:800:4000::3:1 90 0 16243 24875 6453 6939 30160 46385 174 376 376 376 851 i -- Jan Hugo Prins Better.be B.V. http://www.betterbe.com/

1 0

Request for approval of the minutes for the session at RIPE-60
by Marco Hogewoning 18 Jun '10

18 Jun '10

Please find attached the minutes of our last WG session, which was held during the RIPE-60 meeting in Prague. The minutes will be declared final if no objections, except for minor editorial corrections that will be fixed before publication, will be received by the end of Wednesday June 16th, 2010 in a timezone of your choice. Thanks to Vesna and Amanda from the NCC for scribing and preparing these minutes. Feedback is welcome on this list or if you prefer a less public method via ipv6-wg-chair(a)ripe.net. Greetings, Marco Hogewoning -- IPv6 Working Group Minutes from RIPE 60 Status: Draft Revision: 1.1 WG Co-chairs: David Kessens, Marco Hogewoning Scribe: Vesna Manojlovic (RIPE NCC) Date: Tuesday, 4 May 2010, Time: 16:00 - 18:00 A. Administrative items Introduction IPv6 co-Chair, David Kessens, welcomed the participants. New Chairs David introduced two new co-chairs: Marco Hogewoning (XS4ALL) & Shane Kerr (ISC). The new email address to reach all three co-chairs is: Ipv6-wg-chair(a)ripe.net New Charter David discussed that following RIPE 59 in Lisbon, a new charter was suggested and discussed on the mailing list. A consensus was reached on the mailing list. The charter has four focal points: outreach, education, sharing deployment experiences, and discussing and fixing operational issues. RIPE 59 Minutes Minutes from the previous WG meeting were published to the list. There were no comments and the minutes from RIPE 59 were approved. B. Java script-based HTTP Client Measurements (IPv6 at Web Clients and Caching Resolvers) Emile Aben from the RIPE NCC gave a presentation on JavaScript-based HTTP Client Measurements. The presentation is available at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/presentations/Aben-IPv6_at_web_cl…> Link to the articles on the RIPE Labs: <http://labs.ripe.net/content/measuring-ipv6-web-clients-and-caching-resolve…> <http://labs.ripe.net/content/measuring-ipv6-web-clients-and-caching-resolve…> <http://labs.ripe.net/content/measuring-ipv6-web-clients-and-caching-resolve…> C. IETF v6ops activity Kurt Lindquist from Netnod gave a presentation on the IETF v6ops activity. The presentation is available at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/presentations/Lindqvist-IETF_v6op…> IETF v6ops WG does not produce standards; produce documentation on BCP. We invite everyone to join the mailing lists discussions. D. CPE Overview Marco Hogewoning from XS4ALL gave a CPE overview. The presentation is available at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/presentations/Hogewoning-IPv6_CPE…> Remco van Mook said Linksys does 6to4. It is undocumented. Lookup the presentation from NANOG from last year. Marco asked for a request for feedback, if there was any interest and if anyone would volunteer for testing. Lars mentioned that there was one Marco didn't mention: Mikrotik 5.0 beta is out, supports PPPoE. Marco asked if it didn't do ADSL interfaces. Lars said that was indeed the case. Wolfgang Tremmel from DE-CIX asked who is using which CPE. AVM 4 Cisco (a lot) Lynsix ? Native? Tunnels? Daniel Karrenberg from the RIPE NCC stated they were interested in publishing this, not only from meeting to meeting, but continuously. He then suggested doing a similar survey for the pre-packaged firewall deal. E. IPv6 Worldwide Policy Review Filiz Yilmaz from the RIPE NCC gave a presentation on IPv6 world-wide policy review. The presentation is available at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/presentations/Yilmaz-IPv6_WorldWi…> Filiz said that policy is not normally discussed in the working group, but that they want to make sure people are up-to-date with the policy. She said that people are deploying v6 now, and the policy was written a decade ago. She added that policy is trying to catch up with the operational experience and that there were two main issues: site definition, and routing practices. Filiz mentioned that there is a new article published on the differences between v6 and v4 PI policies. F. Mobile broadband and IPv6 in Slovenia Jan Zorz from go6.si gave a presentation on IPv6 in Slovenia. The presentation is available at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/presentations/Zorz-Mobile_broadba…> Marco Hogewoning asked if it was capable of both IPv4 and IPv6 or if you had to choose. Jan replied that it could do both, but it makes one and then closes down the PPP and makes another one. He said that at the same time, on the same phone, you couldn’t have a look at two different websites on both v4 and v6. An attendee asked if there was roaming. Jan replied that Tusmobil was very small and didn’t cover the whole country, but that Mobitel had roaming. Marco Hogewoning mentioned a last-minute agenda item: Martin Levy from Hurricane Electric would present for a few minutes on their BGP Toolkit. X. Hurricane Electric’s BGP Toolkit Martin Levy from Hurricane Electric gave an update on BGP Toolkit. There was no presentation, but more information can be found at: <http://Bgp.he.net> Martin said they do daily processing of RIS & Routeviews data. You can do searches on ASs, prefixes, etc. He added that everything was v4 & v6 related. He said they added the “graphing”. (as1273). He mentioned that it gives you the ability to see how are customer routes seen from the rest of the Internet. Martin asked for feedback. G. Update on Recent RIPE NCC IPv6 Activity Chris Buckridge from the RIPE NCC gave