- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

2009 IPv4 Address Use Report
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 01 Jan '10

01 Jan '10

[ (Non-cross)posted to NANOG, PPML, RIPE IPv6 wg, Dutch IPv6 TF. Web version for the monospace font impaired and with some links: http://www.bgpexpert.com/addrspace2009.php ] 2009 IPv4 Address Use Report As of January first, 2010, the number of unused IPv4 addresses is 722.18 million. On January 1, 2009, this was 925.58 million. So in 2009, 203.4 million addresses were used up. This is the first time since the introduction of CIDR in 1993 that the number of addresses used in a year has topped 200 million. With 3706.65 million usable addresses, 80.5% of the available IPv4 addresses are now in some kind of use, up from 75.3% a year ago. So the depletion of the IPv4 address reserves is continuing in much the same way as in previous years: Date Addresses free Used up 2006-01-01 1468.61 M 2007-01-01 1300.65 M 167.96 M 2008-01-01 1122.85 M 177.80 M (with return of 16.78 M to IANA) 2009-01-01 925.58 M 197.27 M 2010-01-01 722.18 M 203.40 M These figures are derived from from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority's IANA IPv4 Address Space Registry page and the records published on the FTP servers of the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs): AfriNIC, which gives out address space in Africa, APNIC (Asia-Pacific region), ARIN (North America), LACNIC (Latin American and the Caribbean) and the RIPE NCC (Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Middle East). The IANA list shows the status of all 256 blocks of 16777216 addresses identified by the first 8-bit number in the IPv4 address. http://www.bgpexpert.com/ianaglobalpool.php is a graphical representation of the IANA global pool (updated weekly). The RIR data indicates how much address space the RIRs have delegated to internet service providers (and sometimes end-users). The changes over the course of 2009 are as follows: Delegated Blocks +/- 2009 Addresses Used Available to/status (in millions) AfriNIC 2 33.55 14.89 18.66 APNIC 34 +4 570.42 540.36 30.06 ARIN 31 520.09 486.58 33.51 LACNIC 6 100.66 79.77 20.89 RIPE NCC 30 +4 503.32 450.11 53.21 RIRs subtotal 103 +8 1728.05 1571.71 156.34 LEGACY 92 1543.50 1413.88 129.62 UNALLOCATED 26 -8 436.21 436.21 Totals 221 3707.76 2985.59 722.17 The RIRs requested an unusually small number of /8s from IANA: only eight. As a result, APNIC is well below the nine months working inventory threshold, so it should be getting no less than six additional /8s soon to get back to 18 months working inventory. Similarly, ARIN should be getting five additional /8s soon. This would bring us to 15 /8s remaining in the IANA global pool, and should allow for regular operation for about the rest of the year. Then in early 2011, the next round of delegations will have to happen, which may or may not hit the magic fifth-to-last /8, after which the remaining four will be given to the other four RIRs and then each RIR will run out of IPv4 space at its own pace. The total number of available addresses is slightly higher than the previously mentioned figure at 3707.76 million because the table above includes 172.16.0.0/12 and 192.168.0.0/16, which are set aside for private use. Networks 0.0.0.0/8 and 127.0.0.0/8 aren't usable because of special uses and 10.0.0.0/8 is also set aside for private use. 224 - 239 are multicast addresses, and 240 - 255 is class E, which is "reserved for future use". The 2985 million addresses currently in use aren't very evenly distributed over the countries in the world. The current top 15 is: 2010-01-01 2009-01-01 increase Country 1 - US 1495.13 M 1458.21 M 2.3% United States 2 - CN 232.45 M 181.80 M 27.9% China 3 - JP 177.15 M 151.56 M 16.9% Japan 4 - EU 149.48 M 120.29 M 24.3% Multi-country in Europe 5 (6) DE 86.51 M 81.75 M 5.8% Germany 6 (9) KR 77.77 M 66.82 M 16.4% Korea 7 - CA 76.96 M 74.49 M 3.3% Canada 8 - FR 75.54 M 68.04 M 11.0% France 9 (5) GB 74.18 M 86.31 M -14.1% United Kingdom 10 - AU 39.77 M 36.26 M 9.7% Australia 11 - BR 33.95 M 29.75 M 14.1% Brazil 12 - IT 33.50 M 29.64 M 13.0% Italy 13 (14) RU 28.47 M 23.18 M 22.8% Russia 14 (13) TW 27.10 M 24.01 M 12.9% Taiwan 15 (17) NL 22.84 M 21.67 M 5.4% Netherlands The reduction in address use by the UK is because net 51.0.0.0/8 is now registered as country "EU" rather than "GB". In 2008, the United States was the biggest user of new address space with 50 million new addresses put into use. China was second with 46.50 million. In 2009, they swapped places: China used up 50.65 million addresses and the US a mere 36.92 million. The US now holds 50.1% of the IPv4 address space in use, down from 52.4% last year. The total for the top 15 excluding the US is now 38%, up from 35.8%. The rest of the world gets the remaining 12%, up from 11.8%. The size of address blocks given out was increasing until 2005, and then started decreasing. The table below shows the number of delegations for a certain range of block sizes (equal or higher than the first, lower than the second value). 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 < 1000 745 1022 1309 1507 1830 1896 1747 1000 - 8000 1009 1516 1891 2265 2839 3235 3185 8000 - 64k 1014 1100 1039 1192 1015 1129 1169 64k - 500k 215 404 309 419 395 410 403 500k - 2M 46 61 60 57 62 82 70 > 2M 6 7 18 17 24 18 21 In millions of addresses: 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 < 1000 0.25 0.35 0.44 0.51 0.63 0.65 0.59 1000 - 8000 3.45 4.49 5.07 5.83 6.93 7.75 7.55 8000 - 64k 14.00 15.99 15.46 18.01 15.67 17.40 18.01 64k - 500k 25.51 42.01 34.23 50.86 50.83 52.58 50.50 500k - 2M 31.98 44.63 41.63 46.69 45.50 57.41 49.28 > 2M 12.58 20.97 68.62 52.43 67.37 54.00 54.12 Numbers of delegations and their average size: Year Blocks Addresses (M) Average block size 2000 2794 78.35 28043 2001 2824 88.95 31497 2002 2463 68.93 27985 2003 3035 87.77 28921 2004 4110 128.45 31252 2005 4626 165.45 35765 2006 5457 174.32 31945 2007 6165 186.92 30320 2008 6770 189.79 28035 2009 6595 180.06 27302 (The numbers of addresses given out are lower here because ARIN often attributes the delegation of new addresses to a previous year, this view doesn't correct for that.)

