- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

ipv6-wg: SixXS is shutting down
by Pim van Pelt 28 Mar '17

28 Mar '17

Colleagues of RIPE's IPv6 working group, In 1999, Jeroen and I started SixXS, a project which aimed to provide IPv6 connectivity to users who wanted to learn about the network protocol and gain experience operating IPv6 networks. Our vision was to facilitate migration to IPv6 in content and access providers. We were able to provide IPv6 to 50’000+ individual users and companies in 140+ countries, using servers hosted at 40+ Internet providers in 30+ countries. We are incredibly proud of what we’ve accomplished together, and how many people have gotten to know all about IPv6 due to our combined efforts. We have completed a retrospective and rationale document, which details our experience developing and operating the SixXS tunnelbroker over the last 18 years. We have worked through our plans with the many dedicated ISPs that have been involved: https://www.sixxs.net/sunset/ We have reached out to users recently, giving them 6 weeks to make alternative plans. We have chosen a somewhat symbolic date of 2017-06-06 to turn down the SixXS service. Our website will remain as a tombstone. Please feel free to pass this along to any group or list you feel would benefit from it, and reach out to <info(a)sixxs.net> or to myself directly <pim(a)ipng.nl> if you have thoughts you’d like to share between now and then. Kindest Regards, Pim van Pelt and Jeroen Massar (SixXS founders) -- Pim van Pelt <pim(a)ipng.nl> PBVP1-RIPE - http://www.ipng.nl/

3 2

including a CLAT (464XLAT) SSID in RIPE meetings
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 24 Mar '17

24 Mar '17

Hi all, I was suggesting the NCC OPS team to include in the meeting network a VM machine that provides a “CLAT” SSID in the meeting network. They suggested that, same as it was done for the NAT64 SSID, the topic is discussed in the IPv6 WG, as there is not a “formal” procedure to agree on that. So, I checked with the IPv6 WG co-chairs and they asked me to foster this topic in the mailing list … so here we are. While 464XLAT has been extensively tested and deployed in the cellular world, I think most of the wireline and wireless (not cellular) ISPs, haven even heard about it or evaluated the potential for those environments, the same that happens probably with MAP-T/E. Having just a NAT64 gives the impression to the people that today you can deploy IPv6-only access to customers and we know is not the case, because the app. Even if 80% (which will take YEARS to happen) of the app developers “correct” their apps, you will still get many things broken in homes and offices. So is undesirable (in my opinion) to work (only) in that direction. And even more, those apps, hardware, etc., that will never be updated, will never work with a NAT64-only scenario. With 464XLAT (or MAP), you avoid deploying CGN, which is a high cost, and you provide the *same* functionality that today “regular” customers (residential, SMEs, even many big companies that don’t have to export IPv4 services outside their LANs). If we demonstrate this “live” in the RIPE meeting network, I think we can change some of the participant’s minds, and I believe the cost of that is really small, may be a couple of hours of one of your OPS team colleagues, as I’ve already done the work and I’m happy to help them on testing in their lab, document what I’ve done (already working on that), and anything else they may need. Also, if the NAT64 is already there, it becomes much easier, as only the VM with the CLAT is needed (unless you want to “separate” the NAT64 for each SSID). By the way, the plan is to have this also in the next meetings of other RIRs (already planned). So, opinions? Regards, Jordi ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

2 2

QUESTION FOR IPV6
by h.essa 22 Mar '17

22 Mar '17

Hi please Iwant spesific answer ; if I become LIR i WILL have package of IPV6 or onley Ipv4/22 THANKS

4 3

New on RIPE Labs: IPv6 Train The Trainer
by Nathalie Trenaman 20 Mar '17

20 Mar '17

Dear colleagues, I just published a RIPE Labs article about our IPv6 Train The Trainer project we are working on in the MENOG and ENOG region. We are very proud of our team of experienced, competent local trainers that are building IPv6 communities and spreading knowledge in their countries. You can read all about it here: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/nathalie_nathalie/ipv6-train-the-trainer <https://labs.ripe.net/Members/nathalie_nathalie/ipv6-train-the-trainer> Nathalie Künneke-Trenaman IPv6 Program Manager RIPE NCC

2 1

RIPE74 - call for presentations
by Jen Linkova 13 Mar '17

13 Mar '17

Hi there ;) If you'd like to present at IPv6 WG sessions at RIPE74 or have some ideas/suggestions for the agenda - please contact ipv6-wg-chairs(a)ripe.net. Thanks and see you in Budapest! --- On behalf of IPv6 WG Chairs, Jen Linkova aka Furry

1 0

Fwd: New I-D: SLAAC and DHCPv6 (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00.txt)
by Fernando Gont 28 Feb '17

28 Feb '17

Folks, FYI: <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00> Abstract: IPv6 has two different mechanisms for dynamic/automatic host configuration: SLAAC and DHCPv6. These two mechanisms allow for the configuration of IPv6 addresses and a number of network parameters. While there is overlap in the parameters that can be configured via these two protocols, different implementations support only subsets of such parameters with either mechanism, or have no support for DHCPv6 at all. This document analyzes a problem that arises from this situation, and mandates that all host implementations support RFC 6105 (DNS options for SLAAC) and the stateless DHCPv6 functionality in RFC 3315. This document is targetted at the IETF v6ops wg. Please send your comments there (if possible), but we'll be happy to discuss this doc on this list, too. Thanks! Fernando (and co-authors) -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: New I-D: SLAAC and DHCPv6 (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00.txt) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 05:13:25 -0300 From: Fernando Gont <fgont(a)si6networks.com> To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops(a)ietf.org> Folks, Based on a recent discussion regarding the problem of conveying DNS information in IPv6 networks, we have submitted this short I-D, in the hopes of getting the aforementioned problem solved. Your feedback will be appreciated. Thanks! Fernando (and co-autors) -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00.txt Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 23:51:03 -0800 From: internet-drafts(a)ietf.org To: Fernando Gont <fgont(a)si6networks.com>, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net>, Madelen Garcia Corbo <madelen.garcia16(a)gmail.com>, Madelen Corbo <madelen.garcia16(a)gmail.com>, Guillermo Gont <ggont(a)si6networks.com> A new version of I-D, draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Fernando Gont and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration Revision: 00 Title: On the Dynamic/Automatic Configuration of IPv6 Hosts Document date: 2017-02-27 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 6 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00… Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00 Abstract: IPv6 has two different mechanisms for dynamic/automatic host configuration: SLAAC and DHCPv6. These two mechanisms allow for the configuration of IPv6 addresses and a number of network parameters. While there is overlap in the parameters that can be configured via these two protocols, different implementations support only subsets of such parameters with either mechanism, or have no support for DHCPv6 at all. This document analyzes a problem that arises from this situation, and mandates that all host implementations support RFC 6105 (DNS options for SLAAC) and the stateless DHCPv6 functionality in RFC 3315. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Commercial Incentives of IPv6 Deployment
by Mirjam Kuehne 22 Feb '17