an update on RIPE NCC IPv6 activity. The presentation is available at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/presentations/Buckridge-Update_on…> Paul Rendek from the RIPE NCC commented that they had a 5 days-long hands-on IPv6 workshop in Bahrain. He said that the next v6 workshops would be in UAE, Jordan, Syria & Istanbul with MENOG. H. IPv6-wg brainstorming Marco Hogewoning then opened up a brainstorming session on IPv6. He mentioned several issues to consider: Where do we go from here? Where should we focus on? Outreach? New audiences or areas? Education? Do we need any? What do we need?Cooperation ? Platform for technical issues? Other organisations? Kurt Lindquist from Netnod mentioned that at a Netnod customer meeting, Ole told us about Broadband forum and standardisation. He said that more of that would be outreach and education at the same time. Marco asked that if anyone knew of people that deployed IPv6 to come to the IPv6 Working Group and share their achievements. Jan Zorz commented that people needed to start ‘walking the walk’. Find people who can present stuff that is actually working. He commented on the need for more operational talks. Geoff Huston said that very few folks who run big networks want to do any research about v6. He asked how can we take the measurements tools and put them on the high-traffic sites? How do we engage in the useful measurements? If the 5% is the real number of End Sites that are IPv6-capable, then we have reached the goal. But is the number really 5%? Marco commented that the measurements could be done on the tax-office sites. That gives you Joe Average. Geoff replied that 1.6% path MTU failure rate wasn’t good enough, that it had to be 0%. He said there was a way to do it go for a smaller MTU on the server. He then said that his other wish was for someone to make Java script that worked in every browser (most importantly in the Explorer), and loads in the background. He asked for volunteers. Daniel Karrenberg from the RIPE NCC said that according to the EU Council presentation that morning: “Naming and Shaming works on the country level”. He encouraged people to participate in those measurements, even if the tools weren’t perfect. He added that he would really like if Emile Aben from the RIPE NCC had 5 to 10 commitments from around our region for the web sites to host our script. He said the RIPE NCC needed to be able to present the data to people who are making business decisions, and national policy makers. Kurt Keiser said that IPv6 is about global connectivity and continued connectivity. He asked what happens with v4 clients that can not be upgraded? He would like to see a listing of devices that can not be upgraded (for example, nuclear power plants). Kurt Lindquist said it would be good to have a standardised way of collecting data. He added that there were big web-sites in every county, for example, in Sweden there is Pirate Bay. He said that those guys would be happy to share their statistics. He said he was there was someone in each country to talk to. Marco said that not everyone wanted to share how many visitors they had. But he hopes they can show a percentage of usage [over IPv6] without showing numbers. Jamie Stallwood said that the IPv6 Ripeness presented today was interesting. He added that it would be good if the info could distinguish between edge ASs and the big, transit ones. Also the regional overview would be interesting. For example, in UK the big transit providers don’t do v6. Emile Aben from the RIPE NCC said the suggestions would be considered. Alex Band from the RIPE NCC said that he’d talked with hundreds of people as a Trainer and that there didn’t seem to be one place with practical information for small ISPs. What are the steps? Practical experiences? He said that once they had experience, they would share it. Alex said a platform needed to be created to do that. David added that such information was available in 6bone Database, like where to ping to check if the things are working. He said that was all gone now because the 6bone didn’t exist any more. Alex Band from the RIPE NCC mentioned a presentation Marco Hogewoning did about XS4All’s practical information about their network setup, some tricks and tips, and that when it was showed during RIPE NCC training courses, it was really appreciated. David asked if he was looking for the internal information. Marco said he received good feedback about his slides, and Mirjam Kuehne from the RIPE NCC said that they might add an IPv6 section on RIPE Labs. Marco made a request to the community: If you have those deployment scenarios and are willing to share your address plan, share the data by sending the link to the mailing list. Aaron Hughes from 6connect, Inc., said they are working with ARIN and NANOG on a site where authors and readers can manage living documents, with an interface that allows you to search through documents. The mailing list is: Bcp-discuss(a)bind.com; there will be a BOF at NANOG 49 to agree on this. Marco mentioned that he is also working on a registration need for IPv6 space. He said it would be discussed in the Address Policy WG. David Kessens asked the audience if it wanted to set up the IPv6 meetings in a different format, like tutorials or a Plenary or a v6-only day. He asked the attendees to give feedback. Marco added that there would be one more global IPv6 survey. He instructed the audience to approach Maarten Botterman from GNKS Consult if you anyone was interested. He said the survey would be sent to the IPv6 WG mailing list. Y. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan Z. AOB & wrap-up Marco ended the session.

