- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Call for presentations for ripe 84
by Jetten Raymond 07 Mar '22

07 Mar '22

Hello All, RIPE 84 will take place from 16-20 May 2022 in a hybrid format in which online and onsite participants can interact with each other using a common platform. The onsite event will take place in Berlin. For both cases you can register here: https://ripe84.ripe.net/attend/register/ The IPv6 Working Group session is scheduled for , Thursday 19 May from 11:00 . 12:30 (UTC+1) We are looking for presentations - please email : ipv6-wg-chair (at) ripe.net if you'd like to present. Please also state if you intend to be online or onsite, and the duration of your presentation, and a short description of it. Once we have decided on the agenda, we'll contact the presenters. Hope to see many of you, On behalf of the IPv6-WG Benedikt, Jen, Ray

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: One Bit to the Left - An IPv6 Success Story
by Ewan Mackie 02 Mar '22

02 Mar '22

Dear colleagues, Back in December 2020, for the second time since we started allocating IPv6, the RIPE NCC granted a request for a subsequent /29 allocation. As moments like this are good indicators of how growth and demand for IPv6 is developing, we reached out to NetCologne GmbH to take a look back and learn more about their IPv6 story. The full interview is available here on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/author/ewan-mackie/one-bit-to-the-left-an-ipv6-succes… <https://labs.ripe.net/author/ewan-mackie/one-bit-to-the-left-an-ipv6-succes…> Kind Regards, Ewan Mackie RIPE NCC

1 0

Hijacking unused address space for a private infrastructure - any legal consequences?
by Vasilenko Eduard 24 Feb '22

24 Feb '22

Hi all, Could somebody speak on the legal consequences of hijacking unused address space? Imagine the situation that some vendor would push many Carriers to use FC/8 by cutting a rather big block out of it (/28 for each Carrier). This address space should have a registry. It is an IANA property till then. But: 1. Nobody is using it - nobody would be hurt. 2. This prefix would be excluded from the Internet (by routing and filtering) 3. FC/8 is assumed to be used for the closed domain (the purpose of usage is very similar). Just nobody decided how exactly. Maybe /28 is not how IANA and IETF would want to split it in the future. People could ask "why not GUA"? The answer is: it is difficult to get yet another /28 GUA from RIR just for the infrastructure. /28 goal has the technical roots by itself. It is the sort of technical solution. Could such LIR/Carrier have any pressure from any RIR or IANA itself? Is any restriction in the LIR agreement? Any legal consequences? (that would push for renumbering). Of course, I am aware what may happen if Carrier would need to connect infrastructure with different Carrier or Cloud Provider Without proper random prefix generation and registry to guarantee uniqueness. The technical side is very clear for me. I am just very ignorant on the legal side. Disclaimer: This question is not related to Huawei, not at all. Eduard

3 8

Re: [ipv6-wg] Hijacking unused address space for a private infrastructure - any legal consequences?
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 24 Feb '22

24 Feb '22

Hi Eduard, I think we need to first understand that addresses aren't a property. If you get allocated or assigned resources by a RIR, they do not belong to you, you just have a yearly license to use them, and (typically) while the need is justified. Similarly, they aren't an IANA property, it is just the central registry that allocates the to the 5 RIRs. By the way, obtaining any prefix length, from any RIR, if justified is not difficult. And that justification for IPv6 is not usually a problem. If there are cases where the actual policy doesn't work, in any RIR (most of them have basically the same text), we should work in improving the policy. I'm not really sure legally something can be done ... Saludos, Jordi @jordipalet El 24/2/22 15:01, "ipv6-wg en nombre de Vasilenko Eduard via ipv6-wg" <ipv6-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net en nombre de ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net> escribió: Hi all, Could somebody speak on the legal consequences of hijacking unused address space? Imagine the situation that some vendor would push many Carriers to use FC/8 by cutting a rather big block out of it (/28 for each Carrier). This address space should have a registry. It is an IANA property till then. But: 1. Nobody is using it - nobody would be hurt. 2. This prefix would be excluded from the Internet (by routing and filtering) 3. FC/8 is assumed to be used for the closed domain (the purpose of usage is very similar). Just nobody decided how exactly. Maybe /28 is not how IANA and IETF would want to split it in the future. People could ask "why not GUA"? The answer is: it is difficult to get yet another /28 GUA from RIR just for the infrastructure. /28 goal has the technical roots by itself. It is the sort of technical solution. Could such LIR/Carrier have any pressure from any RIR or IANA itself? Is any restriction in the LIR agreement? Any legal consequences? (that would push for renumbering). Of course, I am aware what may happen if Carrier would need to connect infrastructure with different Carrier or Cloud Provider Without proper random prefix generation and registry to guarantee uniqueness. The technical side is very clear for me. I am just very ignorant on the legal side. Disclaimer: This question is not related to Huawei, not at all. Eduard -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

