- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RIPE 82 IPv6 WG minutes published
by Jetten Raymond 15 Jun '21

15 Jun '21

Dear list members, The minutes from the RIPE 82 IPv6 Wg session have now been published. https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/ipv6/minutes/ipv6-workin… Rgds, your IPv6 wg co-chairs, Jen, Benedikt and Ray

1 0

WebinarIPv6 Mythology
by Maysa de Freitas Souza 08 Jun '21

08 Jun '21

Hi all, IPv6 Mythology webinar will happen on 09/06 at 4pm ART (UTC-0300). Linkedin event link: https://www.linkedin.com/events/edgeunowebinar-ipv6mythology680338496503682… Thanks and Best Regards

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Two Articles on IPv6
by Alun Davies 04 Jun '21

04 Jun '21

Dear colleagues, Ahead of 6 June, we’ve published two RIPE Labs articles covering two important topics in IPv6. Looking into IPv6 adoption in 2021, Stephen Strowes and colleagues examine the difference between average IPv6 capability per country over a few days in June 2020 versus the most recent similar averages for 2021: https://labs.ripe.net/author/stephen_strowes/ipv6-adoption-in-2021/ And on the topic of IPv6 security, Alvaro Vives looks at the security challenges that come with IPv6 and talks about how our IPv6 security course helps people and organisations get prepared to keep the future Internet secure: https://labs.ripe.net/author/alvaro_vives/securing-the-future-of-ipv6/ Kind regards, Alun Davies RIPE Labs Editor RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE82 IPv6 Working group session Minutes
by Jetten Raymond 04 Jun '21