1 1

i.root-servers.net with AAAA
by Lindqvist Kurt Erik 18 Jun '10

18 Jun '10

Just FYI, as of last night Perhaps not for the IETF but as FYI, as of last night ; <<>> DiG 9.6.0-APPLE-P2 <<>> i.root-servers.net aaaa ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 47604 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 13, ADDITIONAL: 14 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;i.root-servers.net. IN AAAA ;; ANSWER SECTION: i.root-servers.net. 604635 IN AAAA 2001:7fe::53 Best regards, - kurtis -

1 0

Reminder: Global IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey
by Paul Rendek 17 Jun '10

17 Jun '10

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, This is a reminder to participate in the 2010 Global IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey being conducted by GNKS Consult and TNO, in collaboration with the RIPE NCC. The survey is now available at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IPv6deploymentmonitoring2010 The survey will close on 1 July 2010. All five Regional Internet Registries have committed to soliciting participation in this survey in order to compile the most complete global IPv6 deployment data possible. The goal of the survey is to gain a better understanding of where the community is moving, and what can be done to ensure the Internet community is ready for the widespread adoption of IPv6. 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. The survey is composed of 23 questions and can be completed in about 15 minutes. For those without IPv6 allocations or assignments, or who have not yet deployed IPv6, the questions will be fewer in number. Results of the IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey will be presented and discussed at RIPE 61, which will be held 15-19 November in Rome, Italy. 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. Any questions concerning the survey itself should be addressed to <info(a)gnksconsult.com >. Regards, Paul Rendek Head of External Relations and Communications RIPE NCC