1 0

Announcing the Updated IPv6 Fundamentals E-Learning Course
by Pedro Vaz 20 Jan '22

20 Jan '22

Dear colleagues, Our updated IPv6 Fundamentals course is now live and available in the RIPE NCC Academy. The course aligns more with the IPv6 Fundamentals Analyst exam and has a fresh new look. We hope to see more network operators following best practices and developing their understanding of IPv6 policies through the course. The course consists of interactive modules and activities which help learners apply concepts using tools and realistic scenarios. You can find out more about the new IPv6 Fundamentals online course in the RIPE NCC Academy at: https://academy.ripe.net/ipv6-fundamentals I would like to thank everyone who participated in the course development process, for testing the exam, reviewing the course material and testing the activities. Having the involvement of the community is a major strength of our courses, and we thank all of our volunteers. If you have any questions or feedback, you can reach us at <exams at ripe.net>. Kind regards, Pedro Vaz Senior Technical Training and Development Officer

1 0

Announcing the Updated IPv6 Fundamentals E-Learning Course
by Pedro Vaz 20 Jan '22

20 Jan '22

Our updated IPv6 Fundamentals course is now live and available in the RIPE NCC Academy. The course aligns more with the IPv6 Fundamentals Analyst exam and has a fresh new look. We hope to see more network operators following best practices and developing their understanding of IPv6 policies through the course. The course consists of interactive modules and activities which help learners apply concepts using tools and realistic scenarios. You can find out more about the new IPv6 Fundamentals online course in the RIPE NCC Academy at: https://academy.ripe.net/ipv6-fundamentals I would like to thank everyone who participated in the course development process, for testing the exam, reviewing the course material and testing the activities. Having the involvement of the community is a major strength of our courses, and we thank all of our volunteers. If you have any questions or feedback, you can reach us at <exams at ripe.net>. Kind regards, Pedro Vaz Senior Technical Training and Development Officer

1 0

FYI: NCCoE Releases Draft Project Description for IPv6 Transition
by Jaap Akkerhuis 04 Jan '22

04 Jan '22

[NCCoE stands for the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence] Some people on this list might be interested in this work. See the announcement: <https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USNIST/bulletins/2ffde66>. jaap