22 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, Please find a new article on RIPE Labs. It is based on the IPv6 Best Practices document published for the Internet Governance Forum 2016 by Izumi Okutani, Sumon A. Sabir and Wim Degezelle. https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/commercial-incentives-of-ipv6-deployme… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuhne RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Bugfixing IPv6 Deployment Statistics
by Mirjam Kuehne 20 Feb '17

20 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, Unfortunately we found a bug in the dataset that shows the percentage of ASes announcing an IPv6 prefix. Please find the details on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/bugfixing-ipv6-deployment-statistics Kind regards, Mirjam Kuhne RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: IPv6 RIPEness in 2017
by Mirjam Kuehne 13 Feb '17

13 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, This new post on RIPE Labs provides an update on our IPv6 RIPEness project, including an analysis of IPv6 RIPEness for new Local Internet Registries: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/ipv6-ripeness-update Kind regards, Mirjam Kuhne RIPE NCC

1 0

Updated NOG wiki
by Michael Oghia 08 Feb '17

08 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, I went through and updated the NOG Wikipedia page this morning. Feel free to add resources/links, or additional NOGs that are not listed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Network_Operators%27_Groups Best, -Michael __________________ Michael J. Oghia iGmena <http://igmena.org/> communications manager Independent #netgov consultant & editor Belgrade, Serbia Skype: mikeoghia Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia>

1 0

high v6 user-base, less atlas probes.
by Vaibhav Bajpai 28 Jan '17

28 Jan '17

Hello, -- sorry for cross-posting Here is a list of top 20 countries that have a large v6 user-base [*] but are underrepresented by RIPE Atlas due to less number of deployed dual-stacked probes. Consider hosting a dual-stacked probe in these regions to help remove the region-based bias that v6 studies using RIPE Atlas may otherwise have: Full paper available here: http://goo.gl/hWGveA (§4) +----+------------+-----------| | CC | v6 Users | v6 Probes | |-----+----+------------+-----------| | 01 | BE | 56.48 % | 2.82 % | | 02 | LU | 35.23 % | 0.61 % | | 03 | GR | 33.66 % | 1.39 % | | 04 | CH | 33.48 % | 3.82 % | | 05 | PT | 29.01 % | 0.74 % | | 06 | IN | 22.25 % | 0.09 % | | 07 | US | 33.00 % | 13.21 % | | 08 | DE | 40.07 % | 21.25 % | | 09 | EC | 18.76 % | 0.04 % | | 10 | JP | 19.69 % | 1.35 % | | 11 | GB | 24.63 % | 7.00 % | | 12 | EE | 16.55 % | 0.26 % | | 13 | CA | 17.83 % | 1.91 % | | 14 | FI | 16.68 % | 1.39 % | | 15 | MY | 14.90 % | 0.13 % | | 16 | IE | 13.22 % | 0.87 % | | 17 | NO | 14.02 % | 1.83 % | | 18 | BR | 12.56 % | 0.83 % | | 19 | AU | 12.76 % | 1.09 % | |-----+----+------------+-----------| [*] The estimation of number of IPv6 users is taken from APNIC dataset: http://labs.apnic.net/dists/v6dcc.html -- Vaibhav -------------------------- Vaibhav Bajpai www.vaibhavbajpai.com Postdoctoral Researcher TU Munich, Germany --------------------------

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: IPv6-only at Microsoft
by Mirjam Kuehne 25 Jan '17

25 Jan '17

Dear colleagues, Please find this new article on RIPE Labs in which Marcus Keane explains why they are planning to do IPv6-only at Microsoft: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ipv6-only-at-microsoft Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: [Igfregionals] Published & for distribution: New IGF resources now available
by Michael Oghia 25 Jan '17

