- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE56
by David Kessens 07 May '08

07 May '08

Our working group is scheduled to meet on: Wed, May 7, 14:00 - 15:30, in Bordeaux Room, Hotel Palace, Berlin Please see below for our agenda. David Kessens --- Agenda for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE56 When: Wed, May 7, 14:00 - 15:30 Where: Bordeaux Room, Hotel Palace, Berlin A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Quick update from the RIRs regarding ipv6 services - RIPE NCC (Andrei Robachevsky) - APNIC (George Michaelson) C. Experience with ipv6 on the wireless network before, after and during the IPv4 turn-off (James Aldridge, input from the audience) D. Follow-up: - Global IPv6 routing table status (discussion) (Gert Doering) - Problems in the current Global IPv6 Routing System (discussion) (Bernhard Schmidt) E. Report(s) about *actual* v6 traffic volume as compared to v4? *what's real* out there, not what's on powerpoint? - IPv6 traffic at AMS-IX (Arien Vijn) - (input from the audience) F. IPv6 deployment experience at AMS-IX (Arien Vijn) G. Deploying IPv6 at NETNOD (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) H. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond - 6DEPLOY IPv6 trainings in Europe and the rest of the RIR regions (Jordi Palet Martinez) - (input from the audience) ... Y. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan (input from the audience) Z. AOB ---

2 1

Fwd: [address-policy-wg] Joking follow-up, second round
by Turchanyi Geza 04 May '08

04 May '08

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Turchanyi Geza <turchanyi.geza(a)gmail.com> Date: May 4, 2008 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Joking follow-up, second round To: Carlos Friacas <cfriacas(a)fccn.pt> Hello, On 5/2/08, Carlos Friacas <cfriacas(a)fccn.pt> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > > > > 3, My suggestion was at RIPE 55 (and in my previous letter): let's do > > something similar in case of IPv6 what we have done with IPv4. "pseudo" > > dynamic IPv6! (Which is rather static, BTW.) > > > > For ISPs i'm assuming it would be easier to use static allocations, > instead of managing pools. Adding records to public databases is something > separate... Please rememeber, that I also suggested a technical solution: calculate the IPv6 addresses (subnet) from the previously allocated IPv4 address of the DSL user! That means: if we are able to allocate IPv4 addresses in "pseudo dynamic" way (wich is rather static), then we will be able to allocate IPv6 networks roughly at the same way. > 4, It is possible to allocate even /48 for every DSL users, even with the > > "pseudo" dynamic IPv6 allocation mechanism, however, why should we do > > it? If > > an "anonym" DSL user could use the same amount of the address space than > > a > > RIPE registered DSL user then nobody will register its address space in > > the > > database! > > > > You're trying to draw a line to distinguish residential users from > enterprises, is that it? No. I try to draw a line between "light" service and "serious" one (Or: between "dummies" and "experts".) > 5, The IPv6 address space is huge, however, if we do not know who is using > > it then we will loose it soon. > > > > We should always be able to link a single IPv6 address to an LIR/ISP... It won't help, unfortunately. How many people live in Holland? How many SIM card (mobile phone contract) exist? Much more, than people... > 6, Therefore my suggestion was amends previous policies (what were fine > > for > > the "experts", knowing what an IP address is and what a subnet is). > > > > > 8, I also would prefer if the "anonym" DSL users would share a visible > > different address space than the registered one. If IANA would reserve a > > prefix (preferably a /16) for the "anonym" DSL (mobile, CATV, etc) > > users, > > then the RIRs could allocate big pools from this prefix to ISPs using > > different allocation criteria than for the "registered" IPv6 networks. > > Different allocation criteria also mean: sparser usage at the beginning. If we allocate an IPv6 subnet to each and every DSL costumer, very few of them will realy use it at the beginning. However, fast IPv6 transition is not possible without this "generosity". The suggested size of the "anonym" pool is depend on the number of costumers: a /36 for very larg ISPs (more than 15 million costumers), a /40 for medium ISPs, a /44 for smaller ISP-s (less than 1 million costumers) Yes, there are ISP-s serving more than 15-16 millions costumers! This is one of the reasons why I suggested the creation of a new type of reusable addresses, the AS-local IPv4 address pool! > Back to the AS-local IPv4 address space concept: > > > > > > > > Private address space have to be unique within a routing domain, > > AS-local > > address space is unique within the given Autonomous System. (A group of > > autonomous Systems might share > > > > even this address space, but this is the exception, and not the rule.) > > > > > > > > I do think that the AS-local address pool can be created as a > > collaborative > > effort. IANA, ISPs can lease address blocks for this pool. This is not > > trading, but still a reallocation! Any reallocation policy should allow > > creation of a common address pool! > > > > > > > > It is easier to allocate "automatic" and "anonym" IPv6 network for DSL > > users > > if we have a > > > > big enough, better routable IPv4 address pool, an AS-local address pool. > > > > > > > > Please read also my proposals: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-joke… > > > > > > > > and my presentation: ( > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi-two-jokes… > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Geza > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Joking follow-up, second round
by Turchanyi Geza 30 Apr '08