1 0

2009-08 Implementation: IPv6 PI Assignments for LIRs
by Nathalie Trenaman 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that RIPE Policy Proposal 2009-08,"IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments for LIRs", has been implemented. The RIPE NCC is now ready to accept requests for IPv6 address space under the new policy. This proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-08.html The updated "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-policies.html The following document has also been updated to reflect this policy implementation: http://ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-pi-support.html Regards, Nathalie Trenaman Registration Services RIPE NCC

1 0

Last Call: New IPv6 working group charter (20091213)
by David Kessens 07 Dec '09

07 Dec '09

All, We have reached the point where it is time to do a Last Call on the latest revision of the new proposed ipv6 working group charter as attached below and posted to the mailing list earlier today. We have gone from determining the generic direction to fine tuning the language for final publication. As Shane mentioned in his previous mail it looks like we have reached the point where further changes are not going to provide for a much improved outcome. Please speak up on or before 20091213 to voice your support for the new charter, or alternatively a statement why we need to consider further changes with suggestions of what these changes should entail. I have already started to keep track of people who stated their support before the official Last Call started, but after Shane's final version was posted, so there is no need to do so again. Just in case we do find very minor issues like a spelling error, I will correct them without issuing a new Last Call. Barring any other negative comments that preclude me from declaring a rough consensus, I will ask the RIPE NCC to post the new charter on the website after the Last Call has passed. I hope this helps, David Kessens --- New proposed charter for the IPv6 working group: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv6 is the next generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists to promote IPv6 adoption. The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people to deploy IPv6, and to manage IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. These activities include: * Outreach * Education * Sharing deployment experiences * Discussing and fixing operational issues The working group will cooperate with operators and others, both inside and outside the networking industry, to share resources and combine efforts. -----------------------------------------------------------------------

8 7

Proposal for new charter: Version 3
by Shane Kerr 02 Dec '09

02 Dec '09

All, I have tried to incorporate additional comments in this version of the charter. I don't plan on producing any more versions - we can debate each word forever, but I think we have reached the point of diminishing returns. If we have consensus, then we can consider ourselves rechartered! Otherwise someone else can work thorough the text again (or start over from scratch). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv6 is the next generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists to promote IPv6 adoption. The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people to deploy IPv6, and to manage IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. These activities include: * Outreach * Education * Sharing deployment experiences * Discussing and fixing operational issues The working group will cooperate with operators and others, both inside and outside the networking industry, to share resources and combine efforts. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Differences: -IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists +IPv6 is the next generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists De-hyphenating. Or dehyphenating, if you prefer. ;) -* Discussing operational issues +* Discussing and fixing operational issues I don't see any harm in mentioning that we'll try to fix operational issues in addition to discussing them. -The working group will co-operate within the networking industry and -without, to share resources and combine efforts. +The working group will cooperate with operators and others, both +inside and outside the networking industry, to share resources and +combine efforts. More hyphen fixups. Clarifying that the "networking industry" does not just mean operators. Remove the clumsy "within/without" text that apparently only made sense to me. -- Shane

9 8

RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
by Remco van Mook 27 Nov '09