25 Jan '17

Dear colleagues, The 2016 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) intersessional work has been published, including the Best Practice Forum (BPF) outcome documents for the IXP and IPv6 BPFs. Best, -Michael __________________ Michael J. Oghia iGmena <http://igmena.org/> communications manager Independent #netgov consultant & editor Belgrade, Serbia Skype: mikeoghia Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brian Clarke GUTTERMAN <BGUTTERMAN(a)unog.ch> Date: Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:38 PM Subject: [Igfregionals] Published & for distribution: New IGF resources now available To: Anri van der Spuy <anri(a)avds.consulting>, Wim Degezelle < wdegezelle(a)drmv.be> Cc: bp_gender(a)intgovforum.org, igfregionals(a)intgovforum.org, bp_ipv6(a)intgovforum.org, outreach_com_2015(a)intgovforum.org, intersessional_2015(a)intgovforum.org, dc(a)intgovforum.org, bp_ixps(a)intgovforum.org, "bp_cybersec_2016(a)intgovforum.org" < bp_cybersec_2016(a)intgovforum.org> Dear Internet Governance Stakeholders, - We are glad to let you know that the IGF has just published all of the tangible outcomes from its intersessional activities conducted in 2016. These outputs include: - BPF Gender: Outcome resource 2016 <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/3406…> (access and gender) & recommendations roadmap <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/3406…> (online abuse and gender-based violence); - BPF on Internet exchange points (IXPs) <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/bpf-ixps>; - BPF on commercial and economic incentives to deploy IPv6 <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/bpf-ipv6>; - BPF Cybersecurity <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/bpf-cybersecurity> (‘Building Confidence and Security in the use of Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) through Enhanced Cooperation and Collaboration’); and - Policy Options for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s) <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/3416…> (Phase II). These resources are the outputs from bottom-up, inclusive, and community-driven activities of the IGF that took place over the course of 2016 (for more information about these initiatives, please see the Notes at the end of this email). The IGF, along with the facilitators and rapporteurs for all of the respective intersessional activities, are grateful for the invaluable support given and time invested in these activities by numerous stakeholders and volunteers. We would also like to recognise the leadership and dedication of the coordinators, facilitators, and lead experts who supported the IGF’s intersessional work over the past year, including Aaron Hughes, Anri van der Spuy, Brian Gutterman, Constance Bommelaer, Douglas Onyango, Izumi Okutani, Jac SM Kee, Maarten Van Horenbeeck, Marco Hogewoning, Markus Kummer, Salanienta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Sumon A. Sabir, Renata Aquino Ribeiro, Segun Olugbile, and Wim Degezelle, among many others. What can you do with the IGF’s intersessional resources? We encourage all stakeholders to share these resources with their respective communities to ensure that the IGF resource outputs also become useful inputs into other processes of relevance to the Internet and its governance in 2017 and beyond. We hope these resources will not only be useful for policymakers and other stakeholders, but will also continue to symbolise the IGF community’s belief that multistakeholder collaboration is fundamental in effectively addressing pertinent Internet policy challenges. What’s next for the IGF’s intersessional activities? All outputs from the IGF’s intersessional activities are intended to be living documents that can be updated at any time. At the first Open Consultations and IGF multistakeholder advisory group (MAG) meeting in March 2017, stakeholders will discuss potential themes for the next cohort of intersessional activities, including what will happen with the 2016 BPFs and their outputs. The IGF Secretariat invites stakeholders to submit written contributions to the current public consultation <https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-community-public-consu…> stock-taking exercise. In these contributions, stakeholders are also welcome to send recommendations and proposed themes for intersessional activities in 2017. Written inputs should be sent to takingstock(a)intgovforum.org by Friday 27 January. Kind regards, IGF Secretariat NOTES About the IGF The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) serves to bring people together from various stakeholder groups as equals in discussions on public policy issues relating to the Internet. While the IGF has no negotiated outcomes, it serves the important function of informing and inspiring those with policymaking power in both public and private sectors. The IGF facilitates a common understanding of how to maximise Internet opportunities and address risks and challenges that arise. One of the ways in which it does so is through its intersessional activities, which are conducted following recommendations <http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf> from the UN CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF and form part of a broader effort by the IGF community to produce more tangible outputs to “enhance the impact of the IGF on global Internet governance and policy”. About the IGF’s intersessional activities The IGF Best Practice Forums (BPFs) <https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/best-practice-forums-4> continue to offer unique platforms to investigate topical Internet policy challenges by collecting community input and experiences in a flexible and bottom-up manner. Through their substantive outreach efforts and continued calls for input and contributions, the BPFs have already enabled more diverse and varied participation in IGF processes, including from a richer variety of regions and stakeholder groups. By continuously involving new people in their work, the various BPFs also contributed to enlarging the global footprint of the IGF. BPFs worked throughout the year in an open and inclusive way via open mailing lists, regular virtual meetings, and BPF workshops during the 11th IGF meeting in Guadalajara, Mexico, from 6 to 9 December 2016. About the BPF Gender The BPF Gender’s second publication, entitled ‘Overcoming Barriers to Enable Women’s Meaningful Internet Access <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/3406…>’, builds on its work in 2015, when it also published an extensive resource <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/best-practice-forums/623-bpf-onlin….> on online abuse and gender-based violence. In 2016, the BPF furthermore produced a user-friendly infographic roadmap <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/3406…> for addressing online abuse and gender-based violence, based on the key recommendations for diverse stakeholder groups from its 2015 report. The BPF Gender is also partnering with ITU and UN Women’s EQUALS <http://equals.org> partnership, a global initiative aimed at addressing gender inequality, to raise awareness of its outputs. Further details of this collaboration will soon be announced. About the BPF Cybersecurity The 2016 IGF BPF on Cybersecurity <https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/bpf-cybersecurity> built upon the previous work of the IGF CSIRTS and SPAM BPFs. Its work was also guided by the WSIS +10 review process which produced an outcome document <http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/UNPAN96078.pdf> with a strong focus on "building confidence and security in the use of information and communications technologies", making an IGF BPF related to cybersecurity even more relevant. The 2016 discussions and output report <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/3405…> addressed cooperation and collaboration on cybersecurity issues between stakeholder groups as an overarching theme. About the BPF on Internet exchange points (IXPs) The BPF Contributing to the Success and Continued Development of Internet exchange points (IXPs) <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/bpf-ixps> collected best current practices that have proven to contribute to building strong and successful IXPs. Exchanging traffic at an IXP has a number of benefits that can contribute to a more affordable, stable, faster and more reliable Internet of a higher quality in a region. The success of an IXP will be measured by its ability to sustainably contribute to the development of its local Internet ecosystem. The BPF on IXPs focused on the management and operation of an IXP and identified factors that can contribute to success. About the BPF IPv6 IPv6 is the Internet’s addressing system that was developed to deal with IPv4 exhaustion and to make the Internet future-proof. The fast growing number of networks that already supports IPv6 today proofs that IPv6 is a technically feasible option for business. The BPF Understanding the commercial and economic incentives behind a successful IPv6 deployment <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/bpf-ipv6> collected case studies on commercial experiences with IPv6 deployment to better understand challenges and incentives, and provide an opportunity to learn from each other. About Policy Options for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s) - Phase II In 2016, the IGF furthered its seminal work on Policy Options for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s) by investigating challenges and opportunities for addressing and overcoming barriers to meaningful Internet access, promoting meaningful access in diverse contexts and regions, and ensuring that meaningful access also supports the achievement of the UN sustainable development goals. Read the report here <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/3416…> . Brian Gutterman | Associate Programme Officer Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum United Nations Office at Geneva | Dependance La Pelousse Email: bgutterman(a)unog.ch | Tel: +41229173423 <+41%2022%20917%2034%2023> | intgovforum.org _______________________________________________ Igfregionals mailing list Igfregionals(a)intgovforum.org http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfregionals_intgovforum.org

1 0

Fwd: [menog] Network Diagnostic Tool
by Michael Oghia 19 Dec '16

19 Dec '16

FYI, might be a useful resource to some. Note that according to the OP, "most of the features support IPv6" Best, -Michael ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mehrdad Arshad Rad <arshad.rad(a)gmail.com> Date: Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 6:52 AM Subject: [menog] Network Diagnostic Tool To: menog(a)lists.menog.org Hi, I've started to develop an open source tool 5-6 months ago to help neteng/sysadmin/sysops please take look at the below links and let me know if you have any suggestions. https://github.com/mehrdadrad/mylg You can download it for different operating systems at http://mylg.io Features: - Popular looking glasses (ping/trace/bgp): Telia, Level3 - More than 200 countries DNS Lookup information - Local ping and real-time trace route - Packet analyzer - TCP/IP and other packets - Quick NMS (network management system) - Local HTTP/HTTPS ping (GET, POST, HEAD) - RIPE information (ASN, IP/CIDR) - PeeringDB information - Port scanning - Network LAN Discovery - Web dashboard - Configurable options - Direct access to commands from shell - Support vi and emacs mode, almost all basic features - CLI auto complete and history features Thanks, Mehrdad _______________________________________________ Menog mailing list Menog(a)lists.menog.org http://lists.menog.org/mailman/listinfo/menog