1 0

Minutes from the IPv6 WG @ RIPE 83
by Jetten Raymond 24 Dec '21

24 Dec '21

Hello, Here are the minutes from RIPE 83, if you have any comments or remarks, please let us know before 20.12 so we can have them published. RIPE 83 RIPE IPv6 Working Group Minutes Date: 25 November, 13:00-14:00 (UTC+1) Chairs: Raymond Jetten, Benedikt Stockebrand Scribe: Suzanne Taylor Status: Draft Welcome, Administrative Matters Raymond Jetten, Working Group Co-Chair Raymond Jetten, Working Group Co-Chair, welcomed everyone to the session and went over some rules of engagement. There were no questions or comments. Building IPv4 Islands for Fun and Profit Nico Schottelius, ungleich This presentation is available at: https://ripe83.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/86-ripe83-ipv4-isl… Nico discussed the technical details of how to set up IPv6-only networks that need to incorporate IPv6-incompatible devices (such as x-ray or ultrasound scanners, LoraWAN gateways, printers, power plants) by setting up IPv4 "islands" for those devices. Benedikt Stockebrand commented that there are many different approaches to this issue and that if this particular method doesn't work, then attendees should be encouraged to reach out on the mailing list rather than simply give up on deploying IPv6. Nico said he fully agreed. Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, thanked Nico for his explanation and said he had also been doing something similar. He said he thought another name is needed, however, other than "islands". Nico said he was open to other suggestions. Raymond suggested that ideas could be discussed on the mailing list. There were no further questions or comments. To ULA or not ULA Nico Schottelius This presentation is available at: https://ripe83.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/87-ripe83-to-ula-o… In his second presentation, Nico gave an overview of ULAs (unique local addresses), which are used in community networks and other use cases but aren't generally visible on the Internet. He explained how his company has been asked to run a ULA registry and asked for opinions about how - and whether there was consensus - to support community projects by running a ULA registry. Jordi Palet Martínez, Moremar - The IPv6 Company, said that the right way to have a registry is to revive the ULA-Central work, which he tried already in the IETF and with the RIRs. He said there is possibly a need for a global policy on running a central IANA registry or coordination for that among the RIRs, but that it didn't work. He offered to continue working on that if there were community support. Nico said that was an interesting approach and that there were also recent discussions around where to register IP space for aerospace technology and that this could be a way to go, or that the RIRs could have a subsection for ULA community space. He said he would reach out to Jordi after the meeting. Niall O'Reilly, speaking as a "ULA user", asked Nico whether he imported registrations from SixXS to the new registry. Nico responded that everything had been imported and that some have already been deleted because they saw old information in the registry. Marco Hogewoning, RIPE NCC, said that the EU Cybersecurity Strategy suggests a possible sunset clause for IPv4 if insufficient progress is made with IPv6 and asked what the RIPE community thought could be done other than avoiding legislation to force a particular technical choice. He asked whether the community, for example, would advise forcing the use of IPv6 or discouraging the use (or forcing the disuse) of IPv4. He commented that this strategy is focuses on the market and not just the public sector. Nico said that is a difficult question. He said the market is already at play, given the increasing price of IPv4 and that some governments are going IPv6-only. He said that an RIR like the RIPE NCC can encourage IPv6 deployment, and that he sees a role for open-source solutions to support this shift and enable bottom-up development and innovation. Rüdiger Volk, my UNorganized self, said he remembered when Internet number resources were essentially available for free and the one registry was funded by the US federal government. He said that, in order to support communities that were outside of the very small Internet at the time that wanted to install TCP/IP locally or regionally with a limited view to interconnect globally, volunteers started to hand out things and get centrally registered space and create sub-registries. Essentially, he said, the RIPE NCC registry grew from there. He said he felt that if the address space you're using has enough free resources for everyone to be globally unique, then you should do that - but if the current ICANN anchored registry system doesn't offer a way for all communities to adequately address their needs, that should be a trigger to question how to do that. He said that, in some ways, the precursor to ULA was the RFC 1918 space, but it was meant to just be local and was not meant to require a registry (unless your enterprise network isn't connected to anything else and runs as a very closed system, in which case a local registry might be used). Nico said he saw Rüdiger's point and said that perhaps this work should be a community/volunteer effort. He said this topic already came up on the IETF mailing list, along with the usual question of who would pay for the project. He said the idea of handing out GUA (global unique addresses) was also discussed on the IETF mailing list, which he thought was good, as it would offer uniqueness along with global addressability. He added that sponsoring the address space is one thing, but sponsoring the work was another thing and being recognised, a third consideration. He encouraged anyone interested in contributing to the project to contact him. Peter Hessler, speaking as an "open source enthusiast", asked how much space the community should request from the RIPE NCC if it were to group together and form a LIR to request and manage IPv6 