- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

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are some thoughts that went into the proposed charter: Background ---------- The current IPv6 working group charter is out-of-date: The IPv6 working group follows the progress of specification and implementation of the new IP version.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

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

30 Jun '09

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

1 0

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

30 Jun '09

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

1 0

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

19 Jun '09

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

5 5

IPv6 testimonial with Randy Bush
by Rumy Kanis 15 Jun '09

15 Jun '09

Dear colleagues, As part of our IPv6 training project, that consists of face to face training and on-line learning modules and testimonials, we are proud to announce the next in our series of interviews. Randy Bush from IIJ discusses IPv6 deployment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh3i6lDqWBM&feature=channel So far, we have interviewed 22 people from the community about their experiences and are very busy editing all the video material. In the coming months, you will be able to enjoy the rest of the interviews here: http://www.youtube.com/user/RIPENCC These interviews will also be published on our e-learning page and on our IPv6 Act Now website: http://ripe.net/training/e-learning/ http://www.ipv6actnow.org/ Kind regards, Rumy Kanis Training Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

IPv6 testimonial with Andy Davidson
by Rumy Kanis 28 May '09

28 May '09

Dear colleagues, As part of our IPv6 training project, that consists of face to face training and on-line learning modules and testimonials, I am proud to announce the first in a series of interviews. Andy Davidson of NetSumo ISP Consultancy discusses the IPv6 deployment they have done for their customers and themselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCcigLJJbvU So far, we have interviewed 22 people from the community about their experiences and are very busy editing all the video material. In the coming months, you will be able to enjoy the rest of the interviews here: http://www.youtube.com/user/RIPENCC These interviews will also be published on our e-learning page and on our IPv6 Act Now website: http://ripe.net/training/e-learning/ http://www.ipv6actnow.org/ Kind regards, Rumy Kanis Training Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Website Launch: www.IPv6ActNow.org
by Paul Rendek 26 May '09

26 May '09

[Apologies for duplicate emails.] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC is pleased to announce the launch of the IPv6 Act Now! website. www.IPv6ActNow.org is a one stop website that explains IPv6 in terms that everyone can understand and provides a variety of useful information aimed at promoting the global adoption of IPv6. The site is for anyone with an interest in IPv6, including network engineers, company directors, law enforcement agencies, government representatives and civil society. The site content is regularly updated and includes: - Education, advice and opinions from the experts - Latest IPv6-related news stories - Videos and articles from Internet community leaders - Current IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 uptake statistics - The RIPE community's statement on IPv6 deployment, including a list of organisations supporting this statement - Information on community-developed IPv6 distribution policies - Useful links to other sources of information about IPv6 - A forum for everyone to share experiences, ask questions and find answers The site also includes contributions from other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and industry partners. We invite you to take a look around the site. We hope that you find it useful. If you have and comments or suggestions about IPv6ActNow!, please contact us at <ipv6actnow(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Paul Rendek Head of External Relations and Communication RIPE NCC

12 19

Agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE58
by David Kessens 05 May '09

05 May '09

Please see below for our agenda. During the next RIPE meeting, our working group is scheduled to meet: Tue, May 5, 2009, 16:00-18:00 in the Krasnapolsky Hotel in Amsterdam. See you later today! David Kessens --- Agenda for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE58 When: Tue, May 5, 2009, 16:00-18:00 Where: Krasnapolsky Hotel in Amsterdam A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience) - Paul Hoogsteder, IPv6 peering BoF C. RIPE NCC IPv6 update diving a bit more into things outside of the NCC network itself, but also some of the measurements we have from our services (Erik Romijn) D. Google IPv6 update (Lorenzo Colitti) E. Report(s) about *actual* v6 traffic volume as compared to v4? *what's real* out there, not what's on powerpoint? (input from the audience) - Martin J. Levy F. Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering) G. Discussion: deaggration of /32 prefixes, recent discussion on address policy working group The RIPE IPv6 allocation policy says in section '5. Policies for Allocations and Assignments': "b) advertise the allocation that they will receive as a single prefix if the prefix is to be used on the Internet" (input from the audience, input to address policy working group) H. Overview of ISOC's current activity with regard to IPv6 deployment. (Matthew Ford) I. Proposed EU IPv6 survey (Maarten Botterman, GNKS Consult) ... Y. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan (input from the audience) Z. AOB ---