1 0

Fwd: [Bp_ipv6] BPF IPv6 - agenda & remote participation
by Marco Hogewoning 07 Dec '16

07 Dec '16

Dear colleagues, Later today I will be moderating part of a panel discussion, which is to conclude this year's efforts in documenting IPv6 best practice as part of the intersessional work for the Internet Governance Forum. Times mentioned are local for Guadalajara, Mexico. Which is UTC -6, which makes the start of this 22:00 Amsterdam (CET) time. Despite this being pretty late for a lot of you, we hope to welcome you via the remote participation links below. Groet, MarcoH -- RIPE NCC Begin forwarded message: > > Subject: [Bp_ipv6] BPF IPv6 - agenda & remote participation > > Dear all , > > The updated agenda for today’s BPF IPv6 workshop at the IGF can be found at http://sched.co/8hte . > > The workshop is scheduled today Wednesday 7 December at 3:00-4:30 PM in workshop room 1. > > Remote participation: Wed. 7 Dec 9:00 PM UTC / WS room 1 / RP links at https://igf2016.sched.org/info > > The latest version of the draft document: google docs / IGF Review platform > > > Kind Regards > Wim > > _________________________ > > Wim Degezelle > Consultant IGF BPF IPv6 > Consultant IGF BPF on IXPs > > _______________________________________________ > Bp_ipv6 mailing list > Bp_ipv6(a)intgovforum.org > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org

1 0

Belgian limits on CGN/NAT?
by Marco Hogewoning 25 Nov '16

25 Nov '16

[apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, Unfortunately so far I have only found Dutch (and French) sources, we would be happy to receive pointers to English texts on this. The Belgian Institute for Post and Telecom (BIPT) recently ran a consultation to evaluate the National IPv6 Workplan, which was released back in 2012. The deadline to comment had already passed, but I trust our Belgian community members to have found this via other sources in time to respond. http://www.bipt.be/public/files/nl/22027/Raadpleging_ipv6.pdf In this, there is one question in particular that caught our eye, number 6, which roughly translates to a question asking if the requirements in a Code of Conduct on the usage of CGN which was agreed in 2012 are still current and workable and whether or not this CoC should be reviewed. Further in the introduction of the consultation, chapter 1 (page 3), there is some more information on this agreement: > Om de eindgebruiker toch eenduidig te kunnen identificeren was er beslist om bijvoorbeeld het delen van een IP-adres te beperken tot maximaal 16 gebruikers en dit via een gedragscode die door de sector werd ondertekend. Translation by me: > To identify users, it was agreed that sharing a single IP address would be limited to a maximum of 16 users and that this limit would be part of a code of conduct which would be signed by the industry” So far we have not yet been able to retrieve a copy of this Code of Conduct or a list of participating operators and would be happy to receive more information. But as the text suggests that there is an agreement between Belgian network operators and the government that would limit the use of CGN to 16 users per address. We wonder then, if this is the “magic ingredient” of why the IPv6 roll out in Belgium is so successful. As a question to this Working Group, would a 16:1 ratio be realistic and workable from an operational perspective? And further of course, do you think this form of cooperation between the public and private sector as a way to expedite the deployment of IPv6? Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC

4 3

[training] RIPE NCC Training Courses January-March 2017
by Training Services 23 Nov '16

23 Nov '16

Dear colleagues, Our training team travels the RIPE NCC service region to deliver training courses to our members without any additional cost. Over the next few months, we'll be in Barcelona, London, Lebanon, Turin, Hamburg, Moscow, Riga, Turkey, Nicosia, Tashkent, Ljubljana, Oslo. Visit the following page to register and to check which training courses we are giving in your area: https://lirportal.ripe.net/training/courses The RIPE NCC delivers the following training courses: - LIR and RIPE Database Training Course - DNSSEC Training Course - Measurements Tools Training Course - Basic IPv6 Training Course - 2 days Advanced IPv6 Training Course - 2 days BGP Operations and Security Training Course For more information visit: https://www.ripe.net/support/training/courses With kind regards, Rumy Spratley-Kanis Training Services Manager

1 0

CFP: (Deadline Ext.) - ICC'17 Workshop - 5th IEEE SCPA 2017 - May 21-25, 2017. Paris, France
by Sandra Sendra 22 Nov '16