address space. Nico said you can start with a /32 and simply request another as needed, because the addresses don't need to be consecutive. Raymond added that you can get a /29 without any justification. Michael Richardson said he had been a proponent of a non-connected IPv6 space for a long time and that he had first come across this before in using it in a data centre through VPNs as a management network. He said that in his experience, these inevitably leak and when they do, you don't know who to tell. He said this was also why he doesn't like ULA random. He said that the value of Whois is high and provides a feeling that no one will come and do something terrible to you because you're using the address space. He also said the possibility of reverse DNS really matters in IPv6 space. For those reasons, he said he would like to have a registry but was agnostic as to whether it should be a /29 of carefully managed global address space that is unannounced in RPKI, or ULA central or fd/8 if that were ever to work. He said there should be a nominal, one-time fee to register the space. He said he oftens sees a need for this in equipment chassis and gave the example of a networked fishing boat. He said he would rather it wasn't RFC1918 but IPv6, and if there were too much paperwork, you could use 1.1 or 11 network because 1918 is on the other interface and using NAT, so you don't know what is there. He said engineers don't use IPv6 because they think they can't get it and don't use ULA random because they need something different for every boat (in the example), which is correct, but he said it should be within the network you own. He said the community needs to enable this and that a small registration fee should make it your own in perpetuity. Benedikt said that one use case that tends to be forgotten about, as most in the community are LIRs, is having a provider aggregated addresses and wanting to maintain some independence from your ISP, ULAs can be very helpful in renumbering. He said there's a big difference between IPv4 and IPv6 in that IPv6 was designed to support multiple addresses per interface, and this can be very useful. He also cautioned against starting a separate address space that is sort of connected with people using ULAs across the Internet via tunnels where they really shouldn't. Raymond closed the queue to further questions in the interest of time. RIPE-554bis Jan Žorž, 6connect This presentation is available at: https://ripe83.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/73-RIPE554bis-RIPE… Jan gave some background and history on updating RIPE-554 and RIPE-554bis, which provides guidance on how to procure IPv6-capable equipment and software for enterprises. He explained which updates were deemed necessary, such as adding fundamental RFCs like "IPv6 over Ethernet" and removing BOUNDv6, as it no longer exists. There are new requirements for hosts and enterprise/ISP switches, and some other changes for routers, CPEs, mobile devices, load balancers and software. He stressed the need to publish an update to RIPE-554 as soon as possible and asked the group whether there was consensus on RIPE-554bis. Blake Willis, Zayo, asked whether RFC8950/RFC5549 BGP tunnel signalling was within the document's scope. Jan replied that it included IPv6-specific things and he would need to look into it. Sander Steffann, 6connect and RIPE-554bis co-author, said he was also not certain. Jan said he did not think RFC8950 was included but that they could consider it for the next version, as they didn't want to expand the scope of this version since it would take too long to update it. Éric Vyncke, Cisco and IETF but speaking mainly as an "IPv6 evangelist", said he couldn't find in the draft RIPE-554bis document Jan's reference during his presentation to not using a /64 and RFC8200 now including atomic/overlapping fragments. Jan said the RFC8200 was in the section on requirements for host equipment, and that it's basically the same document, just updated. Sander said he thought he found the section that Éric was referring to, which was from RFC7608 (IPv6 prefix length recommendations for forwarding), which mentions that prefix lengths longer than /64 must be supported in forwarding. Éric said the other two RFCs mentioned were removed from the RIPE-554bis document and that the presentation had not been updated to reflect the most recent Google doc. Christoph Berkemeier, DB Station & Service AG, asked whether Jan was aware of automated or semi-automated test scripts/environments for the recommendations. Jan responded that this was a mistake many people were making, and that the document was meant to be used as a template. He said that, for example, "if support for tunnelling and duo-stack is required, the device must support basic transition mechanisms for IPv6 hosts and routers" then it could be technically possible to build a script to test this, but you would need to include everything you want and need, which would be complicated. He said that you need to take the parts of the document that apply to your situation. But, he said, if someone wanted to build something like that, then he would be happy to include it. Sander said that Blake Willis was referring on the chat to the University of New Hampshire's independent testing lab. Jan said there are asterisks on some of the requirements in the draft policy that indicate they are being tested. Jan asked the collective whether there was consensus. Benedikt said that no one would complain if they wanted to do the work. Raymond said he was happy to move forward but suggested leaving the mailing list open until the following Wednesday for any other potential objections to consensus, which Jan agreed to. Jan and Raymond thanked everyone for their hard work. Raymond thanked the scribe and said that there had been no comments on the minutes from RIPE 82, which had been online for some time, so declared them approved. He said that he hoped to see everyone at a meeting in person soon and closed the session. Rgds, Ray