30 Apr '08

Hi, Many thank for your comments in the first round. I appreciated that most of you read my text and commented only after reading as a whole. Those who listened me at RIPE 55 had been in better position. Let me clarify some details: I fully agree that the final document should not use the term "dummy" and "expert". However, these words emphasize the difference between different class of users. 1, Actually an IP address of a DSL user is not in the RIPE database, expect in the very exceptional case when the DSL user have a fix IPv4 address, may be even a subnet. 2, There are many ways to allocate IPv6 network for DSL users; however, it is hopeless to create database entries for them. The reasons are not only technical, but political. With IPv4 most of the DSL users had pseudo-anonym IPv4 addresses, their contact details had been known only by their ISP (and by the police, eventually), and the ISP is not allowed at all to publish the user data in any open database. 3, My suggestion was at RIPE 55 (and in my previous letter): let's do something similar in case of IPv6 what we have done with IPv4. "pseudo" dynamic IPv6! (Which is rather static, BTW.) 4, It is possible to allocate even /48 for every DSL users, even with the "pseudo" dynamic IPv6 allocation mechanism, however, why should we do it? If an "anonym" DSL user could use the same amount of the address space than a RIPE registered DSL user then nobody will register its address space in the database! 5, The IPv6 address space is huge, however, if we do not know who is using it then we will loose it soon. 6, Therefore my suggestion was amends previous policies (what were fine for the "experts", knowing what an IP address is and what a subnet is). 7, I still propose a common policy: how to distinguish between an "anonym" DSL user and a "registered" one. My proposal is: an "anonym" DSL user should receive a minimum IPv6 allocation. In this case the "minimum" is one subnet (/64) or, if there are automatically usable subnets for special purpose then the minimum size might include those subnets. If a DSL user need more then should fill an address request, and registered. 8, I also would prefer if the "anonym" DSL users would share a visible different address space than the registered one. If IANA would reserve a prefix (preferably a /16) for the "anonym" DSL (mobile, CATV, etc) users, then the RIRs could allocate big pools from this prefix to ISPs using different allocation criteria than for the "registered" IPv6 networks. Back to the AS-local IPv4 address space concept: Private address space have to be unique within a routing domain, AS-local address space is unique within the given Autonomous System. (A group of autonomous Systems might share even this address space, but this is the exception, and not the rule.) I do think that the AS-local address pool can be created as a collaborative effort. IANA, ISPs can lease address blocks for this pool. This is not trading, but still a reallocation! Any reallocation policy should allow creation of a common address pool! It is easier to allocate "automatic" and "anonym" IPv6 network for DSL users if we have a big enough, better routable IPv4 address pool, an AS-local address pool. Please read also my proposals: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-joke… and my presentation: ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi-two-jokes… Many thanks for your attention, Geza

1 0

Joking follow-up
by Turchanyi Geza 30 Apr '08

30 Apr '08

Hi, Is there anyone experienced in creating RIPE policy documents AND ready to help me to create a new one? (Or: two new ones). In the previous RIPE meeting I gave a talk ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi-two-jokes…) and attached a copy of a draft-RFC ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-joke… ) I realized that some of my ideas relate to policies, other relate to technologies. As there is a separate policy working group now, I try to create a policy document as well – and need some help to formalize and may be finalize, correct my ideas. Highlights: 1, AS-local IPv4 address pool creation and maintenance 2, IPv6 address pool and address allocation for dummies Details1 (AS-local IPv4): The drafts ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-joke…) gives more details, please find a short summary below. One of our responses to IPv4 address scarcity was the creation of "IPv4 private address pool" in 1994-1996. However: The scope of private addresses is not defined well; The private address pool size is too small for large ISPs; Network Address Translation should be in use at every routing domain borders. AS-local IPv4 pool should be similar but a little bit different compared to private address pool: Uniquely use in every Autonomous system (or collaborative group of ASs) Different set of IPv4 addresses (different scope!); Mechanism to add and revoke address-blocks by contributors to this pool should be implemented (in order to create a contribution-friendly atmosphere); Network Address Translation should be applied only if the destination address is outside of the originator Autonomous System boundary. The introduction of AS-local addresses would help us not only maintain our present IPv4 service, however, support the IPv4->IPv6 transition. (See below) Details2 - IPv6 address pool and address allocation for dummies: As everybody knows, there are well defined IP address allocation policies for fixed, static networks, like an University campus, or an enterprise network. These sites should have administrative and technical contact persons, the "tech" knows what an IP address is, the "admin" pays the bill, and both person is in the database of the Regional Registry. However, a huge part of the IP address space is used differently: both the "tech" and the "admin" work for the ISP, and the actual costumer of the IP address might not even know that he/she is using an IP address. (is a dummy costumer, only in this respect). This is the typical case in DSL environment today with IPv4. The introduction of IPv6 won't change too much. Shall we treat and regulate the IP address allocation for the "dummies" in the same way as we do it for the "experts"? I do not think so. In fact, we can not. Is there any policy for the "dummies"? I was unable to find it. If you have 30 millions "dummy" DSL (or cable modem, or mobile-phone) users how would you provide IP addresses for them? Of course, global addresses are the best. However, as there are not enough global addresses, some tricks should be applied. Common practice: allocate IP addresses dynamically. (BTW: dynamic allocation also mean pseudo-anonym and temporary allocation.) Dynamic allocation saves addresses considerably. However: If only 50% of the costumers connect at peak time today, tomorrow this may increase to 60%. That means: the need for addresses increased 20% while the costumer base is still the same. Using non-global, reusable IP addresses still does not solve all the problems. 30 millions is much more than the total size of the private address pool. Even if the ISP would assume, that not all users connect to the network at the same time, it might not help for long time as the number of costumer being on-line at peak time might increase. AND: using private addresses also means loosing functions. If your computer has a private address, you can not provide any services outside the private address domain (this stops using a couple of popular games, etc) This restriction is unavoidable consequence of using any kind of reusable addresses. However: the private address domain is very restricted. By using AS-local addresses, we would have a larger routing domain and fewer restrictions.) If we create an AS-local address pool, then it is possible to allocate reusable IP addresses in a more stable manner. This allocation is still a dynamic allocation, however, rather stable AND easy to couple IPv6 allocation with it. However, if we allocate IPv6 networks for every costumer that use dynamic IPv4 allocation today then most of them won't use for a while the IPv6 stuff. AND this IPv6 allocation will be pseudo-anonym, not directly reflected in the RIPE (or other RIRs) database. Therefore I suggest that ISP-s should have a dedicated IPv6 address pool for "dynamic IPv6" allocations and these address pool should be easily recognizable. (This was the reason why I proposed in my talk at RIPE 55, that all "dynamic IPv6" pool should be allocated from an IANA dedicated /16 prefix) The size of the "dynamic IPv6" network should be the minimal one: /64. If there are mechanism that allows automatic use a subnet, than a little bit bigger size might be allowed (max /60), however if /56 or /48 would be allowed than there wont be any more interest to have a RIPE registered network instead a "dynamic" one, therefore my suggestion is to declare in the policy that a "dynamic" IPv6 allocation should be as narrow as possible. OK. Please help me to rewrite the above idea to formulate policies. Thanks, Geza Turchanyi INFO-C