04 Jun '21

Dear members of the IPv6 Working Group, Below are the draft minutes from the RIPE 82 virtual meeting, Thanks to the RIPE NCC for these, If you have any comments or remarks please let us know before 10.6.2021 IPv6 Working Group Minutes - RIPE 82 Thursday, 20 May 10:30 - 12:00 (UTC+2) WG Chairs: Benedikt Stockebrand, Jen Linkova, Raymond Jetten Scribe: Adonis Stergiopoulos Status: Draft Welcome / Agenda The Chairs This presentation is available at:  https://ripe82.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/39-_RIPE82_IPv6WG_… The minutes from RIPE 81 were approved. There were no questions or comments. WG Chair Re-selection The Chairs Jen Linkova was selected for another three years as co-chair of the working group. An Update on Fragmentation Loss Rates in IPv6 Geoff Huston This presentation is available at: https://ripe82.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/17-huston-ipv6-v6f… Lars Prehn (MPII) asked how many vantage points his team measured from, and if it was really the end hosts that failed, or if there might just be few misconfigured “choke” routers close to the vantage point through which most traffic for the American-based devices passed. If that was the case, the numbers might just reflect the fraction of devices routed via those routers. Geoff said they used four server points and, looking closer at Canada and the USA, different networks had different loss rates, so it was far more likely that this was close to the edge, not close to them. They also measured entire continents, hence they were finding that the “choke” points were not close to them and it was more likely that they were closer to the user, or in the network at that last-hop access network. Richard Patterson (Sky) asked if the tests included atomic fragments. Jen clarified that during the presentation, Geoff mentioned that his team used two fragments, initially a larger one and then a smaller one, so it was just one packet with a fragment header but no subsequent fragment. Geoff said this was coming up. In about a month's time, they would have some data available. Ivan Beveridge (Independent) asked about fragmentation and if they considered that some firewalls set MSS around 1,380. If that was tunnelled, for example due to DDoS-mitigation, they might see some issues. Geoff said yes, but some seemed to go at 1,400. If a firewall set an MSS down that low, this could create issues and it would be a bizarre thing to do. David Schweizer (NetDEF) asked if they had done any tests with fragment sizes less than 1,200. Geoff said 1,200 was the smallest size they had used. Oliver Gasser (Max Planck Institute for Informatics) asked what the baseline drop rate for IPv6 was. Geoff said this was a talk for another time, but from what he remembered, the base rate was 2%. Christian Bretterhofer (Independent) asked for an example configuration for ISPs and enterprises to show how to make this work. Geoff said it was simple - they should not drop fragments and ask their router vendors not to drop packets with extension headers. Jan Žorž (6connect) asked what people inside their particular countries coud do to make this better and how to approach this issue. Geoff said he didn’t know, since equipment had changed and improved over the last five years. Alex Le Heux (Independent) asked if they would publish this data with per-AS granularity. Geoff said yes, and they could be found on the link in the presentation. Marek Barczyk (SUT Computer Center) asked if they considered testing drop rate of fragmented vs packets with other IPv6 options that triggered a slow path. Geoff responded that he had not considered extension header options other than a null fragment, but he would be willing to test any if people wanted to use them on the network. RIPE554-bis Tim Chown The presentation is available at: https://ripe82.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/66-ripe82-ipv6wg-r… Jordi Palet Martinez (Independent) referred to slide three of the presentation and asked why only MAP/DS-Lite and not 464XLAT and lw4o6 were used. He volunteered to contribute to this or any other parts of the document. Tim said that Jordi had contributed a lot on this particular topic in the IETF. He thought 464XLAT would be in there but he was unsure about a lightweight lw4o6. He asked Jodie to post this on the list, as it would be mentioned along with NAT64 and DNS64. Jan Žorž (6connect) said this was just the current version of the document. They wanted to publish it as soon as possible, since many people were using it. If anyone wanted to add additional sections, they were happy to update it after the current version had been published. MAP-E Residential Deployment and the Issues Encountered Yannis Nikolopoulos This presentation is available at: https://ripe82.