22 Nov '16

Apologies for crossposting -------------------- CALL FOR PAPERS (DEADLINE EXTENDED) ----------------- 5th IEEE International Workshop on Smart Communication Protocols and Algorithms (SCPA 2017) May 21-25, 2017. Paris, France In conjunction with IEEE ICC 2017 http://scpa.it.ubi.pt/2017/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Selected papers will be invited to the Special Issue on Smart Protocols and Algorithms of the International Journal Network Protocols and Algorithms (ISSN: 1943-3581) or to the Special Issue on Recent Advances on Communications and Networking Technology Journal (ISSN: 2215-082X (Online); ISSN: 2215-0811 (Print)). Communication protocols and algorithms are needed to communicate network devices and exchange data between them. The appearance of new technologies usually comes with a protocol procedure and communication rules that allows data communication while taking profit of this new technology. Recent advances in hardware and communication mediums allow proposing new rules, conventions and data structures which could be used by network devices to communicate across the network. Moreover, devices with higher processing capacity let us include more complex algorithms that can be used by the network device to enhance the communication procedure. Smart communication protocols and algorithms make use of several methods and techniques (such as machine learning techniques, decision making techniques, knowledge representation, network management, network optimization, problem solution techniques, and so on), to communicate the network devices to transfer data between them. They can be used to perceive the network conditions, or the user behavior, in order to dynamically plan, adapt, decide, take the appropriate actions, and learn from the consequences of its actions. The algorithms can make use of the information gathered from the protocol in order to sense the environment, plan actions according to the input, take consciousness of what is happening in the environment, and take the appropriate decisions using a reasoning engine. Goals such as decide which scenario fits best its end-to-end purpose, or environment prediction, can be achieved with smart protocols and algorithms. Moreover, they could learn from the pas! t and use this knowledge to improve future decisions. In this workshop, researchers are encouraged to submit papers focused on the design, development, analysis or optimization of smart communication protocols or algorithms at any communication layer. Algorithms and protocols based on artificial intelligence techniques for network management, network monitoring, quality of service enhancement, performance optimization and network secure are included in the workshop. We welcome technical papers presenting analytical research, simulations, practical results, position papers addressing the pros and cons of specific proposals, and papers addressing the key problems and solutions. The topics suggested by the conference can be discussed in term of concepts, state of the art, standards, deployments, implementations, running experiments and applications. Topics of interest: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Authors are invited to submit complete unpublished papers, which are not under review in any other conference or journal, including, but are not limited to, the following topic areas: - Smart network protocols and algorithms for multimedia delivery - Application layer, transport layer and network layer cognitive protocols - Cognitive radio network protocols and algorithms - Automatic protocols and algorithms for environment prediction - Algorithms and protocols to predict data network states - Intelligent synchronization techniques for network protocols and algorithms - Smart protocols and algorithms for e-health - Software applications for smart algorithms design and development - Dynamic protocols based on the perception of their performance - Smart protocols and algorithms for Smartgrids - Protocols and algorithms focused on building conclusions for taking the appropriate actions - Smart Automatic and self-autonomous ad-hoc and sensor networks - Artificial intelligence applied in protocols and algorithms for wireless, mobile and dynamic networks - Smart security protocols and algorithms - Smart cryptographic algorithms for communication - Artificial intelligence applied to power efficiency and energy saving protocols and algorithms - Smart routing and switching protocols and algorithms - Cognitive protocol and algorithm models for saving communication costs - Any kind of intelligent technique applied to QoS, content delivery, network Monitoring and network management - Smart collaborative protocols and algorithms - Problem recognition and problem solving protocols - Genetic algorithms, fuzzy logic and neural networks applied to communication protocols and algorithms Important Dates: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Submission Deadline: 2nd December, 2016 (Extended deadline) Acceptance Notification: 17th February, 2016 Camera Ready Deadline: 10th March, 2016 Submission guidelines: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All submissions must be full papers in PDF format and uploaded on EDAS: (https://edas.info/newPaper.php?c=22957&track=82208) All submissions should be written in English with a maximum paper length of five (5) printed pages (10-point font) including figures without incurring additional page charges. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ General Chairs: Jaime Lloret Mauri, Universitat Politecnica Val�ncia, Spain Joel Rodrigues, National Institute of Telecommunications (Inatel), Brazil; Instituto de Telecomunica��es, Univ. of Beira Interior, Portugal TPC Chairs: Sandra Sendra, Universidad de Granada, Spain Kashif A. Saleem, Kind Saud University, Saudi Arabia Bruno Silva, Instituto de Telecomunica��es, Universidade da Beira Interior, Portugal Keynote Chairs: Danda B. Rawat, Georgia Southern University, USA Panel Chairs: Raimir Filho, University of Fortaleza, Brazil Pascal Lorenz, University of Haute Alsace, France Industry Chair: Antonio S�nchez-Esguevillas, Telefonica R&D, Spain Publicity Chairs: Sofiane Hamrioui, University of Haute Alsace, France Jose M. Jimenez, Universidad Polit�cnica de Valencia, Spain Web Chair: Jo�o N. Isento, Instituto de Telecomunica��es, Universidade da Beira Interior, Portugal

1 0

ipv6 subnetting
by srinivas b 22 Nov '16

22 Nov '16

SP GIVEN IPV6 BLOCK 2401:4900:2180:0:0:0:0:0/41 need to make 4 /64 pools from above pool and can someone share the /64 IP pool with first and last IPs Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

3 2

ipv6 subnetting
by srinivas b 18 Nov '16

18 Nov '16

SP GIVEN IPV6 BLOCK 2401:4900:2180:0:0:0:0:0/41 need to make 4 /64 pools from above pool and can someone share the /64 IP pool with first and last IPs Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Results of IPv6 Deployment Survey
by Mirjam Kuehne 14 Nov '16

14 Nov '16

Dear colleagues, For those of you who missed Jordi Palet's presentation at RIPE 73 in Madrid, the summary of his IPv6 deployment survey is now on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/jordipaletm/results-of-the-ipv6-deployment-su… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: [Bp_ipv6] BPF IPv6 - public input
by Michael Oghia 07 Nov '16

07 Nov '16

FYI Best, -Michael ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wim Degezelle <wdegezelle(a)drmv.be> Date: Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:22 AM Subject: [Bp_ipv6] BPF IPv6 - public input To: IGF BPFs <bp_ipv6(a)intgovforum.org> Dear All, The draft BPF IPv6 output document is now available on the IGF website for public input. https://www.intgovforum.org/review/2016-igf-best-practice- forums-bpfs-draft-outputs-as-of-2-november/2016-igf-on- ipv6-understanding-the-commercial-and-economic-incentives-behind-a- successful-ipv6-deployment/ (for those who prefer reading the doc on google docs; here is the link <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RG8PWxOhsxkEJJdwUkUWN0NFg0cnH4i3L7RFMze…> ) The process is not finished ! You’ll receive a doodle poll for the call next Wednesday, to discuss our next steps. Thank you to all who have contributed so far!! Kind Regards Wim _________________________ *Wim Degezelle* *Consultant IGF BPF IPv6* *Consultant IGF BPF on IXPs*

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: The Trouble with NAT
by Mirjam Kuehne 27 Oct '16

27 Oct '16

Dear colleagues, Mark Smith wrote a short series about Network Address Translation (NAT): The Trouble with NAT (Part 1 - 3). https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/the-trouble-with-nat-part-1 https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/the-trouble-with-nat-part-2 https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/the-trouble-with-nat-part-3 Please note that this was originally published on the APNIC blog. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Happy Eyeballs bias
by Sander Steffann 27 Oct '16

27 Oct '16

Hi, Very good presentation on Happy Eyeballs at the WG session today. It might indeed be true that lowering the HE "head start" for IPv6 from 300ms to 150ms might cause a slight increase in performance. However, as Geoff Huston pointed out, HE is not about getting the best performance, it's meant to move traffic to IPv6 (so IPv4 traffic will go down, and we can know when we can turn off IPv4) without breaking the user experience when IPv6 is broken. It was (and still is) an important argument for website owners to be comfortable enough to actually deploy IPv6 and not be too worried about client experience breaking. But it is also hiding IPv6 brokenness, removing an incentive for website owners to actually fixing IPv6 errors and causing IPv6 to be taken less seriously... So, how about we go the other way. We want IPv6 to be taken more seriously. What about if we change the algorithm the other way over time: give IPv6 more and more of a head start. That way IPv6 stability and performance become more important over time, without causing brokenness. Something like: HE head start = 300 + (months after 2017-01-01) * 30 That would provide some incentive to make sure that IPv6 is properly deployed and managed. Cheers, Sander