6 7

Call for agenda items and draft agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE56
by David Kessens 24 Apr '08

24 Apr '08

During next RIPE meeting, our working group is scheduled to meet on: Wed, May 7, 14:00 - 15:30, in Bordeaux Room, Hotel Palace, Berlin I have prepared a draft agenda (see below) with the all the usual agenda items. At this point, I would like to invite all of you to propose other agenda items that are relevant for the deployment of ipv6 in the RIPE service region. Note that we care more about the technical content of your topic than the presentation method: very brief topics without presentation slides that just need a brief discussion are just as welcome as longer presentations with slides. I would also like to draw your attention to the following: The RIPE NCC is planning to turn off IPv4 connectivity on the wireless network for the duration of around an hour on the wednesday morning. This will allow us to try out how one could survive on an IPv6 only network and to draw attention to all the issues that still need to be worked out in order to make this work 100% seemless for the rest of the Internet users. In order to help you prepare, in addition to the normal dual stack wireless network, there will be an IPv6 only wireless network available during the whole meeting and the RIPE NCC will provide instruction sheets on how to configure various popular operating systems. Obviously, the participants of the IPv6 working group don't need all this as we are already fully prepared for the coming of IPv6. However, you are very welcome to participate by helping other people to get their setup to work with IPv6 or by submitting reports and bugfixes/workarounds on problems that are discovered when trying this out. The actual operational details about this event will be posted by the RIPE NCC. In addition to our working group session and the ipv6 only event, I would like to encourage you to take a look at the plenary agendas. There are a large number of presentations scheduled that touch directly or indirectly on IPv6. I hope this helps and see you all in Berlin, David Kessens --- Draft agenda for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE56 When: Wed, May 7, 14:00 - 15:30 Where: Bordeaux Room, Hotel Palace, Berlin A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Quick update from the RIPE NCC regarding ipv6 services (RIPE NCC) C. Experience with ipv6 on the wireless network before, after and during the IPv4 turn-off (RIPE NCC, input from the audience) 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. Follow-up: Global IPv6 routing table status (discussion) (Gert Doering) 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 3

Conference, Internet and Technology 08, invitation
by Vilem Sladek 02 Apr '08

02 Apr '08

Dear Mr., dear Mrs., my name is Vilem Sladek and I work for CZ.NIC (www.nic.cz) in Prague. For May 2008 we prepare the conference Internet and Technology 08, where we would like to present Internet experiences from the World. We would like also introduce more about IPv6, so we would like to invite you to Prague, to present about IPv6 to the Czech community. The conference is planed on 20th of May, will start at 10 a.m. and finished at about 5 p.m. The conference will be divided it to four parts (Domains, Internet Resources, Technologies and Zeitgeist). Your presentation is planed to second block (Internet resources). We are really interested in this topic and would like to introduce it to the Internet community in the Czech Republic. Please, could you send me the information or call me, if you want to know more detail, if you would like to came, if we can do anything for you for welcome you at the conference Internet and Technology 08. Thank you for your interest and will looking forward the answer. Best regards form Prague Vilem Sladek -- Vilém Sládek Communication Specialist CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. Americka 23, 120 00 Praha 2 Czech Republic T +420 222 745 117 F +420 222 745 112 M +420 739 452 919 www.nic.cz

1 0

What is difference among /32 , /48 and /64 as charge?
by Yavuz Maşlak 08 Feb '08

08 Feb '08

We are a LIR as small class. We want to apply for ipv6. Is there a difference as charge apply for between /32 and /64 ? I mean, a LIR who has large class, when that LIR applies for /32 and has it, What does that LIR cost for that ? Also, While We are a LIR as small; 1- Can we apply for ipv6 /32 ? 2- What is difference among /32 , /48 and /64 as charge? Thanks a lot.