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/78-ripe82-yanodd-m… Blake Willis (Zayo Europe) asked what the driver was that pushed them to switch from MAP-T to MAP-E and if this was attributed to services module requirements. Yannis said they had only ever tried MAP-T in a very brief trial six years ago, and they did not really switch from MAP-T to MAP-E. After they tested both in the trials, they decided to go ahead with MAP-E. Jan Žorž (6connect) asked what the top three operational issues were with lw4o6 that put them off this path. Yannis said the CPE and the AFTR, as the AFTR could not scale well to a large number of subscribers. Also, the vendor could not put up the extra development effort because there was no interest from other operators. He could not recall a third issue at that moment. Richard Patterson (Sky) asked for more information on the issues with anycasting the BR and the limitations with policy-based routing that required the ASR99 to be dedicated. Yannis said a potential issue was that an ICMP IPv6 packet that was too big might be sent to the wrong BR if it was anycasted. About the policy-based routing, since MAP-E was implemented as a routing mechanism in Cisco, they put a limit to a specific number of PBR that can be implemented on the box. The limitation was that it can be either one or two per direction. Jordi Palet Martinez (Independent) referred to slide 24 of the presentation where Yannis talked about S46 RFC8026. He thought it was much better to use RFC 8585, which also included support for 464XLAT. He had much more success in several broadband deployments (GPON, DSL, cellular broadband and just cellular) than all the other options. He said he was also now working on a deployment for 25 million subscribers. Yannis thanked Jordi for the suggestions. Sia Saatpoor (Logius) asked about the activation of IPv6 and the use of stimulation. He thought the major role and responsibility for the use of IPv6 lay with the government. In the Netherlands, the highest ICT policy body of the government had decided that all digital Dutch governments must be accessible through IPv6 by the end of 2021. Sia asked what was the role of the government in Greece or other parts of Europe in stimulating the industry. Yannis said he could only talk about the Greek government. It was currently not too far behind, but operators were running part of the governmental network, so they were trying to push IPv6 as much as they could. He was not aware of a Greek government-specific initiative at this point. Kostas Zorbadelos (Independent) asked if software mechanisms were the way forward, or if should they stick to CGN (for the IPv4 path) in dual-stack deployments. Yannis replied that he really hoped software mechanisms were still the way to go. IPv6 Deployment Status Paolo Volpato This presentation is available at: https://ripe82.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/64-RIPE-82-Fioccol… Christian Bretterhofer (Andritz AG) said that many people did not find any business reason to adopt IPv6. He asked if there were any reasons to adopt IPv6. Paolo answered that this was one of the most interesting and critical questions. Unfortunately, there was no definitive answer, and this was also part of the discussion. He advised Christian to look at the use cases and spend more time reading through their draft. Some operators had moved to IPv6 for innovation reasons, enabling new applications even if they were not here yet. There was also some kind of consensus that 5G and IoT were two cases demanding IPv6, but that was not entirely true. Another motivation, which was still somewhat unclear, was the role of governments and national authorities’ actions in favour of IPv6 deployment. He added that there were cases, two of them were in the USA and China, where federal and government agencies had demanded not just support for IPv6, but potentially having only IPv6-based applications. Veronika McKillop (UK IPv6 Council) said that the introduction of IPv6 did not immediately relieve the pressure on the IPv4 address pool, and dual-stack did not help with this problem. Only IPv6-only deployment helped with the IPv4 address shortage. She noted that it would be worth clarifying this on the relevant slide. Paolo agreed and said he would update the materials. Happy Eyeballs Considered Harmful Jens Link The presentation is available at: https://ripe82.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/80-he.pdf Jordi Palet Martinez (Independent) said that he had described this problem a long time ago and it was the reason he had proposed it in the IETF (“Reporting of Happy Eyeballs v2 Failures<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-palet-ietf-v6ops-he-reporting-00.txt>”), so that ISPs knew something was broken. Jens agreed and replied that other people saw the same problem. Blake Willis (Zayo Europe) asked if the community was aware of a tool, site or application that users could use to catalog IPv6 problems. Or was that ecosystem hopelessly fragmented too? His question was not answered. Christian Bretterhofer (Andritz AG) asked if there was a browser plugin to show Happy Eyeball problems like IPvFoo. Jens replied that he was not aware of a plugin and he suggested talking to the browser windows. Alexander Azimov (Yandex) asked whether the adoption of NEL (Network Error Logging) was solving this kind of problem. Jens replied that it might be. He then asked if it was enabled somewhere and if it was analysed should it be enabled. Gert Doering (Independent) said another example they saw was that Apache-ACLs were not right for IPv4 and browsers were randomly flip-flopping IPv4 and IPv6, and that user reports were inconclusive. End of session. On behalf of the IPv6 WG co-chairs, Raymond For Internal Use Only