1 0

"IPv6 Ripeness" follow-up measurements on RIPE Labs
by Mirjam Kuehne 09 Jun '10

09 Jun '10

[apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, As a follow-up to the IPv6 Ripeness measurements done earlier (http://labs.ripe.net/content/ipv6-ripeness) we did some more analysis and looked at the age and size of the LIRs and the industry sector they are in. Please find the details on RIPE Labs: http://labs.ripe.net/content/ipv6-ripeness-sequel As always, any comments or suggestions are welcome. You can send us email or post your comments in the forum: http://labs.ripe.net/content/ipv6-ripeness-0 Kind Regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

1 0

Announcement: RIPE NCC Training Courses
by Training 03 Jun '10

03 Jun '10

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC invites you to register for one of our upcoming training courses: - The LIR Training Course This course teaches LIRs how to request Internet number resources and interact with the RIPE NCC. A course outline is available at: http://www.ripe.net/training/lir/outline.html - The Routing Registry Training Course This course teaches LIRs how to use the RIPE Database for routing. A course outline is available at: http://www.ripe.net/training/rr/outline.html - The IPv6 Training Course This course teaches LIRs about the need for IPv6 and includes basic information on how to plan your deployment. A course outline is available at: http://www.ripe.net/training/ipv6/outline.html To see the location of upcoming courses and to register, please use the LIR Portal or complete the registration form on our website at: RIPE NCC Upcoming Courses List & Registration https://lirportal.ripe.net/lirportal/training/course-list.html If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at <training(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Rumy Kanis Training Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 1

"IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs
by Mirjam Kuehne 02 Jun '10

02 Jun '10

Dear colleagues, We looked at the "IPv6 ripeness" of all LIRs in the RIPE NCC service region. This was initially created to adjust our IPv6 training course depending on the country we are in. However, we felt this might also be valuable in a bigger context. Please find the results and methodology on RIPE Labs: http://labs.ripe.net/content/ipv6-ripeness We would be interested to hear what you think about this idea in general and if you have any suggestions on how to modify or improve this. Kind Regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

13 28

2010 IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey Now Underway
by Paul Rendek 02 Jun '10

02 Jun '10

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, As announced at RIPE 60 in Prague, GNKS Consult and TNO are working with the RIPE NCC to repeat the 2009 survey 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://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IPv6deploymentmonitoring2010 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. As it is mostly the same as the survey carried out in 2009, comparison of progress will be possible. In addition, RIPE community participation will contribute to a better understanding of the global situation, as APNIC, AfriNIC and LACNIC will also send out the request to participate to their communities. 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. The survey is composed of 23 questions and can be completed in about 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 1 July 2010. Results of the IPv6 Deployment Monitoring Survey will be presented and discussed at RIPE 61, which will be held 15-19 November in Rome, Italy. 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

1 0

IPv6 CPE Survey on RIPE Labs
by Mirjam Kuehne 02 Jun '10

02 Jun '10

[apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, At the recent RIPE Meeting in Prague, Marco Hogewoning presented the IPv6 CPE survey he conducted among various vendors. The results are now published on RIPE Labs. You can find it on the home page http://labs.ripe.net or you can go directly to: http://labs.ripe.net/content/ipv6-cpe-survey In order to keep this survey up to date, we are looking for feedback: If you have access to a testbed, are already running tests of your own or if you spot an error, please leave a comment in the IPv6 CPE Survey forum: http://labs.ripe.net/content/ipv6-cpe-survey-0 or contact us on labs(a)ripe.net Kind Regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

1 0

Address space analysis
by Peter van Eijk 25 May '10

25 May '10

Hello all, You might be interested in my circleid post: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100524_the_digital_divide_on_ip_addresses/ The version on http://www.petersgriddle.net also has an embedded spreadsheet. Regards Peter van Eijk, +31 6 2268 4939, peter @ digitalinfrastructures.nl