7 11

Chair selection: call for candidates
by Anna Wilson 26 Oct '16

26 Oct '16

Hello all, The working group selected Jen, Benedikt and myself as co-chairs at RIPE69 in November 2014. At RIPE70, we adopted this procedure for replacing chairs: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/2015-May/002615.html This provides for a three year term. Since all three of us were selected at the same meeting, our terms would expire simultaneously in late 2017. To encourage continuity, I plan to step down next month at RIPE73. We therefore call for candidates for the post of IPv6 working group chair. If you would like to stand for selection, please announce so to the mailing list. The closing date for candidates is 23:59 UTC on Friday 21st October 2016. (The Friday before the RIPE73 meeting.) As per the procedure, the selection itself will take place during the working group session at RIPE73. Best regards, Anna -- Anna Wilson, Service Desk Manager web: www.heanet.ie HEAnet Ltd, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 tel: +353-1-660-9040 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 fax: +353-1-660-3666

18 20

Fwd: [apops] APRICOT 2017 Call for Presentations
by Mark Tinka 25 Oct '16

25 Oct '16

FYI. Mark. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [apops] APRICOT 2017 Call for Presentations Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:34:19 +0600 From: Philip Smith <pfsinoz(a)gmail.com> To: apops(a)apops.net Hi everyone, Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies (APRICOT) 27th February - 2nd March 2017, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam https://2017.apricot.net CALL FOR PAPERS =============== The APRICOT 2017 Programme Committee is now seeking contributions for Presentations and Tutorials for the APRICOT 2017 Conference. We are looking for presenters who would: - Offer a technical tutorial on an appropriate topic; - Participate in the technical conference sessions as a speaker; - Convene and chair panel sessions of relevant topics. Please submit on-line at: http://papers.apricot.net/user/login.php?event=48 CONFERENCE MILESTONES --------------------- Call for Papers Opens: Now Draft Program Published: As Papers Confirmed Final Deadline for Submissions: 30 January 2016 Final Program Published: 6 February 2017 Final Slides Received: 13 February 2017 *NOTE THAT REGARDLESS OF DEADLINES SLOTS ARE FILLED ON A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED BASIS* PROGRAMME MATERIAL ------------------ The APRICOT Conference Programme consists of three parts, these being the Peering Forum, Tutorials, and Conference Tracks. Topics proposed must be relevant to Internet Operations and Technologies: - IPv4 / IPv6 Routing and operations - IPv6 deployment and transition technologies - Internet backbone operations - ISP and Carrier services - IXPs and Peering - Research on Internet Operations and Deployment - Software Defined Networking / Network Function Virtualisaton - Network security issues (NSP-SEC, DDoS, Anti-Spam, Anti-Malware) - DNS / DNSSEC - Internet policy (Security, Regulation, Content Management, Addressing, etc) - Access and Transport Technologies, including Cable/DSL, 3G/LTE, wireless, metro ethernet, fibre, MPLS - Content & Service Delivery (Multicast, Voice, Video, "telepresence", Gaming) and Cloud Computing CfP SUBMISSION -------------- Draft slides for both tutorials and conference sessions MUST be provided with CfP submissions otherwise the Programme Committee will be unable to review the submission. For avoidance of doubt this means that submissions which do not include slides will be rejected immediately. For work in progress, the most current information available at time of submission is acceptable. All draft and complete slides must be submitted in PDF format only. Final slides are to be provided by the specified deadline for publication on the APRICOT website. Prospective presenters should note that the majority of speaking slots will be filled well before the final submission deadline. The PC may, at their discretion, retain a limited number of slots up to the final submission deadline for presentations that are exceptionally timely, important, or of critical operational importance. Every year we turn away submissions, due to filling up all available programme slots before the deadline. Presenters should endeavour to get material into the PC sooner rather than later. Any questions or concerns should be addressed to the Programme Committee by e-mail at: pc-chairs at apricot.net We look forward to receiving your presentation proposals. Mark Tinka & Philip Smith Co-Chairs, APRICOT 2017 Programme Committee -- _______________________________________________ apops mailing list apops(a)apops.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apops Website: www.apops.net .

1 0

Fwd: [request]: host a probe for v6 measurements
by Michael Oghia 21 Oct '16

21 Oct '16

FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bajpai, Vaibhav <v.bajpai(a)jacobs-university.de> Date: Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 3:54 PM Subject: [request]: host a probe for v6 measurements To: "ipv6-ops(a)lists.cluenet.de" <ipv6-ops(a)lists.cluenet.de> Cc: "Bajpai, Vaibhav" <v.bajpai(a)jacobs-university.de> Dear v6ops, We are (again) looking for volunteers with native IPv6 lines at home to help us in our v6 measurement research. Background ---------- We are interested in measuring IPv6 performance from home. Our measurement tests come bundled with a SamKnows probe. We currently have ~80 SamKnows probes deployed over the globe. The google map [a] shows where these probes are currently deployed. [a] https://goo.gl/Jhz49o |------------------------+------| |----------+------| | RESIDENTIAL | 55 | | RIPE | 42 | | NREN / RESEARCH | 11 | | ARIN | 29 | | BUSINESS / DATACENTER | 09 | | APNIC | 07 | | OPERATOR LAB | 04 | | AFRINIC | 01 | | IXP | 01 | | LACNIC | 01 | |------------------------+------| |----------+------| This is the distribution of our current deployment by network type and by RIR region. Please see [b] for more details: [b] http://goo.gl/PwD4yN Request ------- If you receive native IPv6 at home (or know someone who does), it would be great if you can host a SamKnows probe for us. The probe will run standard SamKnows tests and our IPv6 tests. We prefer measuring from home networks and over a longitudinal period of time (say multiple years). Please see [c] if you'd like to learn more about the SamKnows platform. [c] http://vaibhavbajpai.com/documents/papers/proceedings/ lsmp-comst-2015.pdf Action ------- Let me know if you’re interested, and I can share details on how to get the probe to you. We only have limited number of SamKnows probes. We will process the requests on first come first serve basis. Would be nice if you can share these details in your response: - v4 and v6 ASN (or provider name) - location (city-level granularity) - network type (see above table for an example) - shipment address Research Impact --------------- For more details, please see: Measuring Web Similarity from Dual-stacked Hosts Conference on Network and Service Management (CNSM) 2016. http://vaibhavbajpai.com/documents/papers/proceedings/ dualstack-simweb-cnsm-2016.pdf Measuring the Effects of Happy Eyeballs Applied Networking Research Workshop (ANRW) 2016. http://vaibhavbajpai.com/documents/papers/proceedings/ dualstack-he-anrw-2016.pdf Measuring YouTube from Dual-Stacked Hosts Passive and Active Measurement Conference (PAM) 2015. http://vaibhavbajpai.com/documents/papers/proceedings/ dualstack-youtube-pam-2015.pdf IPv4 versus IPv6 - Who connects faster? IFIP Networking Conference 2015. http://vaibhavbajpai.com/documents/papers/proceedings/ dualstack-tcp-networking-2015.pdf Thanks ------ Thank you so much for helping us in our research activity. -- Vaibhav ----------------------------------- Vaibhav Bajpai www.vaibhavbajpai.com Postdoctoral Researcher Jacobs University Bremen, Germany -----------------------------------