1 0

RIPE-554-bis
by christian bretterhofer 27 May '21

27 May '21

Just a question: Why are there no Firewalls? -- --- best regards Christian Bretterhofer

4 3

RIPE554-bis - on agenda Thursday
by Tim Chown 17 May '21

17 May '21

Hi, The work on updating RIPE554 will be presented on Thursday at the IPv6 WG meeting. This is the document specifying "Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment” last revved in 2012. You can see the current state of the proposed new version of the doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10HsfHDOIhUPIvGk9WP0azJiIsMVzQ49RsqWfnbN… and a PDF is also attached along with the current draft of Thursday’s slides. We’re largely focused on an update to the current document given the previous version is almost 10 years old and not, at this stage at least, expanding the scope. Comments to the list are welcome, be they general or on specific requirements in the text. Tim

1 0

FW: [ripe-list] Community Wellbeing Survey
by Jetten Raymond 04 May '21

04 May '21

Dear all, I had a request from Erik Bais that I'd like to forward to our list, please see below Kind regards, Ray For Internal Use Only From: On Behalf Of Erik Bais Sent: tiistai 4. toukokuuta 2021 11.14 Subject: FW: [ripe-list] Community Wellbeing Survey Dear WG-Chairs, As not everyone in the community is subscribed to the RIPE ML, I would kindly ask you if you could forward the email below on your WG ML in order to get to a larger audience. Kind regards, Erik Bais From: ripe-list on behalf of Erik Bais Date: Friday 30 April 2021 at 17:59 To: ripe-list Cc: Erik Bais Subject: [ripe-list] Community Wellbeing Survey Dear RIPE Community, A couple months ago we began discussing in a small group the challenges around personal mental wellbeing in the RIPE community and how we could potentially investigate the issue and what we could potentially put in place to make things better. One outcome of that was the development of a questionnaire around how the community is coping in the current Covid-19 era. ( The questionnaire is here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JPNJG57 ) Participating in this is a personal decision for you but we do appreciate your feedback, either via the questionnaire or other means. As some of you may know, I did a presentation in 2019 at the Dutch Network Operator Group ( NLNOG ) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7areInUXbyo about working in a toxic work environment and the risks of running into a burnout. This topic, ( having a burnout . .the risks and being able to talk about this in groups of small peers or even in public ) is in many countries and communities still a taboo topic. Based on the experiences that we have from that presentation and what it did for the people in the Dutch NLNOG community.. and providing a safe place for people to talk and discuss about this.. We decided that we also would like to see what the current state is in the larger community .. and start with a questionnaire on the topic. The feedback and results of the questionnaire ( and your input is highly appreciated if you participate ) will be looked at and I will do a presentation in a plenary at RIPE82 in a couple weeks. The goal is to see if we as a RIPE community need to provide similar ways for people in our region to (anonymously) be able to communicate about various topics that may or may not be directly work related. It could be that we need to have a place where we can discuss about the situation working remote .. not being able to go to the office.. the additional stress that this brings .. or that we need to talk about what all those additional social distancing rules bring to you.. or how you feel about these rules.. for some it is a blessing .. and for some it works like a new stress factor as the rules are changing per shop / public store / building .. and some of us like to have nice and clear directions .. But also about how people deal with the lockdowns .. and don't get to meet other people that have a similar interest .. or a relation .. So what we like to see is how are you feeling .. how are you coping .. or not .. And then the question comes .. can we help .. and how I'm aware that I'm currently the one that is pushing this as a topic in public (and here for instance) .. but I'm very aware of the group of great people that helped to get this initiative and questionnaire to a state as where it is today. And I would especially like to thank Eileen (INEX), Mirjam ( RIPE Chair ), Carolien (NCC HR) , Alastair ( NCC ), Ulka ( NCC ) Alun ( NCC ), Vesna ( NCC - for her mad Wiki and notary skills ) and the people assisting in reviewing the questionnaire already for us. We like to get the information before May 11th 2021, so that we have some time to look at the results and prep the ppt for the week of the RIPE82 meeting. The data itself will be stored for max 2 weeks after that.. and only 1 admin from the NCC and the HR manager of the NCC will have access to the data, besides myself. As we use the NCC survey monkey account for the questionnaire. All questions can be skipped if you don't feel like you want to answer a specific question. And feel free to reply here on the list .. or reach out to Mirjam, Eileen (both in CC: ) or myself in private if needed. We are planning a bit larger support group once we are done with the RIPE82 meeting on this. To minimize tracking by Survey Monkey .. You can paste the questionnaire URL in an incognito window.. The questionnaire is here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JPNJG57 Thank you all in advance and see you all at RIPE82. Kind regards, Erik Bais

1 0

IPv6 WG chair 2021 re-selection
by Jen Linkova 22 Apr '21

22 Apr '21

Hello, My 3 years term as the IPv6 WG co-chair will be over after RIPE82, so the call for the candidates is open. I'd like to stand for re-selection as well, volunteering to serve another term. If you'd like to volunteer or nominate someone (or just make a comment ;), please send an email to the list (or respond to this thread). The closing date for candidates will be Sunday, May 16th 2021, 23:59:59 UTC. The WG chair selection will happen during the IPv6 WG session @ RIPE82 (currently scheduled for May 20th, 10:30am CEST time zone (UTC+2) Thank you! -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

7 6

RIPE82 (virtual) IPv6 working group
by Jetten Raymond 08 Mar '21

08 Mar '21

Dear IPv6 wg list members, I am pleased to tell you that we at this moment already have a full agenda for the IPv6 wg session. Thanks to all of you who have suggested presentations to us. if you have plans to yet send in presentations you will be put on a "spareparts" list if a cancellation occurs, or we may have you at a next meeting. we will publish the agenda in the coming weeks. Thanks from all of us Jen, Benedikt and Ray

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: The State of IPv6 Support on the Tor Network
by Alun Davies 05 Mar '21

05 Mar '21

Dear colleagues, The team behind the Tor Project has been making good on its goal to provide improved IPv6 support on the Tor network. For more information, read the latest update on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/tor_grants/the-state-of-ipv6-support-on-the-t… Kind regards, Alun Davies RIPE Labs Editor RIPE NCC