1 0

Today's xkcd
by Shane Kerr 19 May '10

19 May '10

http://xkcd.com/742/ I think I'm going to have nightmares... -- Shane

5 4

test-ipv6.com
by Jason Fesler 14 May '10

14 May '10

Shane Kerr suggested I post this here; that some of you may find it useful. http://test-ipv6.com or http://aaaa.test-ipv6.com The intent of this site is to help the user what it will mean when publishers start publishing dual-stack. When it makes sense, the test will be updated to indicate what the future looks like when publishers are IPv6 only. The dual stack publishing case is an open question that has been discussed between content and access providers. Measurements published by Google indicate a number of users with IPv6 enabled, routes installed, but the connectivity fails. In this situation, from the user's perspective, the site is down, and the user will go to the competitor's site (Still "up", IPv4 only). Followup measurements by other parties (Tore Anderson published some data; I've seen private data by other organizations) confirm the scale of the numbers Google has seen. While content providers will continue to do their own measurements (whether publicly or privately), they won't likely be indicating to the "broken" users what fate they are facing or how to fix it. This is where I hope something like my site can help, in a brand-neutral way. Please review the FAQ; and if you have comments feel free to send them to me. The site will automatically show a survey form if you have results I don't fully understand; if you see it pop up, please fill it out with contact details in case I need to ask more questions. I've seen lots of crazy things so far! Note: This is a side project of mine, not an employer's. As such, resources are limited. Please don't post this to slashdot - I'm not appropriately resourced for it (both for hardware and finances). -- Jason Fesler, email/jabber <jfesler(a)gigo.com> resume: http://jfesler.com "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

4 3

IPv6 CPEs
by Dez 12 May '10

12 May '10

Following up on Marco's very informative presentation about IPv6 CPEs I was wondering if any of the CPEs mentioned, were tested with 2 ppp sessions (a v4 and a v6 one) at the same time. I know we've tried this setup with the ciscos (87x,88x) and I was curious to find out if other CPEs support that (and how easy it is to configure) and if anyone has tried this setup regards, Yannis

2 1

internal additional IPv4 assignment policy
by Lubos Pinkava 12 May '10

12 May '10

Hello, I've raised an idea concerning additional IPv4 assignments for our customers during RIPE60 beering with quite positive responses, so I would like to share it here and maybe get some additional feedback. We are a company running ISP/collocation business, promoting IPv6 since 2003 and already having substantial amount of IPv6 enabled customers. In our point of view, it's still pretty slow growth. What I indend to propose for our operations - active imediately - is this: - all customers requesting additional /25 (variable) shall have IPv6 assigned and asked for trying it (if not already done before) - all customers requesting additional /24 (variable) must already have active v6 services running (eg. NS/MX/web site for the beginning) There were several other ISP's interested, each of course with own specifics - but in general, we have agreed, that this can speed up IPv6 adoption especially in collocation / infastructure area and can still go through company processes. If there are more people interested, we can create some best practice document backing up our work. Any thoughts on this subject? Lubos Pinkava Casablanca INT s.r.o.

3 4

Re: [ipv6-wg] internal additional IPv4 assignment policy
by Geoffroy RIVAT 06 May '10

06 May '10

Hi, In-Reply-To: <4BE2BAAD.1040906(a)casablanca.cz> Lubos Pinkava wrote: > Hello, > > I've raised an idea concerning additional IPv4 assignments for our > customers during RIPE60 beering with quite positive responses, so I > would like to share it here and maybe get some additional feedback. > > We are a company running ISP/collocation business, promoting IPv6 > since 2003 and already having substantial amount of IPv6 enabled > customers. In our point of view, it's still pretty slow growth. > > What I indend to propose for our operations - active imediately - is this: > > - all customers requesting additional /25 (variable) shall have IPv6 > assigned and asked for trying it (if not already done before) > - all customers requesting additional /24 (variable) must already > have active v6 services running (eg. NS/MX/web site for the > beginning) This is a really good idea, on our network for each customers we have configured IPv6 and try to help them to use it. Our last procedure says to add firewall rules in both v4 and v6 when they ask using the last 2 bytes of the v4 address to map to their v6 address -- Geoffroy Rivat