7 24

Ripe 554 bis = ripe 772 has been published
by Jetten Raymond 14 Dec '21

14 Dec '21

Hello members of the list, We have a new document published: Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-772 A big thanks to the authors and all involved ! The IPv6 wg co-Chairs For Internal Use Only

1 0

RIPE554-bis now published as RIPE772
by Tim Chown 14 Dec '21

14 Dec '21

Hi, Many thanks to the RIPE support team, 554bis is now published: "Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment” https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-772 I wonder how long before the next refresh... Best wishes, Tim

1 0

RIPE554-Bis consensus
by Jetten Raymond 03 Dec '21

03 Dec '21

Dear List members, The time has come, to declare consensus on RIPE554-Bis https://docs.google.com/document/d/10HsfHDOIhUPIvGk9WP0azJiIsMVzQ49RsqWfnbN… Big thanks to all list discussion participants, participants at the RIPE83 IPv6 Working Group session for their input, and most of all to Merike Käo, Jan Žorž, Sander Steffann, Tim Chown, Tim Winters for doing a lot of work. I will contact the RIPE NCC shortly to get this new document published. Raymond Jetten Senior Technology Specialist Production Cloud Services, Networks and connectivity Interconnectivity & Content Elisa Oyj Vuolteenkatu 2 33100 Tampere +358 45 6700 139 raymond.jetten(a)elisa.fi<mailto:raymond.jetten@elisa.fi> www.elisa.fi<http://www.elisa.fi/> Lisätietoa henkilötietojen käsittelystä ja tietosuojasta Elisalla https://elisa.fi/tietosuoja Mer information om Elisas hantering av personuppgifter och dataskydd https://elisa.fi/tietosuoja More information on personal data management and data protection at Elisa https://elisa.com/dataprotection ********************************************************************************************* For Internal Use Only

1 0

RIPE 554 Bis to consensus...
by Jetten Raymond 03 Dec '21

03 Dec '21

Hello IPv6 Working Group! Thanks for the great discussions on the IPv6 WG during RIPE83. We are ready to get consensus on the new RIPE554 document, so here is your very very last chance to make changes by commenting it on this list. If no dramatic changes have come up we will approve the document on Friday 3.12 Link to the live draft: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10HsfHDOIhUPIvGk9WP0azJiIsMVzQ49RsqWfnbN… Cheers, The Ripe IPv6 WG chairs, Jen, Benedikt, Raymond Raymond Jetten Senior Technology Specialist Production Cloud Services, Networks and connectivity Interconnectivity & Content Elisa Oyj Vuolteenkatu 2 33100 Tampere +358 45 6700 139 raymond.jetten(a)elisa.fi<mailto:raymond.jetten@elisa.fi> www.elisa.fi<http://www.elisa.fi/> Lisätietoa henkilötietojen käsittelystä ja tietosuojasta Elisalla https://elisa.fi/tietosuoja Mer information om Elisas hantering av personuppgifter och dataskydd https://elisa.fi/tietosuoja More information on personal data management and data protection at Elisa https://elisa.com/dataprotection ********************************************************************************************* For Internal Use Only

2 2

RIPE NCC Open House: Building Your Own Test Labs. Wednesday, 8 December - 1100-1230UTC
by openhouse＠ripe.net 02 Dec '21

02 Dec '21

Dear colleagues, Are you interested in deploying IPv6, but need to learn more about how it works? Do you want to try out a technology before putting it into production? Maybe you need to just test something out? Then join us at our upcoming event RIPE NCC Open House: Building Your Own Test Labs, taking place on Wednesday, 8 December. Read more about the Open House event here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-bu… <https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-bu…> We will talk to two experts - Ondrej Caletka and Max Stucchi - about the different choices you should make when you want to build your own test labs. Should you use hardware or virtual machines? Which software is best for a certain purpose? Do you want to run your labs in the cloud? The experts will look at different labs they developed and analyse their choices. We will of course open the mic for your questions. You can ask questions on topics like: • Why was a certain solution used? • How much time does it take to develop? • What security issues should you be aware of Take this opportunity to learn more about building test labs and share your experiences as well. Register at: https://meeting-registration.ripe.net/meeting-pub/registration?0&meetingId=… <https://meeting-registration.ripe.net/meeting-pub/registration?0&meetingId=…> I look forward to seeing you online. Alastair Strachan RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [ipv6-wg] Latest draft for RIPE554-bis
by Eric Vyncke (evyncke) 26 Nov '21