1 0

Fwd: [Bp_ixps] IXPs & IPv6
by Michael Oghia 20 Oct '16

20 Oct '16

FYI Best, -Michael ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wim Degezelle <wdegezelle(a)drmv.be> Date: Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:01 PM Subject: [Bp_ixps] IXPs & IPv6 To: bp_ixps(a)intgovforum.org Cc: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> Hi All, The Best Practice Forum on IPv6 is looking at the IPv6 deployment by companies and organisations, and wants to include a paragraph on IXPs. This should be a general statement on the IPv6 readiness of IXPs in the world, and briefly discuss motivation and challenges. I found a Euro-IX statement <http://www.netnod.se/sites/default/files/Euro-IX_IPv6_press.pdf> from June 2011 that announced that all Euro-IX members are IPv6 ready and enabled. Does anyone knows of recent updates or statements on the IPv6-readines of IXPs? FYI the BPF IPv6 draft is available on google docs ( link <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z60lBcIk7U3LAFEK9V7dIQ11OWFx71zqmMAcs9u…> ). Thanks Wim _________________________ *Wim Degezelle* *Consultant IGF BPF IPv6* *Consultant IGF BPF on IXPs* _______________________________________________ Bp_ixps mailing list Bp_ixps(a)intgovforum.org http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ixps_intgovforum.org

3 5

Geoff Huston at ESNOG18: Why DANE?
by japi 20 Oct '16

20 Oct '16

https://youtu.be/GO2eEkeWk88 Live but just slides and audio. -- japi

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: IPv6 and DNS (by Geoff Huston)
by Mirjam Kuehne 20 Oct '16

20 Oct '16

Dear colleagues, Please find this new post by Geoff Huston on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/gih/ipv6-and-the-dns "The exhortations about the Internet’s prolonged transition to version 6 of the Internet Protocol continue, although after some two decades the intensity of the rhetoric has faded and, possibly surprisingly, it has been replaced by action in some notable parts of the Internet. But how do we know there is action? How can we tell whether, and where, IPv6 is being deployed in today’s Internet?" Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Supporting IPv6 Deployment Through Policy
by Marco Schmidt 11 Oct '16

11 Oct '16

Dear colleagues, It was about a year ago that the RIPE community reached consensus on a policy proposal that introduced additional criteria for initial IPv6 allocations. We thought it was time to look back the origins of this proposal and see how the change has worked out since: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_schmidt/supporting-ipv6-deployment-thro… Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

[request]: host a probe for v6 measurements
by Bajpai, Vaibhav 08 Oct '16

08 Oct '16

Dear v6-WG, We are (again) looking for volunteers with native IPv6 lines at home to help us in our v6 measurement research. Background ---------- We are interested in measuring IPv6 performance from home. Our measurement tests come bundled with a SamKnows probe. We currently have ~80 SamKnows probes deployed over the globe. The google map [a] shows where these probes are currently deployed. [a] https://goo.gl/Jhz49o |------------------------+------| |----------+------| | RESIDENTIAL | 55 | | RIPE | 42 | | NREN / RESEARCH | 11 | | ARIN | 29 | | BUSINESS / DATACENTER | 09 | | APNIC | 07 | | OPERATOR LAB | 04 | | AFRINIC | 01 | | IXP | 01 | | LACNIC | 01 | |------------------------+------| |----------+------| This is the distribution of our current deployment by network type and by RIR region. Please see [b] for more details: [b] http://goo.gl/PwD4yN Request ------- If you receive native IPv6 at home (or know someone who does), it would be great if you can host a SamKnows probe for us. The probe will run standard SamKnows tests and our IPv6 tests. We prefer measuring from home networks and over a longitudinal period of time (say multiple years). Please see [c] if you'd like to learn more about the SamKnows platform. [c] http://vaibhavbajpai.com/documents/papers/proceedings/lsmp-comst-2015.pdf Action ------- Let me know if you’re interested, and I can share details on how to get the probe to you. We only have limited number of SamKnows probes. We will process the requests on first come first serve basis. Would be nice if you can share these details in your response: - v4 and v6 ASN (or provider name) - location (city-level granularity) - network type (see above table for an example) - shipment address Research Impact --------------- For more details, please see: Measuring Web Similarity from Dual-stacked Hosts Conference on Network and Service Management (CNSM) 2016. http://vaibhavbajpai.com/documents/papers/proceedings/dualstack-simweb-cnsm… Measuring the Effects of Happy Eyeballs Applied Networking Research Workshop (ANRW) 2016. http://vaibhavbajpai.com/documents/papers/proceedings/dualstack-he-anrw-201… Measuring YouTube from Dual-Stacked Hosts Passive and Active Measurement Conference (PAM) 2015. http://vaibhavbajpai.com/documents/papers/proceedings/dualstack-youtube-pam… IPv4 versus IPv6 - Who connects faster? IFIP Networking Conference 2015. http://vaibhavbajpai.com/documents/papers/proceedings/dualstack-tcp-network… Thanks ------ Thank you so much for helping us in our research activity. -- Vaibhav =================================== Vaibhav Bajpai www.vaibhavbajpai.com Postdoctoral Researcher Jacobs University Bremen, Germany ===================================

2 2

Re: [ipv6-wg] ipv6-wg Digest, Vol 55, Issue 2
by christian bretterhofer 03 Oct '16

03 Oct '16

1. Re: RIPE72 IPv6 WG: call for presentations (Benedikt Stockebrand) Hello to all I think the basic work for ISPs in concern to IPv6 is covered. But i miss the topics to be addressed if you want to migrate from a IPv4 Microsoft Active domain using company to an system where most server in an enterprise could by just IPv6 only and use technologies like NAT46 ( SIIT-DC ) or similar to still make IPv4 only windows clients happy. Switching an enterprise with location around the global from a "we donot route any IPv6 traffic across our WAN Links" "most servers have IPv6 disabled" to We start IPv6 routing partially and enable partial IPv6 support on servers in a Microsoft ADS environment seems not covered in most IPv6 covering websites and presentations. Maintaining dual stack for the datacenters is just painfull and there should be a "single" device in the form of NAT46/SIIT/SIIT-DC in front of each server area. I am not sure that Active directory is ready for that. We are currently moving a complete test ads domain into a Testlab with locations in AT/CN/FI/US into dualstack and here we accept a "not working" during migration and i also hope we can move some servers into a IPv6 only area of those networks. But for a production move we need to be shure that a partial enabling of Dualstack and IPv6 only networking for servers does not break things. Any ideas or links which could help us here? best regards Christian Bretterhofer https://andritz.me ( one Testlab DMZ)