1 0

Agenda for IPv6-wg @ RIPE 60 (v1)
by Shane Kerr 28 Apr '10

28 Apr '10

Hello, The IPv6 working group is scheduled for the same time at RIPE 60 in Prague as it was in RIPE 59 - immediately following the plenary on Tuesday. Here is a proposed agenda: A. Administrative stuff - Introduction - New charter - New chairs - Agenda bashing B. Javascript-based HTTP client measurements by Emile Aben C. IETF v6ops activity by Kurt Lindqvist D. CPE Overview by Marco Hogewoning E. IPv6 global policy review by Filiz Yilmaz F. IPv6-wg brainstorming . . . Y. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan Z. AOB & wrap-up The "brainstorming" session is an attempt to have some discussion about concrete ideas that we can use to reach the goals of the new charter. Marco will lead the session, but hopefully everyone will come with new ideas ready and join in. -- Shane

4 4

IPv6 client loss measurements, now on the web
by Tore Anderson 28 Apr '10

28 Apr '10

Hi list, I've finally gotten around to creating a web page dedicated to the measurements I've posted about here earlier. You'll find it at <http://fud.no/ipv6/>. It will be automatically updated every night, and it even has graphs. I think it'll be a much better home for the information than an IPv6 mailing list archive, so this means I won't be posting monthly reports any longer. Feel free to have a look! Any feedback is of course very welcome. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ Tel: +47 21 54 41 27

1 0

Agenda for IPv6-wg @ RIPE 60 (v2)
by Shane Kerr 27 Apr '10

27 Apr '10

All, An updated version of the agenda. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The IPv6 working group is scheduled for the same time at RIPE 60 in Prague as it was in RIPE 59 - immediately following the plenary on Tuesday. Here is a proposed agenda: A. Administrative stuff - Introduction - New charter - New chairs - Agenda bashing B. IPv6 at Web Clients and Caching Resolvers by Emile Aben, RIPE NCC C. IETF v6ops activity by Kurt Lindqvist, Netnod D. CPE Overview by Marco Hogewoning, XS4ALL E. IPv6 WorldWide Policy Review by Filiz Yilmaz, RIPE NCC F. Mobile broadband and IPv6 in Slovenia by Jan Zorz, go6.si G. Update on Recent RIPE NCC IPv6 Activity by Christ Buckridge, RIPE NCC H. IPv6-wg brainstorming . . . Y. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan Z. AOB & wrap-up The "brainstorming" session is an attempt to have some discussion about concrete ideas that we can use to reach the goals of the new charter. Marco will lead the session, but hopefully everyone will come with new ideas ready and join in. -- Shane

1 0

Major additions to Team Cymru's Bogon Feed - includes IPv6 prefixes
by Steve Santorelli 19 Apr '10