3 2

[anandb@ripe.net: [dns-wg] IANA introduces AAAA record for K-root]
by David Kessens 06 Feb '08

06 Feb '08

----- Forwarded message from Anand Buddhdev <anandb(a)ripe.net> ----- From: Anand Buddhdev <anandb(a)ripe.net> To: dns-wg(a)ripe.net User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Subject: [dns-wg] IANA introduces AAAA record for K-root Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:10:43 +0100 Dear Colleagues, Yesterday, 4 February 2008, at around 17:00 (UTC), IANA introduced AAAA records for six of the root servers in the root server system. One of these servers is k.root-servers.net (2001:7fd::1), which is managed by the RIPE NCC. This change allows the root zone to be queried over IPv6. The K-root IPv6 prefix is currently anycast from the two global nodes, located in Amsterdam and Miami. The introduction of the AAAA records went smoothly, and we are monitoring the query rate and pattern. We are also collecting more detailed information for future analysis. A graph showing the IPv6 query rate for the last 24 hours can be viewed at: http://ripe.net/news/k-root-aaaa-announcement.html More information about AAAA records in the root zone is available at: http://www.iana.org/reports/root-aaaa-announcement.html Regards, -- Anand Buddhdev DNS Services Manager, RIPE NCC ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

how to generate ipv6 extension headers
by Prasanna kumar .E 23 Jan '08

23 Jan '08

I am into the ipv6 testing these days.I am stuck in between. I want to know how can I generate the ipv6 extension headers(like hopbyhop,encapsulation,etc.,) Thanks and regards, E Prasanna Kumar ============================================================================================================================ Disclaimer: This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and confidential and subject to the Tech Mahindra policy statement, you may review the policy at <a href="http://www.techmahindra.com/Disclaimer.html">http://www.techmahindra.com/Disclaimer.html</a> externally and <a href="http://tim.techmahindra.com/Disclaimer.html">http://tim.techmahindra.com/Disclaimer.html</a> internally within Tech Mahindra. ============================================================================================================================

2 1

AAAA records to be added for root servers
by Barbara Roseman 07 Jan '08

07 Jan '08

apologies for cross-posting... On 4 February 2008, IANA will add AAAA records for the IPv6 addresses of the four root servers whose operators have requested it. A technical analysis of inserting IPv6 records into the root has been done by a joint working group of ICANN's Root Server System Advisory Committee and Security and Stability Advisory Committee, a report of which can be found at http://www.icann.org/committees/security/ sac018.pdf. Network operators should take whatever steps they feel appropriate to prepare for the inclusion of AAAA records in response to root queries. More information will be posted to the IANA web site during January. Regards, Barbara Roseman IANA General OperationsManager ICANN

3 2

2007 IPv4 Address Use Report
by Iljitsch van Beijnum 02 Jan '08

02 Jan '08

2007 IPv4 Address Use Report In 2007, the number of available IPv4 addresses went down from 1300.65 million to 1122.85 million, a difference of 177.8 million addresses. The number of usable addresses is 3706.65 million, so on January 1, 2007 we were at 64.9% utilization and a year later we're at 69.7%. These figures are derived from 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). There are two other ways to interpret the same data. The first is simply add up all the address space with a date indicating that it was given out in 2007. That number is 186.93 million addresses. The third method is to compensate for ARIN's record keeping peculiarities (see this Internet Protocol Journal article). This brings the total for 2007 to no less than 196.77 million, the highest number ever. The second-highest was 1991 with 189 million addresses. The 196.77 million figure is approxmately 19% higher than the 2005 and 2006 numbers, which were largely the same. All numbers only include addresses that are still in use. For the first time in many years, in 2007 one of the old class A blocks was returned to IANA: block 46.0.0.0/8, 16.78 million addresses in size, is now part of the global pool of free address space. This accounts for most of the difference between the 177.8 and 196.77 numbers. The status of the 221 usable blocks of 16.78 million address is now as follows: Delegated to Blocks +/- 2007 Addresses (millions) AfriNIC 2 +1 33.55 APNIC 26 +7 436.21 ARIN 27 452.98 LACNIC 6 +2 100.66 RIPE NCC 26 +4 436.21 Various 49 -1 822.08 End-user 42 -1 704.64 Available 43 -12 721.42 In addition to the 43 unused blocks (721.42 million addresses) that IANA holds, there is additional free space in the form of addresses delegated from IANA to the regional internet registries, but not yet further delegated by the RIR in question to an ISP or end-user. 2006-01-01 2007-01-01 delegated delegated free delegated delegated free TO BY TO BY AfriNIC 16.78 6.39 10.39 33.55 11.97 21.58 APNIC 318.77 297.23 21.54 436.21 366.87 69.34 ARIN 452.98 350.48 102.50 452.98 394.08 58.90 LACNIC 67.11 42.71 24.40 100.66 57.52 43.14 RIPE NCC 369.10 317.62 51.48 436.21 378.35 57.86 Total RIRs 1224.74 1014.43 210.31 1459.61 1208.79 250.82 Various 838.86 671.26 167.60 822.08 671.48 150.60 End-user 721.42 704.64 16.78 704.64 671.09 33.55 Available 922.74 16.78 905.96 721.42 16.78 704.64 Total 3707.76 2407.11 1300.65 3707.75 2568.14 1139.61 This view uncovers two inconsistencies: block 7.0.0.0/8 that is part of the free space according to the IANA IPv4 address space overview shows up as delegated to the US Department of Defense in ARIN's records. Net 14.0.0.0/8 is for the "public data net" (see RFCs 3330 and 1700) so it's not part of the regular delegation system. 43.0.0.0/8 is delegated to "Japan Inet" by IANA. Those delegations used to be registered in ARIN's database but this block was transferred to APNIC in 2007, where it does show up in the whois service, but not as part of the delegated address space in the files on the FTP server. The total of 3707.76 (or 3707.75) million addresses is slightly different from the 3706.65 maximum mentioned earlier because the latter excludes all RFC 1918 private address space, the former still includes 192.168.0.0/16 and 172.16.0.0/12. 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). (2005 and earlier values from 2006-01-01 data, 2006 and 2007 values from 2007-01-01 data. No correction for the ARIN accounting method.) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 < 1000 474 547 745 1022 1309 1507 1830 1000 - 8000 1176 897 1009 1516 1891 2265 2839 8000 - 64k 868 822 1014 1100 1039 1192 1015 64k - 500k 262 163 215 404 309 419 395 500k - 2M 39 29 46 61 60 57 62 > 2M 5 5 6 7 18 17 24 The increase in large blocks has a very dramatic effect while the small blocks are insignificant, when looking at the millions of addresses involved: 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 < 1000 0.16 0.18 0.25 0.35 0.44 0.51 0.63 1000 - 8000 4.47 3.23 3.45 4.49 5.07 5.83 6.93 8000 - 64k 12.81 11.35 14.00 15.99 15.46 18.01 15.67 64k - 500k 32.19 20.28 25.51 42.01 34.23 50.86 50.83 500k - 2M 24.64 21.30 31.98 44.63 41.63 46.69 45.50 > 2M 14.68 12.58 12.58 20.97 68.62 52.43 67.37 Despite the strong increase in the number of 2 million+ blocks and the amount of address space given out in these blocks, the average block size has been going down because of the very large growth in the numbers of smaller blocks: 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 The 2568.14 million addresses currently in use aren't very evenly distributed over the countries in the world. The current top 15 is: 2007-01-01 2007-01-01 change Country 1 - US 1408.15 M 1366.53 M +3% United States 2 - JP 141.47 M 151.27 M -6% Japan 3 (4) CN 135.31 M 98.02 M +38% China 4 (3) EU 120.35 M 115.83 M +4% Multi-country in Europe 5 - GB 83.50 M 93.91 M -11% United Kingdom 6 - CA 73.20 M 71.32 M +3% Canada 7 - DE 72.46 M 61.59 M +18% Germany 8 - FR 67.79 M 58.23 M +16% France 9 - KR 58.86 M 51.13 M +15% Korea 10 - AU 33.43 M 30.64 M +9% Australia 11 (12) IT 24.04 M 19.14 M +26% Italy 12 (11) BR 23.46 M 19.27 M +22% Brazil 13 (16) MX 21.50 M 16.26 M +32% Mexico 14 (13) ES 20.42 M 18.69 M +9% Spain 15 - NL 19.89 M 18.08 M +10% Netherlands The -6% and -11% figures for the UK and Japan are once again anomalies: the former is the missing 43.0.0.0/8 net and in the latter case, ARIN and RIPE both had a record for 25.0.0.0/8 in the 2007-01-01 data, but this was cleared up in the 2008-01-01 data. Although the US still added more than 40 million new addresses to its immense existing stockpile, its growth was modest percentage-wise and it now holds 55% of the IPv4 address space in use, down from 57%. All of the other countries in the top 15 except for Canada and "EU" saw their address use grow faster than the 7% average. This brings the total for the top 15 excluding the US to 35%, up from 34%. The rest of the world gets the remaining 10%, up from 9%. See http://www.bgpexpert.com/addrspace2007.php for a copy of this report and links to the versions for 2006 and 2005.

