- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

New on RIPE Labs: IPv4 and IPv6 Tweets on a Map
by Mirjam Kuehne 21 Jan '15

21 Jan '15

Dear colleagues, We looked at tweets mentioning IPv4 and IPv6 and how they appear on a map over time. It's great to see that IPv6-related tweets are more popular. Find more information on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/visualising-ipv4-ipv6-tweets If you have any questions or suggestions, please let us know. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

3 2

Call for Presentations
by Benedikt Stockebrand 18 Jan '15

18 Jan '15

Hi folks, since the call for presentations for the plenary sessions of RIPE 70 on May 18--22 in Amsterdam (https://ripe69.ripe.net) is already out (see https://ripe70.ripe.net/submit-topic/submission-form/) we'd like to ask anyone interested in doing "anything" (presentation or whatever else, I'll just write "presentation" from here on) during the working group session to send us your proposal. A couple of notes about the procedure: - There is no formal submission mechanism as with the plenary/program committee. Just drop a mail to ipv6-wg-chairs(a)ripe.net and if we have any questions we'll contact you. - We're interested in pretty much anything related to IPv6, including deployment, operation, further development and whatever you think might be of interest to the working group. - If you're unsure about proposing your presentation to the plenary or the IPv6 working group, I suggest you submit it to the plenary through the link mentioned above and send us an e-mail in parallel; that way we have a better chance to make sure that topics too esoteric for the plenary may actually find their niche in the working group, rather than being lost forever. - What we do need are: - Your name and (at least) e-mail address - The (preliminary) title of your presentation - A (preliminary) abstract (a paragraph or two) - A short bio of yours - The time you roughly expect to need <=== IMPORTANT:-) - Whatever questions you have - We need to have an idea how much time we need for the working group session, so we can request an additional time slot from the NCC if needed. So please, send us at least a preliminary draft as soon as possible; you can always polish your proposal up afterwards. - And, as Filiz pointed out in the call for presentations for the plenary: "Please also note that speakers do not receive any extra reduction or funding towards the meeting fee at the RIPE Meetings." Cheers, Benedikt (with blessings from Jen and Dave) -- Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT Training+Consulting Dipl.-Inform. http://www.stepladder-it.com/ Business Grade IPv6 --- Consulting, Training, Projects BIVBlog---Benedikt's IT Video Blog: http://www.stepladder-it.com/bivblog/

1 0

IPv6 survey (JANOG 35 IPv6 session)
by MAWATARI Masataka 09 Jan '15

09 Jan '15

Hi all, JANOG will have a session "Why don't we want to deploy IPv6?" in JANOG 35 meeting next month. It will focus on IPv6 deployment of the contents providers in Japan. To help us make this session better, we carry out a questionnaire survey to the service providers. It would be great if you could fill out the following form: https://www.janog.gr.jp/meeting/janog35/program/ipv6/ipv6_form_en/ Your co-operation will be appreciated. We will make a good use out of the survey information in order to improve this session. We'll update you with more details about JANOG 35 meeting through the following page. http://www.janog.gr.jp/en/index.php?JANOG35_Meeting Happy Holidays! -- Japan Internet Exchange MAWATARI Masataka <mawatari(a)jpix.ad.jp>

1 2

We suggest that RIPE-554bis CPE equipment requires RFC 7084 and CE-Router Logo. Thank you!
by 邱萬德 09 Jan '15

09 Jan '15

Hello Sir: We suggest that RIPE-554bis CPE equipment requires RFC 7084 and CE-Router Logo. (https://www.ipv6ready.org/?page=documents&tag=phase-2-cpe ) CE-Router Logo are developed by US UNH-IOL, CableLab and Taiwan CHT-TL. CE-Router Logo Conformance Test Software is developed by CHT-TL IPv6 Testing Lab. The URL is as follows: http://interop.ipv6.org.tw/CERouter/ Thank you very much! Best Regards, Wan-Der Chiou@CHT-TL IPv6 Testing Lab. http://interop.ipv6.org.tw/English/index.php Requirements for CPE equipment Mandatory support: · RFC6204 (Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers) * => RFC7084 and requires CE-Router Logo [../images/IPv6_CE_Router1.png] Please be advised that this email message (including any attachments) contains confidential information and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message and all attachments from your system and do not further collect, process, or use them. Chunghwa Telecom and all its subsidiaries and associated companies shall not be liable for the improper or incomplete transmission of the information contained in this email nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your system. If you are the intended recipient, please protect the confidential and/or personal information contained in this email with due care. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution of this message in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. Also, please self-inspect attachments and hyperlinks contained in this email to ensure the information security and to protect personal information.