27 Nov '09

Michael key words here are 'average' and 'generous'. Perhaps you should try to read first. Same goes for your statement of counting addresses. In cases like these, I think orders of magnitude are more interesting than narrowly defined numbers. 4 million is roughly 0.1% of the IPv4 pool. Since I think the AVERAGE ISP is probably smaller than that (either in customer count or allocated space), giving all of them 32 bits (or the full IPv4 space) PLUS 4-8 bits of network space (not host space!) for their 6rd plan sounds wasteful to me. The 6rd draft has prefix compression for a reason. Sparse number spaces for expansion and automation are fine. Very sparse number spaces you know from the outset will never be filled or usable for other purposes, are not. That is why deploying multiple instances of 6rd in order to benefit from prefix compression to collapse that required number space without losing functionality sounds like the right direction for me. Remco (and if we decide that a /24 is a better standard to hand out to LIRs than a /32, I can predict today that somebody will come up with a very clever reason to say that /16s are probably even better. Repeat until bored - or out of space.) -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of michael.dillon(a)bt.com Sent: vrijdag 27 november 2009 11:04 To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net; ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD > Fair enough, I'll bite. Given 2^32(or 4 billion) IPv4 > addresses, and say, 4 million IP's allocated to the average > ISP (I'm being generous > here) there's your 0.1%. The rest of the space will go unused > since we're using 32 bits to identify these sparse blocks in > the v4->v6 translation. Not counting customer /56s, 48s, /60s > or whatever. But customers, and /56s are the essential things to count. Again, you just throw in the number 4 million without explaining where it comes from. IPv4 ISPs come in all sizes with one /24 allocation and some with many allocations of sizes ranging from /17 to /12. Counting IP addresses in IPv6 makes no sense. The addressing hierarchy of IPv6 is designed to have large blocks of unused and unusable addresses. This is both to allow for expansion without changing the network architecture, and to allow for automated address assignment functions which rely on large sparse number spaces to avoid collisions. --Michael Dillon This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.

2 1

Proposal for new charter: Version 2
by Shane Kerr 24 Nov '09

24 Nov '09

All, I've tried to combine all of the input and comments and produce a version of the text which hopefully includes all suggestions. Hopefully it is not too long: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists to promote IPv6 adoption. The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people to deploy IPv6, and to manage IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. These activities include: * Outreach * Education * Sharing deployment experiences * Discussing operational issues The working group will co-operate within the networking industry and without, to share resources and combine efforts. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Changes: * The 2nd paragraph was updated as per Sander's input. * I took David's point and removed "co-operation" as a activity, since as he indicated it is quite vague without the explanation. Instead I added the sentence at the end there. The idea is to make sure that we note that we have a goal of not duplicating work, but rather use the good stuff that other IPv6 and non-IPv6 organizations have done. If this doesn't make sense in the charter, we can of course leave it out. * I added David's activity about sharing deployment experiences - it seems to make sense. * I added a slightly modified activity based on David's last new one. His was "propose solutions for operational issues". I would rather see this as a more general discussion of operational issues - presumably solutions will be proposed where appropriate. If we want to focus on solutions, then we can revert to David's idea about proposing solutions. I think we are very close, and hopefully people are happy with this one. I don't have any objection to further modifications, although I am looking forward to moving past the rechartering and getting to some planning of what to do with the new-found working group super-powers! :) -- Shane

13 14

Announcement: RIPE NCC Training Courses
by Training Mailbox 10 Nov '09

10 Nov '09

[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

Happy Birthday Internet !! The first Internet connection
by Marc Manthey 29 Oct '09

29 Oct '09

happy birthday to Charley Kline and Leonard Kleinrock, who made this possible "The first message over the internet was send 29 october 1969" http://macbroadcast.org/index.php?q=node/34 greetings marc -- Les enfants teribbles - research / deployment Marc Manthey- Vogelsangerstrasse 97 50823 Köln - Germany Geo: 50.945554, 6.920293 PGP/GnuPG: 0x1ac02f3296b12b4d Tel.:0049-221-29891489 Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 project : http://opencu.org.uk blog: http://macbroadcast.org Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). Please note that according to the German law on data retention, information on every electronic information exchange with me is retained for a period of six months.

