- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

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