19 Apr '10

Team Cymru is pleased to announce a significant addition to our bogon reference project which might be of interest to this list as it relates to IPv6 matters. The new portions of the project are offered at no cost to the community, and the original bogon lists and feeds are not being changed or canceled, just augmented. The new "fullbogon" feed includes prefixes allocated to RIRs, but not assigned by the RIRs to end-users, ISPs, etc, providing a more complete view of the unassigned space that should not be seen on the Internet. This new service is therefore more granular than the original feed, including a wide variety of non-routable prefixes as well as unassigned prefixes and it also includes IPv6 prefixes. Simply email bogonrs(a)cymru.com with your ASN, peering IP addresses and whether you use MD5 authentication. See an overview in the 46th episode of Team Cymru's 'The Who and Why Show' at www.youtube.com/teamcymru, as well as a more basic overview in episode 12. For a more detailed explanation, see <http://www.team-cymru.org/Services/Bogons/>. Even more so than the original feed, there are significant changes to the list every day and the feed automatically recalculates the prefixes as they are allocated from the regional registries, so make sure you are able to regularly update your lists. Internet security is all about "the other guy." If one sizeable network is insecure, it WILL be used to abuse other networks. We look forward to continuing to help our community to secure the edge. Why is this important? Bogons are defined as Martians (private and reserved addresses defined by RFC 1918 and RFC 5735) and netblocks that have not been allocated to a regional internet registry (RIR) by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. A bogon prefix is a route that should never appear in the Internet routing table on a Router. A packet routed over the public Internet (obviously, not including over VPNs or other tunnels) should never have a source address in a bogon range. These are commonly found as the source addresses of DDoS attacks and our research has previously shown that, in some cases, up to 60% of DDoS packets were obvious bogons (e.g. 127.1.2.3, 0.5.4.3, etc.). This new service comprises a larger set which also includes IP space that has been allocated to an RIR, but not by that RIR to an actual ISP or other end-user. While not all DDoS attacks use bogons, every little bit helps. Note additionally that bogon filtering is a component of anti-spoofing filtering, which is also very important. Internet security is all about "the other guy." If one sizeable network is insecure, it WILL be used to abuse other networks. We look forward to continuing to help our community to secure the edge. warm regards, Steve. -- Steve Santorelli,Team Cymru, Inc.|www.team-cymru.org steve(a)cymru.com|[moderated] Also, please note that there are many way to keep up with what Team Cymru are doing, see the lower part of: http://www.team-cymru.org/About/contact.html plus: * join our announce list via cymru-announce-subscribe(a)cymru.com * see what we see, www.team-cymru.org/Monitoring/Graphs * probably the best news feed in the world, www.team-cymru.org/News * cool stuff you can use, www.team-cymru.org/Services/ * see our Twitter feed at http://twitter.com/teamcymru

1 0

The end of IPv4 and the arrival of IPv6 in spanish newspaper
by García Fernández, Fernando 10 Apr '10

10 Apr '10

It seems that it's finally getting to the mass media. A spanish newspaper (Publico, one of the top ten if you can say clasify them), publish an article called "Internet runs out of address" with the subtitle "The OCDE tells that we must speed up the deployment of the new protocol IPv6". I think this is a good start. For those who understand spanish (or who dare to believe to Google translation) here is the URL: http://www.publico.es/ciencias/305214/internet/quedasin/direcciones Regards, Fernando -- Tecnocom Fernando García Fernández D.G. Integración de Redes y Sistemas Josefa Valcarcel, 26 Edificio Merrimack III Madrid - 28027 Tel. Fijo: 901900900 ext 40383 Fax: (+34) 914313240 Tel. Móvil: (+34) 649428591 E-mail: fernando.garcia(a)tecnocom.es http://www.tecnocom.es

1 0

Question on Challenges of IPv6 deployment
by Edu Abume 05 Apr '10

05 Apr '10

Hi, This site has been very educative and helpful to me. Can anyone tell me: The challenges organizations face with IPv6 deployment, The organizational settings (types) that really needs to deploy quickly and Probably the deployment methodologies they prefer to use. Thanks. Edu