1 0

RIPE NCC Makes Record Number of IPv6 Allocations
by Alex Le Heux 14 Dec '07

14 Dec '07

This announcement was posted on the RIPE NCC News & Announcements webpage yesterday: RIPE NCC Makes Record Number of IPv6 Allocations The months of October and November 2007 set new records for the number of IPv6 allocations made in a single month by the RIPE NCC. 24 allocations were made to RIPE NCC members in October, arecord immediately broken by the 31 allocations made in November. The previous peak was 19 allocations in a single month, which was achieved on three separate occasions in 2003, 2004 and 2007. This surge in demand for IPv6 address space follows recent changes in the IPv6 allocation policy, which made it easier to get IPv6 allocations. The increase also comes in the wake of the publication of the RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6. This statement, released immediately after the RIPE 55 meeting in Amsterdam in October, urged all Internet industry stakeholders, including ISPs, governments and regulators, to take steps to foster the accelerating deployment of IPv6. The text of this resolution can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/news/community-statement.html The deployment of IPv6 across the Internet has been a subject of growing global interest, particularly as it relates to the diminishing pool of free IPv4 address space, and the impact that this will have on the ongoing growth and future stability of the Internet. For more information on this, please send an email to <ncc(a)ripe.net>. Best regards, Alex Le Heux Policy Implementation and Coordination, RIPE NCC

14 16

[Fwd: need help with global ipv6 topology measurement]
by Henk Uijterwaal 28 Nov '07

28 Nov '07

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: need help with global ipv6 topology measurement Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:55:42 -0800 From: k claffy <kc(a)caida.org> To: nanog(a)merit.edu if you have ipv6 connectivity and are willing to volunteer some (low bandwidth) v6 traceroute data to a good cause (== a topology map of observed ipv6 connectivity), please help us out for a few ( estimated < 15) min with: http://www.caida.org/data/how-to/scamper/ipv6-collection-2007/ please share w all your ipv6friends, k -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is one of the choices leaving the office open? Alan Greenspan on the next elections

1 0

IPv6 policies & BGP announcements
by Clement Cavadore 28 Nov '07

28 Nov '07

Hi, I have a few question regarding IPv6, and policies. I am not LIR, so I cannot get any /32 for my network usage. I got from my LIR a /48 for my internal network needs, and another /48 for another end-user, routed through my network. The two /48 are consecutive, and aggregable as a single /47. - Am I allowed to announce a prefix more specific than my LIR's /32 (originated from my ASN, not the LIR's one) ? - If I can announce a more specific prefix, do I have to announce a couple of /48s, or may I announce a single /47, originated from my AS ? If I can announce the /47, I assume the LIR has to create a route: object ? - Is there any recommendations I'd need to know for such a situation (except becoming LIR, which is not possible for us at the moment) ? Thank you for your help -- Clément Cavadore