1 0

Status of IPv6 and open points
by Paolo Volpato 25 Feb '21

25 Feb '21

Dear WG IPv6, We are writing to share with the RIPE community our research work on IPv6 and we would appreciate having feedback from you. If you find it useful, we are also available to present it at the next RIPE meeting in order to stimulate further discussion on this topic. In this regard, we have presented a draft in IETF V6OPS WG (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment/) and it should be discussed during the coming IETF 110. In summary, the draft describes where the adoption of IPv6 stands in different domains (operators, enterprises, content providers, etc.), highlights possible steps to move the deployment of IPv6 forward, tries to stimulate the discussion on possible “calls for action” to further push the shift to IPv6, and presents some misconceptions as well as open points still to be faced related to that. Some key findings of our work show that open aspects still remain, for which we would be happy to have the feedback of the RIPE community: 1. IPv4 exhaustion: the total remaining IPv4 address pool, as reported by the five RIRs at the end of 2020, has a bit more than 18 million addresses (either available or reserved). This data is summarized for example in https://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2021-01/addr2020.html. However, from the same article, it appears that the pool of unadvertised addresses has grown in the past few years. Quoting it: “From 2018 to the end of 2020 this pool rose to around 50 /8s that were unadvertised in the public Internet”. On the one hand this seems a good sign for IPv6 deployment (e.g. IPv4 addresses are released). On the other, we may suspect that the IPv4 addresses are more than expected and that available space could be used, for example, for transfers. We would like to have your opinion on this. 2. IPv6 performance (latency, packet loss) seems, in some cases, worse than IPv4. Clearly, the perception of “bad” performance (relatively) might have a negative influence over the adoption of IPv6. What is the opinion of the community on this point? 3. IPv6 for Enterprises and Vertical Industry also shows a low level of deployment that can be investigated. 4. More could also be added. We would be happy to discuss that with you. As said, we are also available to present our findings at the next RIPE meeting to bring it further. Many thanks in advance BR Paolo Paolo Volpato Senior IP Product Manager Europe Standardization & Industry Development Dept [2012 Labs] ____________________________________________________________________________ Huawei Technologies Address: via Lorenteggio 240, Torre A, 20147 Milano Italy Mobile: +39 344 019 7606 E-mail: paolo.volpato(a)huawei.com _____________________________________________________________________________ Huawei Technologies Italia S.r.l. is a company registered in Italy at the Company Registration Office of Milan, with registered number 04501190963 and equity capital €3,000,000 fully paid up, whose registered office is in Milan, Via Lorenteggio 257, Tower B, 20152 Milan. Huawei Technologies Italia S.r.l. is 100% owned by Huawei Technologies Cooperatief U.A _____________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRIVACY NOTICE: Pursuant to Art. 13 of Legislative Decree 196/03, so called "Data Protection Code", Huawei Technologies Italia Srl. informs you that the personal data provided by you will be treated for the acquisition of information preliminary to the conclusion of contracts, for the definition and formalization of contractual relationship with you as well as for their management and for the fulfillment of legal requirements related to civil, tax and accounting law. Data are processed both through computer or paper in a lawful and correct manner and in compliance with the Decree. Personal data and its processing are necessary for business negotiation and will not be subject to disclosure and spread out the circumstances permitted by law, on the same you can exercise your rights under art. 7 of the above mentioned decree. The Data Controller is Huawei Technologies Italia Srl, which has appointed Data Processors, the list of which is available at dataprotection(a)huawei.com<mailto:dataprotection@huawei.com>.

1 0

IPv6 WG Call for presentations RIPE82
by Jetten Raymond 15 Feb '21

15 Feb '21

Hello, RIPE82 will be virtual, from May 17th till may 21th. The IPv6 Working Group is tentatively scheduled for May 20th, 10:30 - 12:00 CET (UTC+2). We are looking for talks - please email ipv6-wg-chair at ripe.net<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg> if you'd like to present. Thanks! Jen, Benedikt, Ray

1 0

Address Assignment Practices in IPv4 and IPv6
by Stephen Strowes 21 Jan '21

21 Jan '21

Hi all, We've published a study on the stability of IPv4/IPv6 assignments in domestic ISPs, and the size of the IPv6 prefixes that networks typically assign to subscribers. We look at this from two different angles: what can we measure from RIPE Atlas, and what do operators state in the RIPE Database? In particular, understanding the size of IPv6 delegated prefixes is important for applications such as host reputation & blocklists, geolocation, and research on network measurement. The RIPE Database offers the community a way to share information on their prefix delegations, and deserves some attention! Read more here: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/stephen_strowes/address-assignment-practices-… Cheers, S.

1 0

Fwd: IPv6 Addressing Considerations
by Fernando Gont 14 Dec '20

14 Dec '20

Folks, FYI: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations Comments welcome. :-) Thanks! Cheers, Fernando -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: IPv6 Addressing Considerations Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:07:04 -0300 From: Fernando Gont <fgont(a)si6networks.com> To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops(a)ietf.org> Folks, We have published a new Internet-Draft entitled "IPv6 Addressing Considerations". It is available at: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerat… The Abstract of the I-D is: IPv6 addresses can differ in a number of properties, such as scope, stability, and intended usage type. This document analyzes the impact of these properties on aspects such as security, privacy, interoperability, and network operations. Additionally, it identifies challenges and gaps that currently prevent systems and applications from leveraging the increased flexibility and availability of IPv6 addresses. We have discussed this topic with some of you off-list, and part of those comments still need to be incorporated (apologies for the delay!). However, we felt that this -00 version already contains quite a bit of material for discussion. (and given that there have been other recent threads related to IPv6 addressing on this list and on 6man@, we felt it would be timely to get this -00 version posted now). Your comments will be very welcome. Thanks! Regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont(a)si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