26 Nov '21

Tim*2, Sander, Jan, and Merike, First of all, thank you for taking the pen to update this document. As you kindly asked for comments, here are some - page 2: 'fairly recent' won't age well ;-) - page 4: all requirements are limited to performance, but should it also include telemetry/monitoring ? Or is it implicit in the list of RFC ? - page 4: what about systems to handle VMs and containers ? - page 4: mobile devices have a *big difference* with normal host though as they often have multiple interfaces active at the same time. - page 4: should we assume that Wi-Fi access points are 'normal layer-2 switches' ? - page 6: I am surprised to see RFC 8415 DHCPv6 client as mandatory... - page 6: if not mistaken RFC 8200 now includes RFC 5722 and RFC 8021 (so no need to add the latter in the requirements) - page 7: same surprise to see all DHCP-related requirements - page 7 and other: nice to list some MIB but I would expect some YANG modules as well for enterprise/ISP devices - page 9: should Jen's RFC 9131 be added as optional ? Hope this helps -éric PS: the attached PDF has the same comments in the text. On 02/11/2021, 16:05, "ipv6-wg on behalf of Tim Chown via ipv6-wg" <ipv6-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net on behalf of ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: Hi, Attached below is the latest draft for RIPE554-bis, the update to Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment. The authors have incorporated feedback received on and off list, and believe the current draft is a candidate to be considered towards publication. We have a slot in the upcoming RIPE meeting to present and discuss the latest changes, but further list feedback would be welcome now. Is it ready to ship? If not, why not? The original version can be found at https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-554 Best wishes, Tim

7 27

Latest draft for RIPE554-bis confusion with MUST and SHOULD
by Lorenz Nickel 25 Nov '21

25 Nov '21

Hey everyone, I am a bit confused/worried about section 5 (Requirements for IPv6 support in software). There is a list, of what a developer/vendor MUST (at a minimum) support. However, the list contains multiple bullet points that include words that make them seem optional (like "something SHOULD be supported" or "it's recommended"). I don't have any experience with the creation of RFC and just joined this mailing list to be able to see what you are doing here out of interest, so I think this might be (at least partly) intended, as some of these bullet points seem to have been copied from other sources (e.g., https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-554 contains this first bullet point with "recommended"). However, I think the standard should make sense on its own and therefore don't think that this is a valid justification. Things should be clearly marked as either mandatory or optional. Therefore, I would suggest rephrasing the introduction sentence from Software developer/vendor must at a minimum do the following things to guarantee this: to [A] software developer/vendor should at a minimum do the following things to guarantee this: However, in case some things in the list should be mandatory and some optional, I think it might make even more sense to split the list in an optional and a mandatory list. If all the things in the list are actually mandatory, I would propose the following changes to the bullet points: From It is strongly recommended not to use any address literals in software code, as described in “Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol version 6” [RFC6724] to Address literals must not be used in software code, as described in “Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol version 6” [RFC6724] From Every place where IPv6 addresses are shown or output the notation as specified in "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation [RFC5952]" should be followed to Every place where IPv6 addresses are shown or output[,] the notation as specified in "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation [RFC5952]" must be followed From When setting up a connection the software should follow Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 [RFC6724] or Happy Eyeballs Version 2: Better Connectivity Using Concurrency [RFC8305] to When setting up a connection[,] the software must follow Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 [RFC6724] or Happy Eyeballs Version 2: Better Connectivity Using Concurrency [RFC8305] From These requirements should also be checked in any library or tools used by the software to These requirements must also be checked in any library or tools used by the software I'm not particular interested in what wording exactly is used, these are just some suggestions. Please feel free to let me know what you think. Lorenz