5 7

Few questions about IPv6
by Marcin Gondek 15 Nov '07

15 Nov '07

Hello All , I have few question about IPv6 and maybe someone can explain this. Sorry if those information can be found on RIPE page or I'm sending it to wrong mailing list, I'm not able to find it. 1. Do I have to be a LIR to request /32 subnet from RIPE, can be it done by another LIR which will request subnet for me (as its customer)? 2. Do I have to be a LIR to request AS number from RIPE, can be it done by another LIR which will request AS number for me (as its customer)? Thanks in advance. -- Marcin Gondek / Drixter e-utp.net NIP: PL1181589645 REGON: 140584662 Tel. +48602159929 Fax. +48222012418 <mailto:office@e-utp.net> office(a)e-utp.net <http://www.e-utp.net> http://www.e-utp.net

6 9

Commercial IPv6 firewall support
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 08 Nov '07

08 Nov '07

Some people have claimed that they cannot yet sell IPv6 Internet access because there is no IPv6 firewall support. According to this ICANN study: http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac021.pdf this is not quite true. At least 30% of the 42 vendors surveyed, had IPv6 support. According to this talk <http://www.guug.de/veranstaltungen/ecai6-2007/slides/2007-ECA-I6-Status -IPv6-Firewalling-PeterBieringer-Talk.pdf> many open-source and commercial firewalls supporting IPv6 are available. IPCop is based on Linux <http://www.ipcop.org/index.php?module=pnWikka&tag=IPCopScreenshots> m0n0wall is based on FreeBSD <http://m0n0.ch/wall/screenshots.php> pfSense is also based on FreeBSD <http://pfsense.com/index.php?id=26> FWBuilder is a management tool that builds filter setups for several different firewalls. <http://www.fwbuilder.org/archives/cat_screenshots.html> Checkpoint FW1 NGX R65 on SecurePlatform supports IPv6 FortiGate supports IPv6 in FortiOS 3.0 and up. Juniper SSG (formerly Netscreen) supports IPv6 in ScreenOS 6.0 and up. Cisco ASA (formerly PIX) supports IPv6 in version 7.0 and up. I suspect that the people complaining about IPv6 support are partially complaining because they have older hardware that the vendor does not plan to upgrade to IPv6 support until they have all features implemented in their newer products, and partially complaining because their vendor has not implemented some feature which they happen to use. Commercial firewall support may be lagging behind OS and router support, but not by much. And if commercial vendors are not responsive, maybe you should try pricing out an open source solution with a consultant. I believe there is a gap here that startup firewall companies could fill if they understand the enterprise market. --Michael Dillon

5 5

OT? Ripe NCC posting on youtube
by ed 07 Nov '07

07 Nov '07

Sorry if this is off topic or old news, but I saw this on the SCLUG mailing list. Truly excellent: http://uk.youtube.com/user/RIPENCC -- The 14.4 dialup to the PS2 is doing the twist because of a power outage. AOL is playing way too much Diablo II. :: http://www.s5h.net/ :: http://www.s5h.net/gpg

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Commercial IPv6 firewall support
by jwkckid1＠ix.netcom.com 29 Oct '07

29 Oct '07

Nick and all, Chiming in here as a kinda unusual occurance. I agree with Nicks assessment here unfortunately. Seems across a broad business spectrum a disinterest in IPv6 remains or presists. Given, what I believe to be an accurate essesment by Nick below, it would seem that a more concerted effort to make IPv6 more palatable in very short order is advisable. As to how to accomplish that, I do not know. -----Original Message----- >From: Nick Hilliard <nick(a)inex.ie> >Sent: Oct 27, 2007 9:25 AM >To: michael.dillon(a)bt.com >Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net, ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net >Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Commercial IPv6 firewall support > >> Some people have claimed that they cannot yet sell >> IPv6 Internet access because there is no IPv6 firewall >> support. According to this ICANN study: >> http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac021.pdf >> this is not quite true. At least 30% of the 42 vendors >> surveyed, had IPv6 support. > >There is, of course, "support" and support when talking about any feature, >whether ipv6 related or not. > >As a useful example of what "support" implies, the "support" from one of my >firewall vendors includes basic support for ipv6 packet forwarding and >filtering, but no support for configuring this from the GUI. And no support >for failover / failback on ipv6. And no support for ospfv3. Or DHCPv6. Or >v6 support for VPNs. And so on - you get the idea. There are piles more >features which just aren't there if you use v6. In fact, I would suggest >that there is such a large functionality gap between their ipv4 and ipv6 >support right now, that even if they invested heavily between now and the >current expected dates for ipv4 exhaustion, I seriously doubt that they >would achieve feature parity, not to mind stability parity for these >features. > >I have talked to them about this, and their opinion is that there is no >commercial demand for ipv6, and therefore ipv6 feature parity is on the >feature roadmap. And indeed, it is difficult for the organisation I work >for to demand ipv6 support, when other companies can talk to their vendors >with a EUR100m firewall / networking contract going a-begging. I have >little doubt that this is the reason that MOP got re-enabled by default on a >certain router vendor's products. > > >Them: "We have EUR200m to spend and we want MOP enabled by default". >Vendor: "Three bags full, sir". > >Me: "I want to you spend $50m in development costs to support ipv6, and > then i'll buy some low end kit from you" >Vendor: <laughs hysterically> > >Open source solutions tend to fare better in this regard. Lots of people >may end up using them in a future ipv6 world, but you're not going to end up >seeing F500 companies stampeding to replace their current high-end solutions >with m0n0wall installations, just because they have more-or-less parity >support for ipv4 and ipv6. > >There's a more interesting discussion of this of this linked from: > >http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XX/ppm.html > >See the talk entitled "IPv6 Support Among Commercial Firewalls", by Dave >Piscitello. > >Nick > >-- >Network Ability Ltd. | Technical Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 >3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 >Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick(a)inex.ie > 'Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com