1 0

Draft agenda (v1) for ipv6 wg RIPE58
by David Kessens 28 Apr '09

28 Apr '09

During the next RIPE meeting, our working group is scheduled to meet: Tue, May 5, 2009, 16:00-18:00 in the Krasnapolsky Hotel in Amsterdam. I have prepared a first draft version of the agenda. As usual, there will be quite a bit of attention to IPv6 in the plenary sessions as well and the talks about IPv6 DSL deployments should be especially interesting. David Kessens --- Draft Agenda (v1) for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE58 When: Tue, May 5, 2009, 16:00-18:00 Where: Krasnapolsky Hotel in Amsterdam A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. RIPE NCC IPv6 update diving a bit more into things outside of the NCC network itself, but also some of the measurements we have from our services (Erik Romijn) C. Google IPv6 update (Lorenzo Colitti) D. Report(s) about *actual* v6 traffic volume as compared to v4? *what's real* out there, not what's on powerpoint? (input from the audience) E. Global IPv6 routing table status (Gert Doering) F. Discussion: deaggration of /32 prefixes, recent discussion on address policy working group (input from the audience, input to address policy working group) G. Overview of ISOC's current activity with regard to IPv6 deployment. (Matthew Ford) H. Proposed EU IPv6 survey (speaker to be determined, TNO) I. 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 ---

1 0

Call for agenda topics RIPE 58
by David Kessens 15 Apr '09

15 Apr '09

The next RIPE meeting, RIPE 58, is fast approaching. This means that it is getting time to compose an agenda for our working group that is scheduled to meet on Tuesday, May 5, 2009, 16:00-18:00 in the Krasnapolsky Hotel in Amsterdam. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for agenda topics: very brief or longer topics, offers for a presentation or just a suggestion for a discussion topic are all welcome as long as they are interesting technical topics that will help with the deployment of IPv6 in the RIPE region. Thanks, David Kessens ---

1 0

IPv6 questions regarding ripe and address ranges
by Peeters, Ralph 17 Mar '09

17 Mar '09

Hello, My name is Ralph and i'm researching the options for IPv6 within my company. From previous contact with the ripe i've understood that there are 3 ways to get IPv6 ranges: - ISP assigned, i don't like this option because of renumbering issues when transferring to a different ISP - Ripe member, this way my organisation will become a member and can request own adresses based upon need - PI assigned, coming (hopefully) this year My company has several locations on several continents, which raises the following questions: -If we would become a ripe member, how would we deal with IPv6 range requests outside the ripe "juristiction", like in north america? -It is my understanding that the ripe member policy assigns /32sh and no /48sh which, from my standpoint, seems a bit unnecessary because there will be equal number of routing entries because we will require one range per location no matter the prefix. From what i've learned so far this could basically result in a /32 for a 100-user location which cannot be the goal, even though i might be stuck in IPv4 ways. - Isn't it possible to get a /32 and allow us to divide it between our sites with /48sh (and allowing them to advertise /48sh globally)? Sincerely, Ralph Peeters This message and attachment(s) are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or agent thereof responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone and with a 'reply' message. Thank you for your co-operation.