1 0

Minutes of ripe81
by Jetten Raymond 17 Nov '20

17 Nov '20

Dear Working group, Below are the draft minutes from ripe 81. If you have any comments or remarks please let us know by replying to this email. A big thanks to Nikolas for doing the scribe. If we do not hear any comments these minutes will be published in about 2 weeks from now. Rgds, Ray, Jen, Benedikt. IPv6 Working Group Minutes - RIPE 81 Date: 29 October 2020, 13:00 - 13:45 WG Chairs: Benedikt Stockebrand, Jen Linkova, Raymond Jetten Scribe: Nikolas Pediaditis Status: Draft Welcome - Agenda Bashing The Chairs The minutes of IPv6 Working Group session from RIPE 80 were accepted as final. There were no questions or comments. RIPE554-bis - Tim Chown The presentation is available here: https://ripe81.ripe.net/presentations/58-ripe81-ipv6wg-ripe554bis-final.pdf Dmitry Serbulov (Alpha Net Telecom LTD) asked if it would be possible to share material with attendees prior to the start of each session. Raymond Jetten suggested that he should join the IPv6 WG mailing list. Bringing IPv6 Everywhere - Nico Schottelius The presentation is available here: https://ripe81.ripe.net/presentations/73-ripe81-bringing-ipv6-everywhere.pdf Ondrej Caletka (RIPE NCC) asked if connectivity will break if the host network becomes dual-stacked, or at worst, if the host network becomes IPv6-only. Nico replied that it wouldn't. IPv4 connectivity would still be available, and IPv6 would be added to it. Kurt Kayser (BDBOS) asked if geo-IP will always show that the VIIRB-users are in Switzerland. Nico Schottelius replied that at the moment, yes. And there is a bracket opening as soon as they are able to talk better to the RIPE API to change the registration of the /48 networks. It will be easy to actually assign the network to your location. Christoph Berkemeier (DB Station&Service AG) asked if the IPv6 distribution is stateless only. Nico confirmed that it is stateless at the moment but that could be changed if desired. Veronica McKillop (UK IPv6 Council) asked where the device is being manufactured. Nico replied that it's manufactured in China and shipped to and configured in Switzerland. Dmitry Serbulov (Alpha Net Telecom LTD) asked if open source software is used between the device and the server it connects to. Nico said that the software used, WireGuard and OpenWRT at the moment, are fully open source. Vesna Manojlovic (RIPE NCC) mentioned that a hackathon about RIPE Atlas software probes is taking place in November. She asked if Nico would be interested in joining and seeing how they could combine his router with RIPE Atlas software probes if possible. Nico replied that it would be a really cool project. Christoph Berkemeier (DB Station&Service AG) asked if there is a virtual appliance to enable legacy hosters. Nico replied that it builds on top of your existing IPv4 network so everything that's legacy continues to work. It's not a replacement. The nice thing about IPv6 is that although it is incompatible to IPv4 this also means that it runs in parallel to the existing infrastructure, allowing the legacy network to continue to work. Recent Improvements in IPv6 Addressing - Fernando Gont The presentation is available here: https://ripe81.ripe.net/presentations/72-fgont-ripe81-ipv6-wg-ipv6-addressi… Osamah Barakat (Siemens AG) asked if Windows 10 supports the latest IPv6 RFC or it is only Linux-based OS that support seen in the slide. Fernando Gont replied that it's surprising that they don't support RFC 7217 as one the authors worked for Microsoft. They also haven't implemented the update of 4941 either. However, he was less concerned about 4941, as compared to the support for 7217, as it has not been published as an RFC. End of the session.