1 0

Proposal for new charter
by Shane Kerr 28 Oct '09

28 Oct '09

All, At the RIPE meeting in Lisbon, I agreed to draft a proposed new charter for the IPv6 working group. Here it is: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists to further IPv6 adoption. The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people deploy IPv6. These activities include: * Outreach * Co-operation * Education The IPv4 Internet will continue for a long time. The IPv6 working group is also concerned with IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Please use this mailing list for discussion. We would like to have a new charter in place before the next RIPE meeting. How this proposed charter was made: I looked at all of the other RIPE charters, and decided I wanted to keep this short and simple. I had a lunch meeting with David Kessens, Denesh Bhabuta, Carlos Friacas, Marco Hogewoning, Bernard Tuy, Lance Wright, and Jan Zorz. We discussed the new charter, although the above text has not been reviewed by them or anyone else. I thank them all! For those interested, here are some thoughts that went into the proposed charter: Background ---------- The current IPv6 working group charter is out-of-date: The IPv6 working group follows the progress of specification and implementation of the new IP version. It coordinates implementations in Europe and is going to create testbeds. It comes from a time when IPv6 was immature; the focus was keeping track of technological advances and working on experimental networks. That time is over, and the IPv6 working group needs an updated charter. Goal ---- The goal of creating a new charter is to do more than simply to update the text. We have almost finished allocating all IPv4 addresses. IPv6 is still only used by a small fraction of network traffic, many devices do not support IPv6 at all, and most organizations have no plans for IPv6 adoption. RIPE is a unique community, and should do what it can to help make the migration to IPv6 as easy as possible. A new charter is just the first step. Commentary ---------- The proposed new charter lists some activities: * Outreach * Co-operation * Education Outreach involves getting people, organisations, and groups to begin or continue IPv6 adoption. This includes vendors, governments, and developers. It also includes groups which are traditionally unrepresented, like gamers or content creators. Outreach means both going to other venues and inviting people from outside the RIPE community to visiting RIPE activities. Co-operation is working within the networking industry and without, to share resources and combine efforts. There are a large number of organisations and projects, and we should work with them whenever possible, so that IPv6 can fit in with their goals. This also includes co-operation with the many IPv6 efforts that exist worldwide. Education means all methods of increasing IPv6 knowledge. Note that the RIPE NCC is not able to do very much in terms of education, since it cannot compete with its members. However, the RIPE IPv6 working group can and should educate. -- Shane

19 37

Publication of default assignment sizes for end-user network ?
by Marco Hogewoning 28 Oct '09

28 Oct '09

Fellow WG members, This is something that seems to be lingering around for some time now and from talking to various people seems that there is some basic need for a system for this. I understand the IPv6-WG may not be the correct place to solve the issue, however I do think this is a nice platform to try and see if we can work out what the actual need is for that and hopefully this can result in some draft proposal that can be taken to the appropriate working group or even to another body for the actual implementation. As per RIPE-481 section 5.5 there is no need to register assignments of a /48 or longer into the public RIR/NIR database, as long it's registered by the LIR and that data is accessible by the RIR. Now this does not forbid you to register individual assignments into the public database, but doing so poses various problems. Not only the sheer number of assignments can be a problem, but also keeping that registration up-to-date will have serious impact on your day to day operations and especially with residential users there might be privacy issues as well. From an IR perspective this all makes sense and seems like reasonable behavior and I'm not intending of changing this. From what I see in the emerging deployments is that there are quite some differences between various operators on what the default assignment size to end users is and even in the same operator the actual size assigned might vary in between the various products from anywhere between a /128 to establish a link up to the full /48 possible. Together with these emerging deployments and this is primarily focussed on eyeballs but it may also apply to hosting as well, there seems to become a need to establish things like GEO-IP services but also blacklists for, as an example, email. Within IPv4 these kind of services can pretty much be done with a resolution of the full 32 bits registering individual IP addresses and still end up with a manageable list. With IPv6 emerging this situation changes, as most as not all customers will receive at least a /64 it seems natural to do some form of aggregation and I already can think of 2 reasons why: - Doing it on the full /128 will have the risks the lists become too big and maintaining and distributing them becomes impossible - Within the /64 it's fairly easy to switch addresses or to simply select multiple, so for instance a virus can use an almost unlimited number of source addresses to do evil. Naturally this has already led to aggregation, people working on collecting this data and generating these blacklists and also get-up services have invented there own scheme, some of them register individual /64's, others seem to have or start using a model where presence of X numbers of individual /64 blocks will lead to automatic aggregation and the next 'natural' boundary for that is /48. This in itself can lead to issues for instance when you assign /56 to a customer premises and somebody decides to aggregate he may as well block 256 house holds and not the one doing evil. Now talking with people the problem seems big enough that it needs fixing, in fact we may as well fix it before it goes wrong. Now I realize there are various way how to attack this and various platforms or community bodies to address this. At this point in time the RIR seems a reasonable place and what I'm trying with this post is see if there is some consensus about the fact this is a problem worth fixing and hopefully together and as a WG we can generate some output by for instance writing a draft proposal and bring it to other working groups or standardization bodies. So about the solution, one of the things I'm thinking about is asking the database group to implement an additional and optional attribute for inet6num which can hold the standard assignment size used for this block. So for instance I can put an object there saying 2001:980:1000::/36 is used for residential DSL assignments and default assignment size is /48 and that 2001:980:2000::/36 is used for hosting purposes and assignment size is a /64. That way people can find out about and aggregate their lists or even abuse complaints according to boundaries set by the operator and they no longer have to guess and potentially harm themselves or other users because there educate guess was of by 8 bits. This is only one possible solution, I also heard a voice saying we could try and solve this in DNS and it might be taken to IETF others suggested that instead of the database this should be published as a machine parseable list on a static URL. Now I'm perfectly happy to write that proposal, in fact some of it is already done. So is this worth going after, did I miss something here, can you provide arguments supporting this or against this approach and what sort of solution would you like. Looking forward to your comments either on this list or privately, especially from people who are in the business of data collection/ publishing. While we work on the new charter let's together try and proof this WG still is capable of producing something usefull :) Grtx, Marco Hogewoning (Both operator and concerned citizen)