1 0

Re: [ipv6-wg] Latest draft for RIPE554-bis
by Jetten Raymond 03 Nov '21

03 Nov '21

Hi, First of all thanks to all who participated in the update of this document ! Its only a few weeks before the RIPE 83 virtual meeting, so I hope most of the discussion will be here on the list before the meeting. During RIPE 83 we have only a 45 minute slot altogether so we don't have unlimited time there to discuss these. I hope we have enough consensus to have this published during the meeting, so please show your support, or ask, comment etc already now. Rgds, Ray IPv6 wg co chair -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> On Behalf Of Tim Chown via ipv6-wg Sent: tiistai 2. marraskuuta 2021 17.05 To: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Cc: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl>; Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan(a)go6.si>; Merike Kaeo <merike(a)doubleshotsecurity.com> Subject: [ipv6-wg] Latest draft for RIPE554-bis Hi, Attached below is the latest draft for RIPE554-bis, the update to Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment. The authors have incorporated feedback received on and off list, and believe the current draft is a candidate to be considered towards publication. We have a slot in the upcoming RIPE meeting to present and discuss the latest changes, but further list feedback would be welcome now. Is it ready to ship? If not, why not? The original version can be found at https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-554 Best wishes, Tim

2 1

Latest draft for RIPE554-bis
by Tim Chown 02 Nov '21

02 Nov '21

Hi, Attached below is the latest draft for RIPE554-bis, the update to Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment. The authors have incorporated feedback received on and off list, and believe the current draft is a candidate to be considered towards publication. We have a slot in the upcoming RIPE meeting to present and discuss the latest changes, but further list feedback would be welcome now. Is it ready to ship? If not, why not? The original version can be found at https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-554 Best wishes, Tim

1 0

broken-v6only
by Jens Link 25 Oct '21

25 Oct '21

Hi, just ran into this on twitter: https://github.com/buraglio/broken-v6only --- A running list of applications and processes that just do not work with the total absence of IPv4 on on a host. Contributions welcome and encouraged. --- Maybe the RIPE community can give more input. Jens -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Delbrueckstr. 41 | 12051 Berlin, Germany | +49-151-18721264 | | http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jenslink(a)quux.de | --------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Call for presentations for RIPE 83
by Jetten Raymond 25 Oct '21

25 Oct '21

For Internal Use Only Hello All, Unfortunately RIPE83 will yet be virtual, from 22 - 26 November 2021 The IPv6 Working Group session is scheduled for , Thursday 25 November from 13.00 - 13:45 (UTC+1) We are looking for talks - please email : ipv6-wg-chair (at) ripe.net if you'd like to present. Once we have decided on the agenda, we'll contact the presenters. Thanks! Jen, Benedikt, Ray

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Hands-On Learning - How We Built the IPv6 Security Virtual Lab Activities
by Ulka Athale 18 Oct '21

18 Oct '21

Dear colleagues, Our newest course in the RIPE NCC Academy - IPv6 Security - has a virtual lab environment so that you can get hands-on practice in addition to learning about theoretical concepts. Ondrej Caletka shares how this virtual lab was built in this RIPE Labs article: https://labs.ripe.net/author/ondrej_caletka_1/hands-on-learning-how-we-buil… You are also invited to participate in the 'RIPE NCC Open House: Become a Certified Professional in IPv6 Security’ virtual event taking place on Wednesday, 20 October. You can hear from the team behind the IPv6 Security e-learning course and RIPE NCC Certified Professionals exam about how the course and exam were created. This is an opportunity to ask any questions you might have about the IPv6 Security Expert exam and course. Register for the event at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-be… Kind regards, Ulka Athale Senior Communications Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: [v6ops] RFC 9098 on Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers
by Fernando Gont 16 Sep '21