1 0

Re: [ipv6-wg] RIPE554-bis
by Eric Vyncke (evyncke) 31 Oct '20

31 Oct '20

Trying to reply to all previous email messages in one email ;-) Look for EV> -éric-happy-to-see-this-initiative -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> on behalf of Tim Chown via ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net> Reply-To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown(a)jisc.ac.uk> Date: Wednesday, 28 October 2020 at 18:19 To: "ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net" <ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: [ipv6-wg] RIPE554-bis Hi, I’m posting here as a heads-up that an effort has begun to revise RIPE-554, involving the original authors, myself and Tim Winters. We have a 5 min slot tomorrow in the 1pm CET IPv6 WG session to flag the work, to solicit input. The original publication was back in November 2010 with RIPE-501, which was updated in June 2012 with RIPE-554. There’s many references that have been obsoleted, and potentially much to add or remove. References to 2G cellular date the document. We’d like to begin by addressing the more strategic / structural questions. Such high level questions include: - Is there agreement to progress a –bis version now? Eight years have passed, people ask for guidance… EV> YES, please do ! knowing that RIPE554 was already a -bis, I would prefer a 501-ter though ;-) - Should we keep the scope to (largely) enterprise or expand it? If so, to what? EV> large/medium enterprise should indeed be the focus, consumer do not care and (wishful thinking ?) providers know better. Although, that I would love to see the IPv6 check-list for a smart TV ;-) - Is the linkage to the IPv6 Ready Logo programme still desired? EV> a couple of months ago, I check with several end-users and vendors, and, yes, it is still important (to be surprise to be honest, sorry Tim W) - Are there new classes of equipment to add, e.g. IoT/low power, WiFi controllers, …? EV> perhaps extend to applications? Cloud providers ? Perhaps remove consumer switch, load balancer, and network security ? - Are specific sections outdated, or are there significant new sections to add? EV> many "recents" RFC (including RFC 8200), focus on RA extensions - Should we add guidance on applying the content to different use cases? As separate docs? Appendices? We’ve currently working on the -bis as a Google doc, for which there’s a PDF of the current snapshot available from: https://go6.si/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/RIPE554-bis-v_01.pdf For now, please comment to the list, and maybe start a new thread for new topics. Tim

1 0

ip address pricing and protocol selection
by Wolfgang Zenker 31 Oct '20

31 Oct '20

Hello WG, I have a question for those of you that offer some kind of hosting. Do you charge your customers extra for IPv4 or IPv6 addresses? And if you have changed your policy on that recently, did that change your customers behaviour regarding their choice on ordering and publishing IPv4 / IPv6 addresses for the hosted services? Reason for asking: At our own hosting services we started out offering dual stack by default some 6 years ago, moved to ipv6-only by default about 2 years ago and since about one year we are charging extra for IPv4 addresses. This has led to a change in behaviour in our customer base, and I want to see if others are seeing similar changes or a different situation. You can reply off-list and I will summarize the results to the group. Please state if I should mention your name in the summary. Greetings, Wolfgang Zenker -- punkt.de GmbH Tel. +49 721 9109-500 Fax: -100 .infrastructure info(a)punkt.de https://infrastructure.punkt.de/ Kaiserallee 13a CEO: Jürgen Egeling, Daniel Lienert, Fabian Stein D-76133 Karlsruhe AG Mannheim HRB 108285

2 1

RIPE554-bis
by Tim Chown 30 Oct '20

30 Oct '20

Hi, I’m posting here as a heads-up that an effort has begun to revise RIPE-554, involving the original authors, myself and Tim Winters. We have a 5 min slot tomorrow in the 1pm CET IPv6 WG session to flag the work, to solicit input. The original publication was back in November 2010 with RIPE-501, which was updated in June 2012 with RIPE-554. There’s many references that have been obsoleted, and potentially much to add or remove. References to 2G cellular date the document. We’d like to begin by addressing the more strategic / structural questions. Such high level questions include: - Is there agreement to progress a –bis version now? Eight years have passed, people ask for guidance… - Should we keep the scope to (largely) enterprise or expand it? If so, to what? - Is the linkage to the IPv6 Ready Logo programme still desired? - Are there new classes of equipment to add, e.g. IoT/low power, WiFi controllers, …? - Are specific sections outdated, or are there significant new sections to add? - Should we add guidance on applying the content to different use cases? As separate docs? Appendices? We’ve currently working on the -bis as a Google doc, for which there’s a PDF of the current snapshot available from: https://go6.si/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/RIPE554-bis-v_01.pdf For now, please comment to the list, and maybe start a new thread for new topics. Tim