1 0

Re: [ipv6-wg] RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6
by Andy Davidson 27 Oct '07

27 Oct '07

On 25 Oct 2007, at 10:55, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > 1) Network operators and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are > called to the urgent deployment of IPv6 across their networks as > soon as possible. This deployment must include providing IPv6 > access to End Users and ensuring services are accessible by IPv6. I thought that yesterday's session was useful (I watched via the webcast), and that the publication of this resolution will send the right signals to decision makers - well done everyone. We have to remember that a lot of networks use only v4 PI, as this is the model typically deployed by end sites who rely on multihoming for performance or reliability reasons. Unless and until 2006-01 becomes approved, there is no migration path to v6 for these networks. We must ratify 2006-01 in order to strengthen the impact of the publication of this resolution. Best wishes, Andy Davidson -- :: http://www.localphone.com/ - Call Global, Pay Local :: /* opinions and thoughts expressed here are my own */

2 1

RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 25 Oct '07

25 Oct '07

I don't think my comment was well understood today in the session, so I drafted how I think the community resolution should look. See below. English nits should be reviewed, but the main idea is that we start with a short kind of intro of the situation (those points from the original 5 that are generic), staying focus, keeping it short, but at the same time help each "kind of reader" to identify what is the paragraph that is *more* relevant to him. I also added a specific action for policy makers/regulators and one for users. I hope that, as very few people (in the list and session) has provided input on this, we are allowed to participate in the final drafting of the document. Not being a big group is possible to do it, as otherwise, will not really be a community resolution. Regards, Jordi At current allocation rates, the remaining pool of unallocated IPv4 address space is likely to be allocated within the next two to four years. Although the Internet will continue to function as normal after this point, this event will have a significant influence on future network operations as well as IP address management and allocation policies. Therefore we recognise that the widespread deployment of IPv6 will be essential to sustain future growth of the Internet. We recognise that the responsibility for creating policies related to the management of critical Internet resources in the RIPE NCC service region rests with the RIPE community and the proven success of the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP). In recognition of this responsibility, we commit to continue development of effective policies for the responsible management of IPv4 and IPv6 address space. We agree that this situation requires a committed effort from network operators, ISPs and the RIPE community. We urge that the widespread deployment of IPv6 be made a high priority. In addition to that, other sectors must take their own measures in order to success on this mission: 1) Network operators and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are called to the urgent deployment of IPv6 across their networks as soon as possible. This deployment must include providing IPv6 access to End Users and ensuring services are accessible by IPv6. 2) Vendors (hardware and software) are called to the urgent support of IPv6 support in their products, to make it possible for network operators and Internet Service Providers to provide these services. 3) Regulators and policy makers are called to make sure the relevance of the IPv6 support is considered in all their decisions, including as an immediate condition for public procurements. 4) Users must ensure, when acquiring new services, hardware or software, that it supports IPv6 (natively or by means of transition mechanisms). ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

3 3

DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6
by Gert Doering 24 Oct '07

24 Oct '07

Hello Address Policy Working Group, IPv6 Working Group, as announced yesterday on the APWG list, here's the first draft of the "we are going to tell the world what the RIPE community recommends regarding the end of IPv4 / advent of IPv6". The text has been drafted by the RIPE NCC, but the actual recommendation needs to come from "the community", so change whatever you think needs changing. Face-to-face discussion will take place in the APWG and IPv6 WG meeting on Thursday, October 25th. (Short discussion in APWG early morning, time to think about it during the day, final decision in the IPv6 WG meeting on Thursday afternoon). ----------------------- snip ----------------------- DRAFT - RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 RIPE 55: 22 - 26 October 2007 The RIPE community resolves as follows: 1) At current allocation rates, the remaining pool of unallocated IPv4 address space is likely to be allocated within the next two to four years. Although the Internet will continue to function as normal after this point this event will have a significant influence on future network operations as well as IP address management and allocation policies. Therefore we recognise that the widespread deployment of IPv6 will be essential to sustain future growth of the Internet. 2) We urge network operators and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to deploy IPv6 across their networks as soon as possible. This deployment must include providing IPv6 access to End Users and ensuring services are accessible by IPv6. 3) We recognise that the responsibility for creating policies related to the management of critical Internet resources in the RIPE NCC service region rests with the RIPE community and the proven success of the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP). In recognition of this responsibility, we commit to continue development of effective policies for the responsible management of IPv4 and IPv6 address space. 4) We agree that this situation requires a committed effort from network operators, ISPs and the RIPE community. We urge that the widespread deployment of IPv6 be made a high priority. ----- End forwarded message ----- Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 122119 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

14 37

Agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE55
by David Kessens 19 Oct '07