4 5

2008 IPv4 Address Use Report
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 01 Jan '09

01 Jan '09

[ (Non-cross)posted to IETF discussions, NANOG, PPML, RIPE IPv6 wg, Dutch IPv6 TF. Web version for the monospace font impaired and with some links: http://www.bgpexpert.com/addrspace2008.php ] 2008 IPv4 Address Use Report As of January first, 2009, the number of unused IPv4 addresses is 925.58 million. On January 1, 2008, it was 1122.85 million. So in 2008, 197.27 million addresses were used up. With 3706.65 million usable addresses, this means that 75.3% of the available IPv4 addresses are in some kind of use, up from 69.7% 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 These figures are derived from from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority's IPv4 Global Unicast Address Assignments 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. (Note that the file is in a somewhat different format than in previous years.) The RIR data indicates how much address space the RIRs have delegated to internet service providers (and sometimes end-users). Delegated Blocks +/- 2008 Addresses Used Available to/status (in millions) AfriNIC 2 33.55 9.18 24.37 APNIC 30 +4 503.32 454.36 48.96 ARIN 31 +4 520.09 446.06 74.03 LACNIC 6 100.66 68.88 31.78 RIPE NCC 26 436.21 423.65 12.56 LEGACY 92 +1 1543.50 1363.29 180.21 UNALLOCATED 34 -9 570.43 570.43 Totals 221 3707.76 2765.42 942.34 The difference between the 942.34 million free addresses here and 925.58 million earlier is explained by the fact that the 43.0.0.0/8 legacy block shows up as delegated in the IANA list, but not in the APNIC delegation records. In previous years, 7.0.0.0/8 didn't show up in the IANA records but it did in the ARIN records. This has now been fixed, hence the increase in legacy delegations. No legacy blocks were returned to IANA in 2008. 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. If the class E space could be used, it would increase the available address space by 268 million addresses. The past two years, this has been a topic of hot debate in the IETF and elsewhere. The problem is that almost all operating systems need modification to be able to use class E addresses, and a good part of the installed base of devices connected to the internet must be considered unupgradable. The 2781.07 million addresses currently in use aren't very evenly distributed over the countries in the world. The current top 15 is: 2009-01-01 2008-01-01 increase Country 1 - US 1458.21 M 1408.15 M 4% United States 2 (3) CN 181.80 M 135.31 M 34% China 3 (2) JP 151.56 M 141.47 M 7% Japan 4 - EU 120.29 M 120.35 M 0% Multi-country in Europe 5 - GB 86.31 M 83.50 M 3% United Kingdom 6 (7) DE 81.75 M 72.46 M 13% Germany 7 (6) CA 74.49 M 73.20 M 2% Canada 8 - FR 68.04 M 67.79 M 0% France 9 - KR 66.82 M 58.86 M 14% Korea 10 - AU 36.26 M 33.43 M 8% Australia 11 (12) BR 29.75 M 23.46 M 27% Brazil 12 (11) IT 29.64 M 24.04 M 23% Italy 13 (16) TW 24.01 M 19.83 M 21% Taiwan 14 (18) RU 23.18 M 17.01 M 36% Russia 15 (14) ES 21.67 M 20.42 M 6% Spain In 2008, the United States was again the biggest user of new address space with no less than 50 million addresses added to the 1.4 billion they already had at the beginning of the year. China is a close second with 46.50 million new addresses. There is no clear trend in the growth percentages. A few countries like France and the UK show very modest growth, while other countries with a large installed base like Germany and Korea saw double digit growth percentages. And in addition to China, Brazil, Taiwan and Russia, but also Italy, are catching up. The US now holds 52.4% of the IPv4 address space in use. The total for the top 15 excluding the US is 35.8%. The rest of the world gets the remaining 327.23 million addresses, or 11.8%. The size of address blocks given out was increasing until 2005, but now shows a downturn. 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). 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 < 1000 547 745 1022 1309 1507 1830 1896 1000 - 8000 897 1009 1516 1891 2265 2839 3235 8000 - 64k 822 1014 1100 1039 1192 1015 1129 64k - 500k 163 215 404 309 419 395 410 500k - 2M 29 46 61 60 57 62 82 > 2M 5 6 7 18 17 24 18 In millions of addresses: 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 < 1000 0.18 0.25 0.35 0.44 0.51 0.63 0.65 1000 - 8000 3.23 3.45 4.49 5.07 5.83 6.93 7.75 8000 - 64k 11.35 14.00 15.99 15.46 18.01 15.67 17.40 64k - 500k 20.28 25.51 42.01 34.23 50.86 50.83 52.58 500k - 2M 21.30 31.98 44.63 41.63 46.69 45.50 57.41 > 2M 12.58 12.58 20.97 68.62 52.43 67.37 54.00 The growth in the smallest and largest categories has been curtailed, but this growth now seems to happen in the second smallest and second largest categories, so the total effect isn't all that different, as indicated by the number of addresses given out per request/delegation: 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 (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