7 9

Rquirements for VPN
by christian bretterhofer 29 Oct '20

29 Oct '20

After reading https://go6.si/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/RIPE554-bis-v_01.pdf I see VPNs as part of the Network Security Equipment. But in my opinium there is not enough definition to be a VPN quality criteria. VPN external Protocol Must support IPv6 clients to IPv6 servers (6-to-6) ( Ipv6 Only) VPN external Protocol Must support IPv4 clients to IPv4 servers (4-to-4) (Ipv4 only) Transport inside of VPN VPN inner Protocol Must support IPv6 clients to IPv6 servers (6-to-6) VPN inner Protocol Must support IPv4 clients to IPv4 servers (4-to-4) VPN inner Protocol should support Dual stack. VPN inner Protocol should support 4in6 6in4 (transition protocols) The Idea from wireguard is maybe also a should the external protocol switch from Ipv6 to Ipv4 or Ipv4 to Ipv6 then the inner protocol should stay connected. Protocols with DNS64/NAT64 support would also help. maybe it fist into this recommendation document. -- --- best regards Christian Bretterhofer Enterprise User:

3 2

Minutes from ripe 80
by Jetten Raymond 28 Oct '20

28 Oct '20

Hi, We have published the RIPE 80 minutes as draft here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/ipv6/minutes/ipv6-workin… Let me know if these need any changes or corrections. Rgds, Ray

1 0

IPv6 WG @ RIPE81 Agenda
by Jen Linkova 07 Oct '20

07 Oct '20

The agenda for the IPv6 WG session at RIPE81 has been published: https://ripe81.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ipv6-wg/ Thanks to everyone who submitted a talk - this time we got really overbooked so my apologies if your talk was not accepted! See you in 3 weeks! -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: A Look Into the Tor Network Work on Supporting IPv6
by Alun Davies 01 Oct '20

01 Oct '20

Dear colleagues, With support from the RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund 2019, the Tor project has implemented IPv6 support across its network. Read how the work they've done will help make sure users across the RIPE NCC service region will have a more reliable experience on the Tor network: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/tor_grants/a-look-into-the-tor-network-work-o… Kind regards, Alun Davies RIPE NCC

1 0

IPv6 WG@RIPE81: Call for Presentations
by Jen Linkova 18 Sep '20

18 Sep '20

Hello, RIPE81 will be virtual, from Oct 27th till Oct 30th. IPv6 Working Group is tentatively scheduled for Oct 29th, 13:00 - 13:45. We are looking for talks - please email ipv6-wg-chair(a)ripe.net if you'd like to present. Thanks! -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

1 1

[news] The IPv6 Fundamentals – Analyst Exam Is Live
by Sandra Bras 17 Aug '20

17 Aug '20

Dear colleagues, The IPv6 Fundamentals – Analyst exam is now live! You can use your LIR’s vouchers to schedule a RIPE NCC Certified Professionals exam using our online exam platform. The IPv6 Fundamentals - Analyst exam is intended for individuals who are familiar with best current practices in IPv6. It certifies your ability to calculate IPv6 subnets, create an IPv6 addressing plan and recognise the application of IPv6 transition mechanisms, among other skills. We would like to thank the RIPE community members who supported the exam creation process by writing and reviewing questions, and also answering our Job Task Analysis survey. You can find out more about the IPv6 Fundamentals – Analyst badge at: https://www.ripe.net/support/certified-professionals/ipv6-fundamentals-anal… <https://www.ripe.net/support/certified-professionals/ipv6-fundamentals-anal…> As for us here at Learning and Development, we’re getting back to work on our next exam – IPv6 Security Expert, which we expect to launch towards the end of 2020 or early 2021. All the best for the exam! Best regards, Sandra Bras Assistant Manager, Learning and Development RIPE NCC

1 0

IPv6 Exam Guide is Available
by sbras＠ripe.net 04 Aug '20

04 Aug '20

Dear colleagues, We’re putting the finishing touches on the first IPv6 exam in RIPE NCC Certified Professionals – “IPv6 Fundamentals – Analyst”. This exam is intended for people who are familiar with IPv6 best current practices and certifies your ability to calculate IPv6 subnets, create an IPv6 addressing plan, and recognise the application of specific IPv6 transition mechanisms, among other skills. Many of you have already shown interest in this exam. As requested, we’ve made the study guide available in advance so you can start preparing. You can read more about the exam and download the study guide here: https://www.ripe.net/support/certified-professionals/ipv6-fundamentals-anal… We will let you know when exam scheduling is available. Best regards, Sandra Sandra Bras Assistant Manager, Learning and Development RIPE NCC

1 0