2 2

Re: Proposal for new charter
by Geert Jan de Groot 25 Oct '09

25 Oct '09

> The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people > deploy IPv6. These activities include: > * Outreach > * Co-operation > * Education I also would like to propose to add "handle early deployment experiences" or wording to that effect - as I reported yesterday, the PMTU-thing reported on the list during the RIPE meeting. We're at the beginning of large-scale deployment and I believe that we cannot accept the "if something doesn't work, just switch off the IPv6 stack" approach people currently have to take, and I have a few reasons to believe my problem is not unique. We're testing new technology, building a new network - making support work for large-scale consumer-grade deployment is one of the next challenges we face, I think. Geert Jan

6 5

Procedural approach for approval of new charter
by David Kessens 19 Oct '09

19 Oct '09

Hi, First of all, a big thank you to Shane for writing the new proposed charter. I propose that we spend until Oct 23 to give feedback to Shane. At that point, we will ask whether Shane can do a revision and I will issue a Last Call when the revision is ready so that we can get a new charter in place as soon as possible. And finally, it is nice to have a new shiny charter, but it is even more important that we as a community actually do something with it. For example, there is nothing that should stop individual participants to do proposals or volunteer for any activities that would bring our new charter (closer) to completion. For example, it would be good to hear how and whether we can do something regarding the issue that Geert Jan brought up about a week ago. David Kessens --- ----- Forwarded message from Shane Kerr <shane(a)time-travellers.org> ----- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:36:10 +0200 From: Shane Kerr <shane(a)time-travellers.org> To: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter All, At the RIPE meeting in Lisbon, I agreed to draft a proposed new charter for the IPv6 working group. Here it is: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists to further IPv6 adoption. The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people deploy IPv6. These activities include: * Outreach * Co-operation * Education The IPv4 Internet will continue for a long time. The IPv6 working group is also concerned with IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Please use this mailing list for discussion. We would like to have a new charter in place before the next RIPE meeting. How this proposed charter was made: I looked at all of the other RIPE charters, and decided I wanted to keep this short and simple. I had a lunch meeting with David Kessens, Denesh Bhabuta, Carlos Friacas, Marco Hogewoning, Bernard Tuy, Lance Wright, and Jan Zorz. We discussed the new charter, although the above text has not been reviewed by them or anyone else. I thank them all! For those interested, here are some thoughts that went into the proposed charter: Background ---------- The current IPv6 working group charter is out-of-date: The IPv6 working group follows the progress of specification and implementation of the new IP version. It coordinates implementations in Europe and is going to create testbeds. It comes from a time when IPv6 was immature; the focus was keeping track of technological advances and working on experimental networks. That time is over, and the IPv6 working group needs an updated charter. Goal ---- The goal of creating a new charter is to do more than simply to update the text. We have almost finished allocating all IPv4 addresses. IPv6 is still only used by a small fraction of network traffic, many devices do not support IPv6 at all, and most organizations have no plans for IPv6 adoption. RIPE is a unique community, and should do what it can to help make the migration to IPv6 as easy as possible. A new charter is just the first step. Commentary ---------- The proposed new charter lists some activities: * Outreach * Co-operation * Education Outreach involves getting people, organisations, and groups to begin or continue IPv6 adoption. This includes vendors, governments, and developers. It also includes groups which are traditionally unrepresented, like gamers or content creators. Outreach means both going to other venues and inviting people from outside the RIPE community to visiting RIPE activities. Co-operation is working within the networking industry and without, to share resources and combine efforts. There are a large number of organisations and projects, and we should work with them whenever possible, so that IPv6 can fit in with their goals. This also includes co-operation with the many IPv6 efforts that exist worldwide. Education means all methods of increasing IPv6 knowledge. Note that the RIPE NCC is not able to do very much in terms of education, since it cannot compete with its members. However, the RIPE IPv6 working group can and should educate. -- Shane ----- End forwarded message ----- David Kessens ---

1 0

Proposal to Remove Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy Implemented
by Nathalie Trenaman 08 Oct '09

08 Oct '09

Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that policy proposal 2000-06,"Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy", has been implemented. The RIPE NCC is now ready to accept requests for IPv6 address space under the new policy. This proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html The updated "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-481.html The following FAQ has also been updated to reflect this policy implementation: http://www.ripe.net/info/faq/rs/ipv6.html Regards, Nathalie Trenaman Registration Services RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [ipv6-wg] On deploying IPv6 for consumers..
by Andy Linton 08 Oct '09