1 0

IPv6 brokenness in Norway, March 2010 (fwd)
by Tore Anderson 01 Apr '10

01 Apr '10

Hi, I've been posting these reports to the ipv6-ops list for some time now. Shane Kerr asked if I could post them here too, something which I don't mind doing at all, so here comes the one for March: -------- Opprinnelig melding -------- Emne: IPv6 brokenness in Norway, March 2010 Dato: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 01:35:01 +0200 Fra: Tore Anderson <tore.anderson(a)redpill-linpro.com> Organisasjon: Redpill Linpro AS Til: ipv6-ops(a)lists.cluenet.de Hi list, I'm happy to announce that the client loss is at an all-time low: 0.074% over the whole month, and it's been steadily decreasing. Buggy versions of Opera as well as Mac OS X appears to be responsible for about 95% of all measured client loss. Some noteworthy dates and events: 20100302: Opera 10.50 released, using getaddrinfo() on Windows. Gets an initial boost thanks to the Microsoft browser ballot. 20100322: Opera pushes 10.51 to their auto-update function. 20100324: A-Pressen Interaktiv re-joins the experiment. 20100327: First day of (extended) Easter holiday for many Norwegians. 20100331: The Gathering, a large data-party, kicks off. Provides native IPv6 connectivity to all participants. The numbers show that the release of Opera has helped quite a lot. Before the release of 10.50, the overall client loss was above 0.090%, but already right before Easter holiday it's below 0.065%. Easter holiday shows an interesting effect - both the measured amount of native IPv6 _and_ client loss drop sharply. The reason for this is that there's one particular network here in Norway that is the by far largest deployment of native IPv6 (about 80-85% of all requests over native IPv6 comes from it), but it is at the same time one of the largest causes of client loss, because it aggravates the Mac OS X/Opera problems significantly by filtering 6to4 traffic on ingress for a large number of end users (that have no native IPv6 service). The typical user on this network is also much more likely to take an extended Easter holiday than the the rest of Norway's population, I believe. I've been measuring the uptake of Opera 10.50+ on Windows Vista/7 in the whole period, and it has been steadily increasing even during the extended Easter holiday. About 72.5% of the Win Vista/7 Opera users were using 10.50+ at the end of the month. So while I do expect the client loss number to rebound somewhat when Easter holiday is over (on the 6th of April), I will be very surprised if it stabilises higher than 0.06-0.07%. The Mac OS X problem appears to occur when a client station has internet service using NAT/RFC 1918 numbering for IPv4, and 6to4 for IPv6. The Apple Airport Extreme SOHO router can operate in this way, and did so by default up until recently. In this case, OS X, or more precisely its getaddinfo() implementation, will prioritise 6to4 over IPv4. In addition, GNU libc (therefore all major Linux distributions) behave in the same way, but I'm not able to measure any impact, probably because there's so few Linux users to begin with. The issue is not actually a bug, but a shortcoming of RFC 3484. I've elaborated on it in reports to Apple and the glibc developers here: http://lists.apple.com/archives/Ipv6-dev/2010/Mar/msg00003.html http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11438 As an aside it's a bit fun to see how a relatively small deployment of IPv6 eyeballs like the data party (around 5000 participants I think) can dramatically change the amount of hits coming in from hosts with native IPv6. It more than doubled overnight. There's two reports attached, one generated from the readers of VG Multimedia - the online edition of Norways largest newspaper, and also Norway's largest web site, and the other from the readers of A-Pressen Interaktiv - an umbrella organisation that publishes the online editions of about 70 regional newspapers. When put together, they constitute Norway's fourth largest web site. In addition to the overall calculation, I've done five other calculations so you can see the individual impact of the different problems I've identified: - One that excludes hits from buggy versions of Opera on Windows Vista/7 (which auto-configures 6to4 and Teredo by default) excluded, - one that excludes hits from buggy versions of Opera on other versions of Windows (where a user must explicitly enable 6to4/Teredo), - one that excludes all hits from Mac OS X, - one that excludes all of the above, and - one that excludes all hits from the two significant end-user networks in Norway that filter 6to4 ingress traffic (one of them is the one I discussed above). This calculation does _not_ exclude Opera/OS X; when Opera and OS X are excluded, the two networks have about the same levels of client loss as rest of the internet. The seventh column shows approximately how much of the total client loss would have been avoided (in percentage points and percent), if the software in question didn't prefer 6to4 over IPv4, or, in the last case, if the two end-user networks mentioned didn't filter 6to4 on ingress. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ Tel: +47 21 54 41 27

1 0