7 10

[training] RIPE NCC Webinars - new dates
by Training Services 01 Dec '14

01 Dec '14

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce the launch of new dates for our Webinars. The RIPE NCC Webinars are live and take only one hour. You can interact with our trainers without leaving your desk. We focus on the topics and issues most important for LIRs. Register now at https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/e-learning/webinars Participation is limited to 20 people, so don't hesitate if you want to take part! If you have questions, please email <training(a)ripe.net>. We look forward to seeing you online. Kind regards, RIPE NCC Training Services

1 0

Short report on Saudi IPv6 Task Force meeting
by Marco Hogewoning 25 Nov '14

25 Nov '14

Hello, As part of my day job I was close by in the region and the opportunity to visit the 16th meeting of the Saudi Arabian IPv6 Task Force. Still a lot of nice stuff going on down there with a steady progress towards deployment of IPv6. Not only in the more traditional telecoms and connectivity sector, but also with a strong focus on getting the users in other sectors on board such as the banks and the oil industry. A short report can be found on RIPE Labs https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_hogewoning/16th-meeting-of-the-saudi-ar… Cheers, Marco (who still has an interest in the topic)

1 0

Re: [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
by Yannis Nikolopoulos 24 Nov '14

24 Nov '14

hello, a rather late reply On 11/12/2014 11:26 AM, Wilhelm Boeddinghaus wrote: > Am 12.11.2014 um 08:32 schrieb Aleksi Suhonen: >> Hello, >> >> On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote: >>> Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need >>> two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal >>> IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. >> >> In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about >> address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list >> for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In essence, I support >> this proposal. sorry, but this just doesn't make sense. RIPE's IPv6 WG is about promoting IPv6 adoption and there's definitely a long way to go... http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ipv6 > Hi, > > But > please let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We > will need that for the next 10 years until we all have as much > experience with IPv6 as we have with IPv4 today. +1 regards, Yannis > Regards, > > Wilhelm

1 0

Re: [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
by Alex Saroyan 13 Nov '14

13 Nov '14

+1 don't merge. Regards /Alex Saroyan Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: >Hi, > >On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 01:53:21PM +0100, Wilfried Woeber wrote: >> [...] >> > That said, if I was more involved with the address policy WG, I'd also >> > expect to get involved if someone proposed to dump some other WG >> > discussions into "my" mailing list. >> >> Also donning my (past) DB-WG hat for a minute, there's always the possibility >> to include an item like "input from other WGs or TFs" into the WG Meeting's >> draft agenda. I have done that for years, and it worked quite OK (for the >> most recent time in London, receiving input from Routing. So, *that*is no >> reason in my books to talk about dismantling a useful and active WG. >> >> No rocket science here, just a tad of looking across the fence :-) > >Fully agree. And, to come back to where this whole thread started - while >IPv6 WG doesn't *do* policy by charter, there are people in the IPv6 WG >who are interested in IPv6 address policy, but do not regularily follow >the AP WG list. Which is why Erik threw the ball over the fence "you >might be interested in this, so here's a notification so you don't miss it". > > >And, speaking as a member of the IPv6 community, I do not think the idea >to dismantle the IPv6 WG (or it's list) has much merit - there are still >operational technical challenges to IPv6, and it's thus useful to have >a WG focusing on these. AP will take care of addressing challenges (and >if AP does policy things that do not work out operationally, they listen). > >Gert Doering > -- some relevant hats >-- >have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > >SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard >Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann >D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) >Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

2 1

Re: [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
by Jen Linkova 13 Nov '14

13 Nov '14

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012(a)ssd.axu.tm> wrote: >> Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need >> two different wg for addressing? Because IPv6 WG is not for addressing. IPv6 is not 'IPv4 with bigger address space'. >the day we start treat IPv6 as normal >> IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. I have no objection to *this* statement, so I'd expect that all discussions related to IPv[4,6] address policy are happening in this mailing list, while IPv6 WG discusses technical aspects of IPv6 deployment. > In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about > address policy. Exactly. >In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for > IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. I strongly disagree. Shall I read it as a proposal to shut down IPv6 WG as well? I'd object to say the least. There are a lot of topics to discuss on IPv6 WG which do not belong to address policy. Anyway, I'm surprised to see a discussion about shutting down a mailing list happening in *another* mailing list. If community feels like 'there is nothing to discuss in IPv6 WG mailing list anymore' (which does not seem to be a case as I can see from the replies to your message), it should be discussed there. I'm adding ipv6-wg@ to Cc: so people are aware of this discussion, however from my point of view we've seen enough support to keep IPv6 list untouched. -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

6 5

FW: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
by Erik Bais 11 Nov '14

11 Nov '14

Hi, This email is to inform the people who are subscribed on the IPv6 WG list but not on the Address Policy WG list. There is a policy proposal currently in discussion phase to Allow IPv6 Transfers. > You can find the full proposal at: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-12 > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 28 November 2014. Regards, Erik Bais -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: policy-announce-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:policy-announce-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Marco Schmidt Verzonden: donderdag 30 oktober 2014 13:43 Aan: policy-announce(a)ripe.net CC: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Onderwerp: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-589, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-12 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 28 November 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

3 3