08 Oct '09

I noted Geert Jan de Groot's message on the list about PMTU problems. The following was posted on the NZ v6 list and might be of interest. andy Begin forwarded message: > From: Ben Stasiewicz <ben(a)wand.net.nz> > Date: 6 October 2009 5:24:43 PM > To: ipv6-techsig(a)listserver.internetnz.net.nz > Subject: [Ipv6-techsig] IPv6 PMTUD issues, some data > Reply-To: ben(a)wand.net.nz, ipv6-techsig(a)listserver.internetnz.net.nz > > Hi there, > > I'm a fourth-year Waikato University student who works for WAND in his > spare time. > > Earlier this year Geoff Huston wrote a very interesting article [1] in > which he describes and diagnoses a problem he had downloading an RFC > using IPv6. He determined that it was due to PMTUD failure (probably > caused by ICMPv6 filtering close to the web server) and suggests > lowering the MTU on interfaces used for IPv6 traffic to avoid this > problem. This and the resulting ipv6-techsig discussion [2] > motivated me > to do a university project (supervised by Dr. Matthew Luckie) that > investigates problems with PMTUD in IPv6. It aims to determine the > prevalence of PMTUD failure in IPv6 by running tests to a large number > of IPv6-enabled web servers on the Internet. > > As part of my investigation, I have written a module for scamper [3] > (an > Internet measurement tool created by Matthew) that can be used to > determine whether PMTUD for a given web server is successful. It is > based on the the IPv4 PMTUD test used by tbit [4]. I won't bore you > with > the exact details of the algorithm, but the general idea is: > > Establish a connection to the web server and make an HTTP request > for a > specific object. Do not acknowledge the response. Instead, send an > ICMPv6 Packet Too Big (PTB) message asking it to reduce the size of > its > packets to 1280 bytes. If the web server retransmits the HTTP response > using a smaller packet size, conclude that PMTUD was successful. > Otherwise if the retransmitted response packet is not smaller than the > original, retransmit the PTB message. If after two retransmissions > (three PTB messages) the server still hasn't reduced the size of its > HTTP response packet, conclude that PMTUD failed. > > The test halts if the original response packet is not larger than 1280 > bytes (the MTU specified in the PTB message). I can't specify a MTU > smaller than this because most hosts will ignore an MTU smaller than > 1280 bytes (the IPv6 Minimum Path MTU [5]). > > A test to a particular host will result in one of: > > RESULT_PMTUD_SUCCESS > The server successfully completed PMTUD. A smaller HTTP response > packet > was received from the server after sending it a PTB message. > > RESULT_PMTUD_FAIL > The server failed to complete PMTUD as we did not receive a smaller > response from it. The PTB messages are probably being filtered. > > RESULT_RX_TOOSMALL > The response packet was too small to be able to continue the test. It > must be at least 1281 bytes in size. > > RESULT_RX_NOACK > Did not receive an acknowledgement for the HTTP request. > > RESULT_RX_NODATA > The HTTP request was acknowledged, but no HTTP response was received. > > RESULT_TCP_RST > A TCP reset segment was received before the test could complete. > > RESULT_TCP_ERROR > Unexpected packet received in response to the HTTP request. > > RESULT_TCP_NOCONN > Failed to establish a TCP connection to the web server. > > Test Setup: > > I run the tests from a FreeBSD 7.2 box that sits in the lounge of my > flat. It has IPv6 connectivity using 6to4 and the tunnel interface on > our gateway box has an MTU of 1480 bytes. > > Test Parameters: > > An MSS of 1221 is advertised to avoid the effect of tunnels earlier in > the reverse path as much as possible. For reasons mentioned above, a > 1280 byte MTU is specified in the PTB message. > > Test Input: > > The list of IPv6 web servers was derived from the Alexa Top 1 Million > Websites list [6]. Of these 1 million domains, only 627 had globally > routable IPv6 addresses that could be connected to on port 80 (sad > eh?). > A script searched each of these for a URL to an object that was at > least > 1221 bytes in size. A request for such an object will hopefully result > in a large enough HTTP response packet. > > Test Results: > > Frequency of each result > > 371 PMTUD_SUCCESS > 214 RX_TOOSMALL > 22 RX_NODATA > 13 TCP_NOCONN > 9 PMTUD_FAIL > 5 TCP_RST > 2 RX_NOACK > 1 TCP_ERROR > > > In addition to the outright failures (PMTUD_FAILs), we believe that > the > results RX_NODATA and RX_NOACK also indicate PMTUD failure. They could > result when the server's HTTP response packets are discarded somewhere > along the path for being too big and the server never learns that this > is occurring (and neither do we). The server's response packets are > disappearing into a PMTU black hole. > > A large number of hosts send HTTP response packets that are too small > (RX_TOOSMALL). Some of these could actually indicate PMTUD success in > the presence of 1280 byte tunnels. I will look into this further. > > > Frequency of advertised MSS values > > 458 mss=1440 > 60 mss=1220 > 47 mss=1221 (the remote TCP echoing our advertised MSS) > 33 mss=1420 > 13 mss=1380 > 10 mss=0 (did not receive a SYN from the web server) > 2 mss=8940 > 2 mss=1410 > 2 mss=1300 > 1 mss=65455 > 1 mss=33160 > 1 mss=1460 > 1 mss=1436 > 1 mss=1432 > 1 mss=1416 > 1 mss=1412 > 1 mss=1374 > 1 mss=1370 > 1 mss=1340 > > > The vast majority of hosts advertised a 1440 byte MSS. We suspect that > the 1220 byte MSSs are from hosts that have been explicitly configured > with 1280 byte MTUs and had their PMTUD disabled so as to avoid the > ICMP > filtering problem. > > My current university project is almost complete, but in the Summer I > would like to continue my investigation into IPv6 PMTUD. Can any of > you > recommend another application layer protocol (preferably a simple one > like HTTP) that my PMTUD test could support in the future? Bittorrent > could be a good one (what do you think Nathan?). Is there anything > else > that you would be interested in me finding out? > > Questions and comments are most welcome. > > Cheers > Ben Stasiewicz > > [1] http://cidr-report.org/ispcol/2009-01/mtu6.html > > [2] > http://listserver.internetnz.net.nz/pipermail/ipv6-techsig/2009-February/00… > > [3] http://www.wand.net.nz/scamper/ > > [4] http://www.icir.org/mallman/papers/tcp-evo-ccr05.ps > > [5] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2460.txt > > [6] http://s3.amazonaws.com/alexa-static/top-1m.csv.zip > _______________________________________________ > IPv6-techsig mailing list > IPv6-techsig(a)listserver.internetnz.net.nz > http://listserver.internetnz.net.nz/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-techsig