16 Sep '21

Folks, FYI: RFC 9098 Title: Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers Authors: F. Gont, N. Hilliard, G. Doering, W. Kumari, G. Huston, W. Liu Available at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9098 Consider this one a companion document of RFC7872. Thanks! Regards, Fernando -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [v6ops] RFC 9098 on Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 12:23:19 -0700 (PDT) From: rfc-editor(a)rfc-editor.org To: ietf-announce(a)ietf.org, rfc-dist(a)rfc-editor.org CC: drafts-update-ref(a)iana.org, v6ops(a)ietf.org, rfc-editor(a)rfc-editor.org A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 9098 Title: Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers Author: F. Gont, N. Hilliard, G. Doering, W. Kumari, G. Huston, W. Liu Status: Informational Stream: IETF Date: September 2021 Mailbox: fgont(a)si6networks.com, nick(a)inex.ie, gert(a)space.net, warren(a)kumari.net, gih(a)apnic.net, liushucheng(a)huawei.com Pages: 17 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-08.txt URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9098 DOI: 10.17487/RFC9098 This document summarizes the operational implications of IPv6 extension headers specified in the IPv6 protocol specification (RFC 8200) and attempts to analyze reasons why packets with IPv6 extension headers are often dropped in the public Internet. This document is a product of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the IETF. INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor(a)rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list v6ops(a)ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops . “This communication is the property of EdgeUno or one of its group companies and/or affiliates. This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and if you are not the intended recipient be aware that any non-explicitly authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, and will be considered a criminal offense. Please notify legal(a)edgeuno.com about the unintended receipt of this electronic message and delete it.”

1 0

[news] Announcing the IPv6 Security Expert Exam and E-Learning Course
by Sandra Bras 15 Sep '21

15 Sep '21

Dear colleagues, Our second IPv6 exam certification - IPv6 Security Expert is now live. We have also launched a new e-learning course on IPv6 Security in the RIPE NCC Academy that is aligned with the exam. With the uptake in IPv6 adoption, we hope to see more network operators taking the necessary security precautions when using IPv6 and following best practice. The course consists of 17 modules and 7 lab activities, which will help you apply concepts learned and using actual tools and realistic scenarios. You can find out more about the IPv6 Security Expert certification here: https://www.ripe.net/support/certified-professionals/ipv6-security-expert-e… <https://www.ripe.net/support/certified-professionals/ipv6-security-expert-e…> And take a look at the IPv6 Security online course in the RIPE NCC Academy at: https://academy.ripe.net <https://academy.ripe.net/> I would like to acknowledge everyone who has participated in the exam and course creation process, from answering our job task analysis survey to testing the exam and reviewing the course material to testing the lab activities. Having the involvement of the community is one of the strengths of our exams, and we thank all our volunteers. If you have any questions or feedback, you can reach us at <exams(a)ripe.net <mailto:exams@ripe.net>>. Best regards, Sandra Bras Assistant Manager Learning and Development RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE-554-bis
by Azael Fernandez A. 08 Sep '21

08 Sep '21

Hi, I have been following the presentation in May and the messages in this list, and since 2018 I have asked *Jan *if you were planning to update this document. So I am very delighted to see that it is happening. By reviewing the new version I would suggest, in the case of the RFCs that are in the category of Standards Track, to have the indication of Standard, for example when updating the IPv6 Basic specification it would be better to write it in the following way: IPv6 Basic specification [RFC8200 or STD 86] and better to also have the reference to the RFC made obsolete by standard tracks for example, in this case: IPv6 Basic specification [RFC8200 or STD 86] (made obsolete RFC 2460), the main reason is that in almost all the datasheets, the original or previous RFC are still mentioned. Finally, I found a writing error in the mandatory support for CPE equipment, it says RFC7094, and it should be RFC*7084.* BEST, Azael

2 1

New on RIPE Labs: Managing DNS Over IPv6 Only
by Alun Davies 02 Sep '21

02 Sep '21

Dear colleagues, Paul de Weerd and Florian Obser share a short use case looking at why and how the team recently switched the management interfaces for the RIPE NCC DNS servers over to IPv6 only. Read more on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/author/paul_de_weerd/managing-dns-over-ipv6-only/ Kind regards, Alun Davies RIPE Labs Editor RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: IPv6 Support on the PlayStation 5
by Alun Davies 30 Aug '21

30 Aug '21

Dear colleagues, In a new guest post on RIPE Labs, Tore Anderson takes a look at how IPv6 capability has come on with the arrival of the next generation of gaming consoles: https://labs.ripe.net/author/toreanderson/ipv6-support-on-the-playstation-5/ Kind regards, Alun Davies RIPE Labs Editor RIPE NCC

1 0