19 Oct '07

During next RIPE meeting, our working group is scheduled to meet: Thu, Oct 25, 16:00 - 17:30 in Grand Ballroom, Hotel Krasnapolsky, Amsterdam The agenda became quite packed due to the last minute agenda item of a proposed community statement regarding the depletion of ipv4 and the deployment of ipv6. Note that this proposal will be discussed first in the APWG session in the early thursday morning session. I have included a link to the actual proposal in the agenda and you might want to take a look at it and the discussion that followed on the list after the first posting of the draft. Rather than cutting the discussion short, we might let the meeting run past the normal closing time of 17:30 but to no later than 18:00 (I usually ask for the afternoon slot so that we have a bit more flexibility with our time). See you all in Amsterdam, David Kessens --- Agenda for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE55 When: Thu, Oct 25, 16:00 - 17:30 Where: Grand Ballroom, Hotel Krasnapolsky, Amsterdam A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Experience with ipv6 in the RIPE NCC network (Mark Guz, RIPE NCC) C. Two jokes, one and half proposal (IPv4->IPv6 transition in DSL environment) (Geza Turchanyi) D. Report(s) about *actual* v6 traffic volume as compared to v4? *what's real* out there, not what's on powerpoint? AMS-IX (Henk Steenman) & (input from the audience) E. Follow-up: Global IPv6 routing table status (discussion) (Gert Doering) F. RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/ipv6-wg/2007/msg00047.html and follow-up mails on ipv6 and apwg mailing list (Gert Doering, David Kessens) G. 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 Items & Draft Agenda (v1) for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE55
by David Kessens 14 Sep '07

14 Sep '07

During next RIPE meeting, our working group is scheduled to meet: Thu, Oct 25, 16:00 - 17:30 in Grand Ballroom, Hotel Krasnapolsky, Amsterdam To start with, I have prepared a draft agenda with all our standard items. However, to make this a successful meeting we will actually have to get more items on the agenda than just the standard topics. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for issues that need to be discussed. Note that we don't have a requirement for powerpoint or duration of your presentation: the important thing is that the issue to be discussed is relevant for the deployment of ipv6 in the RIPE service region. Thanks! David Kessens --- Draft Agenda (v1) for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE55 When: Thu, Oct 25, 16:00 - 17:30 Where: Grand Ballroom, Hotel Krasnapolsky, Amsterdam A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing - approval of the minutes (David Kessens) B. Quick update from the RIPE NCC regarding ipv6 services (RIPE NCC) C. Follow-up: Global IPv6 routing table status (discussion) (Gert Doering) 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. 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

Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 news - weekly summary
by David Kessens 28 Aug '07

28 Aug '07

Jordi, I have received the following comments on my request to provide input whether people believe that your "IPv6 news - weekly summary" is something that the working group participants would like to receive on the mailing list: Prefer not to receive your summary: Daniel Roesen Geoff Huston Marc Blanchet Roger Jorgensen Bernhard Schmidt Dominik Bay Gert Doering Edward Lewis (after deadline) Would like to receive your summary: Aleksi Suhonen Neutral: Mohsen Souissi Other comments: Philip Smith would consider your message acceptable if the MessageID was the same for all lists that you post the summary to I believe the results are quite clear and I would like to ask you to stop posting your weekly messages to the mailing list. As a courtesy to you and the people who did have an interest in your mails, feel free to post one more message where people can find the weekly summary on their own and/or contains the information so that people can subscribe on their own to a mailing list that you manage to receive your summary. Thanks, David Kessens Chair IPv6 working group --- ----- Forwarded message from David Kessens <david.kessens(a)nsn.com> ----- From: David Kessens <david.kessens(a)nsn.com> To: Bernhard Schmidt <berni(a)birkenwald.de> Cc: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 news - weekly summary Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:34:53 -0700 Hi, Based on Bernhard's input, I would like to poll the working group whether they like to receive these weekly summaries from Jordi on the working group list. I for one was close to asking Jordi to immediately cease posting as they are readily available from other mailing list or at his website (I personally receive now 4 unwanted copies of his mail). However, I can see that other people might have a different opinion. Please send your comments directly to me by Sunday 8/26, without CC'ing the list as their is no need to make this a lengthy discussion. I will post a summary to the list (but I will as a matter of principle mention your name in the summary). Thanks, David Kessens IPv6 working group chair --- On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 10:24:23PM +0200, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > Hi Jordi, > > will it become standard to post this weekly summary of IPv6 news, where > some of your featured stories mention IPv6 just in one small sentence? > Example > > >IT security: Too big for government > >http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=news/newsroom&id=3154 > ><http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=news/newsroom&id=3154> > > | However, there are bright spots. Companies are beginning to reduce the > | scope of vulnerabilities in their software and IPv6 is slowly moving > | forward, especially in Asia. > > This is the only occurence of IPv6 in this text. > > Occasional posting of really interesting news to this ml is fine in my > point of views, but gating every unrelated story that happens to have > "IPv6" somewhere in the text through your "portal" page isn't. > > Just my 2 cents, > Bernhard ----- End forwarded message -----

2 1

IPv6 news - weekly summary
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 27 Aug '07

27 Aug '07

Main News: Other News: Govt expects users to migrate to IPv6 in 3 years http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=news/newsroom&id=3171 The Tech Lab: Vint Cerf http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=news/newsroom&id=3170 Is the Internet Over? http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=news/newsroom&id=3168 IPv6 readiness is key as IPv4 peters out http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=news/newsroom&id=3167 Posts Face IPv6 Challenges http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=news/newsroom&id=3166 Don¹t miss the forest for the trees http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=news/newsroom&id=3165 Security: Corporate and Products: Centennial Discovery 2007 Eases Management of IT Hardware and Software Assets http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=news/newsroom&id=3169 ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

1 0