1 0

Re: [ipv6-wg] On deploying IPv6 for consumers..
by Nuno Vieira - nfsi 07 Oct '09

07 Oct '09

Hi Geert, These PMTU issues are a bit strange, as, our entire backbone is based on IPv6 native transits and peers, and we are also delivering two dual-stacked uplinks to the RIPE Meeting, with native IPv6 connectivity. I am available to investigate this further, also with RIPE OPS. Feel free to "ping" me at anytime. regards, --- Nuno Vieira nfsi telecom, lda. [Email] nuno.vieira(a)nfsi.pt [Phone] +351 21 114 2315 [Phone] +351 21 142 2300 [Mobile] +351 91 925 5561 [Fax] +351 21 114 2301 [Web] http://www.nfsi.pt/ ----- "Geert Jan de Groot" <GeertJan.deGroot(a)xs4all.nl> wrote: > Hi, > > By monitoring the stream from Lisbon, I can tell the RIPE meeting is > going well and lots of resolution is made towards deployment of > technologies like IPv6, DNSSEC and others. > It's good to see many faces, even though it's been a few years > since I attended a meeting myself. > I hope people are enjoying the meeting. > > On the topic of IPv6 deployment, I'd like to ask the WG on the > following > issue: > Turns out that, when browsing from www.ripe.net to find the URLs > of the Lisbon streams, I seem to run into a PMTU blackhole issue, > and, > IPv6 doesn't deal with these too well. > The only way around it, for me, was to switch IPv6 *OFF*. > (for those curious, it looks like a PMTU blackhole to rosie.ripe.net, > but I don't want to badmouth the RIPE NCC or the meeting crew - read > on!) > > Before you think this is another consumer-enduser, I'd like to > consider > that a few weeks ago, a few volunteers diagnosed a similar problem > with a large public FTP server in the Netherlands. I have tcpdump > logs > of the PMTU packets entering the FTP server box itself, and the TCP > stack > not noticing. Since it's not my box, there is still work-in-progress > to fix this, but it definitely is not a local problem - the PMTU > packets > come from the XS4all IPv6 tunnel broker box! > > My question, to the WG-at-large, is this: I'm just using a > consumer-grade > ADSL connection, with consumer-grade helpdesk access, who is unable > to deal with these issues. When IPv6 is deployed on a larger scale, > problems like these are bound to happen, and, I fear, these problems > happen with Joe Common who cannot diagnose these problems. > > My only recourse, and certainly Joe Common's only recourse, is to > switch IPv6 *OFF*. > That is, umm, incompatible with the IPv6 outreach the RIPE community > is currently doing. > > My questions therefore: > - Should these problems be discovered before large-scale deployment? > - Would it be a good idea to do efforts to pro-actively detect > (and correct) these problems on the infrastructure we have now, > and the infrastructure we're soon deploying? > - What mechanisms do we need to report these issues, so they can be > addressed by people who have both clue and enable/root access to > fix them? > (taking into account the very nasty scaling properties of > "consumer-grade helpdesk support lines" and the quality of the > reports > one gets from Joe Common-style users) > > Again, this message is not to badmouth RIPE NCC, the Lisbon LOC, > XS4all, or anybody else, but just a question on how to deal with > these > issues, as the current mechanisms ("consumer helpdesk") can't cope, > and the recourse ("switch IPv6 off") is probably not what we want. > > Comments? > > Geert Jan

1 0

On deploying IPv6 for consumers..
by Geert Jan de Groot 07 Oct '09

07 Oct '09

Hi, By monitoring the stream from Lisbon, I can tell the RIPE meeting is going well and lots of resolution is made towards deployment of technologies like IPv6, DNSSEC and others. It's good to see many faces, even though it's been a few years since I attended a meeting myself. I hope people are enjoying the meeting. On the topic of IPv6 deployment, I'd like to ask the WG on the following issue: Turns out that, when browsing from www.ripe.net to find the URLs of the Lisbon streams, I seem to run into a PMTU blackhole issue, and, IPv6 doesn't deal with these too well. The only way around it, for me, was to switch IPv6 *OFF*. (for those curious, it looks like a PMTU blackhole to rosie.ripe.net, but I don't want to badmouth the RIPE NCC or the meeting crew - read on!) Before you think this is another consumer-enduser, I'd like to consider that a few weeks ago, a few volunteers diagnosed a similar problem with a large public FTP server in the Netherlands. I have tcpdump logs of the PMTU packets entering the FTP server box itself, and the TCP stack not noticing. Since it's not my box, there is still work-in-progress to fix this, but it definitely is not a local problem - the PMTU packets come from the XS4all IPv6 tunnel broker box! My question, to the WG-at-large, is this: I'm just using a consumer-grade ADSL connection, with consumer-grade helpdesk access, who is unable to deal with these issues. When IPv6 is deployed on a larger scale, problems like these are bound to happen, and, I fear, these problems happen with Joe Common who cannot diagnose these problems. My only recourse, and certainly Joe Common's only recourse, is to switch IPv6 *OFF*. That is, umm, incompatible with the IPv6 outreach the RIPE community is currently doing. My questions therefore: - Should these problems be discovered before large-scale deployment? - Would it be a good idea to do efforts to pro-actively detect (and correct) these problems on the infrastructure we have now, and the infrastructure we're soon deploying? - What mechanisms do we need to report these issues, so they can be addressed by people who have both clue and enable/root access to fix them? (taking into account the very nasty scaling properties of "consumer-grade helpdesk support lines" and the quality of the reports one gets from Joe Common-style users) Again, this message is not to badmouth RIPE NCC, the Lisbon LOC, XS4all, or anybody else, but just a question on how to deal with these issues, as the current mechanisms ("consumer helpdesk") can't cope, and the recourse ("switch IPv6 off") is probably not what we want. Comments? Geert Jan

1 0

A suggestion about IPv6 Training
by Gabriella Paolini 07 Oct '09

07 Oct '09

Just a suggestion about IPv6 training and what we can do for IPv6. Under EU project Euchinagrid we (GARR) organized some tutorial to move grid programmers to a transparent network approach in their codes. http://www.euchinagrid.org/IPv6/IPv6_presentation/Introduction_to_IPv6_prog… This item could seem to be marginal to the network "affairs", but network programming is a fundamental point of contact between network and applications. Now network programming is dramatically IPv4 oriented... we support an evolution to a "protocol free" programming that demands all is possible to stack. Another point that we are trying to support is to change the point of view about the IPv6 introduction in a user network. Usually the focus is on moving the users/customers/clients to access to IPv6 resources . In our last workshop, we said to our users: first point: move all the services to IPv6 (web, mail, and all the other that you have) and after plan the clients connection. The message is: when a large number of IPv6 only users will arrive (and it will happen), they will be able to see your contents. Gabriella -- Gabriella Paolini _________________ GARR Italian National Research and Education Network Via dei Tizii, 6 - 00185 Rome direct: +39 06 4962 2507 mobile: +39 334 6533 252 gabriella.paolini(a)garr.it - http://www.garr.it/

2 1

Agenda for IPv6 wg RIPE (v1)
by David Kessens 29 Sep '09

29 Sep '09

Hi, Please see below for the first version of our working group agenda for RIPE 59. The agenda looks a bit different from usual: as you know, Maarten Botterman did a survey regarding IPv6 deployment and offered to organize a followup panel discussion with realtime input from the public using an online tool. Please contact Maarten Botterman <maarten(a)gnksconsult.com> directly if there are particular followup topics that you believe are useful for the discussion. We are scheduled to meet: Tue Oct 6, 16.00-18.00, Corinthia Hotel, Lisbon, Portugal We very often get a few last minute agenda items that are interesting enough to make it worthwhile to revise our agenda and we still have a little bit of flexibility with our timing so I fully expect that the agenda might still change a little bit. See you all in Lisbon, David Kessens --- Agenda (v1) for IPv6 wg RIPE59 When: Tue Oct 6, 16.00-18.00 Where: Corinthia Hotel, Lisbon, Portugal A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. RIPE NCC IPv6 update (James Aldridge) C. Future of the working group - charter discussion (Shane Kerr, David Kessens, input from the audience) D. Future RIPE network experiments (David Kessens, input from the audience) E. IPv6 Deployment: what are the remaining issues and bottlenecks? (panel discussion with interactive input from the audience, moderator: Maarten Botterman, GNKS Consult) F. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience) ... Y. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan (input from the audience) Z. AOB ---

2 2

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

25 Sep '09

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

18 30

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

25 Sep '09

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

7 8

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

10 Sep '09

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

1 0

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

08 Sep '09

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

1 0

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

15 Jul '09

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

1 0

Mimimum allocation sizes
by Marco Hogewoning 12 Jul '09

12 Jul '09

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

7 7

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

06 Jul '09

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

1 0