13 32

measuring web similarity from dual-stacked hosts
by Bajpai, Vaibhav 04 Sep '16

04 Sep '16

Dear v6 WG, Measuring Web Similarity from Dual-stacked Hosts ------------------------------------------------ How similar are the webpages accessed over IPv6 to their IPv4 counterparts? – In situations where the content is dissimilar over IPv4 and IPv6, what factors contribute to the dissimilarity? To answer ^ we developed a tool (simweb) and deployed it on 80 geographically distributed dual-stacked SamKnows probes. A paper presenting results from the collected dataset got accepted recently. We just released the tool and the paper [a]. Thought to share it along. [a] http://goo.gl/sAsDcG Feedback most welcome! You may recall a presentation of this work at RIPE 72 [b]. [b] https://ripe72.ripe.net/archives/video/126 Abstract -------- We compare the similarity of webpages delivered over IPv4 and IPv6. Using the SamKnows web performance (webget) test, we implemented an extension (simweb) that allows us to measure the similarity of webpages. The simweb test measures against ALEXA top 100 dual-stacked websites from 80 SamKnows probes connected to dual-stacked networks representing 58 different ASes. Using a two months-long dataset we show that 14% of these dual-stacked websites exhibit a dissimilarity in the number of fetched webpage elements, with 94% of them exhibiting a dissimilarity in their size. We show that 6% of these websites announce AAAA entries in the DNS but no content is delivered over IPv6 when an HTTP request is made. We also noticed several cases where not all webpage elements (such as images, javascript and CSS) of a dual-stacked website are available over IPv6. We show that 27% of the dual-stacked websites have some fraction of webpage elements that fail over IPv6, with 9% of the websites having more than 50% webpage elements that fail over IPv6. We perform a causality analysis and also identify sources for these failing elements. We show that 12% of these websites have more than 50% webpage elements that belong to the same origin source and fail over IPv6. Failure rates are largely affected by DNS resolution error on images, javascript and CSS content delivered from both same-origin and cross-origin sources. These failures tend to cripple experience for users behind an IPv6-only network and a quantification of failure cases may help improve IPv6 adoption on the Internet. -- Vaibhav =================================== Vaibhav Bajpai www.vaibhavbajpai.com Postdoctoral Researcher Jacobs University Bremen, Germany ===================================

1 0

RIPE73, IPv6 WG: Call for presentations
by Jen Linkova 04 Sep '16

04 Sep '16

Hi there ;) Time flies, RIPE73 is less than two months away. If you'd like to present at IPv6 WG sessions in Madrid, or just have a suggestion for the agenda - please contact ipv6-wg-chairs(a)ripe.net. (If you could provide a short summary of your talk and how much time you need- it would help a lot to build an agenda and would be highly appreciated ;)) Thanks and see you in Madrid! --- On behalf of IPv6 WG Chairs, Jen Linkova aka Furry

1 0

[training] RIPE NCC Training Courses October-December 2016
by Training Services 01 Sep '16

01 Sep '16

Dear colleagues, Our training team travels the RIPE NCC service region to deliver training courses to our members without any additional cost. Over the next few months, we'll be in Yerevan, Bucharest, Amman, Bern, Minsk, Belgrade, Dublin, Athens. Visit the following page to register and to check which training courses we are giving in your area: https://lirportal.ripe.net/training/courses The RIPE NCC delivers the following training courses: - LIR Training Course - RIPE Database Training Course - Basic IPv6 Training Course - DNSSEC Training Course - Measurements Tools Workshop - 2 days Advanced IPv6 Training Course - 2 days BGP Operations and Security Training Course For more information visit: https://www.ripe.net/support/training/courses With kind regards, Rumy Spratley-Kanis Training Services Manager

1 0

IPv6 Best Practice Forum
by Michael Oghia 27 Jul '16

27 Jul '16

Dear colleagues, Building on last year's IGF Best Practice Forum (BPF) on creating an enabling environment for IPv6 <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/best-practice-forums/creating-an-e…>, we are now focusing this year's IPv6 BPF work on how to best encourage and support IPv6 adoption (for more information, see: Scope and Goals <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/best-practice-forums/798-scope-and…> ). The IPv6 BPF is a consensus-driven, bottom-up, and inclusive collaborative effort, one that brings together professional expertise from across stakeholder groups in order to generate a practical, constructive, and relevant outcome document. We are currently soliciting feedback and brainstorming ideas, especially related to economic elements of IPv6 adoption and business cases: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C7z8MRVBOmBsuWxpl8YivXZWFvksKCq0_ul7TlF… If you are not already involved, I encourage you to add suggestions to the document, share it among your networks, and contact Izumi Okutani, our MAG coordinator, or Wim Degezelle, the IPv6 BPF project manager, for more information or if you have any questions. Additionally, you can sign up for the mailing list at: http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org. Kind regards, -Michael __________________ Michael J. Oghia iGmena <http://igmena.org/> communications manager Independent #netgov consultant & editor Istanbul, Turkey Skype: mikeoghia Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia>

1 0

Enterprise (Rabobank) on IPv6
by Sander Steffann 26 Jul '16

26 Jul '16

Hi, For those of you who need some serious examples of enterprises doing IPv6 so you can convince other enterprises: today there is a new example to follow, rabobank.nl :-) Rabobank is one of the largest banks of the Netherlands (and according to i.e. http://www.accuity.com/useful-links/bank-rankings/ even in the top-50 of largest banks in the world). Banks are often known for being cautious and conservative, so a major bank deploying IPv6 on their main website might take away some reluctance at other enterprises. Cheers! Sander

4 4

[members-discuss] manufacturers of routers and IPV6
by Куприянов Роман 25 Jul '16

25 Jul '16

Dear colleagues. Is there any possibility of the community affect the router manufacturer to implement the required functionality for the implementation of IPV6? ---------- Best regards, Kupriyanov Roman (ru.enigma)

5 4

New on RIPE Labs: Can You Make IPv6 Work Commercially?
by Mirjam Kuehne 07 Jul '16

07 Jul '16

Dear colleagues, Large scale IPv6 deployments suggest that IPv6 is at least a technical success, the technology works. Time to visit the other important question: does it work commercially. Does IPv6 really come with a positive business case? We are about to find out, if you help us... Read more on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_hogewoning/can-you-make-ipv6-work-comme… Please also note the poll next to the article. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: [v6ops] RFC 7872 on Observations on the Dropping of Packets with IPv6 Extension Headers in the Real World
by Fernando Gont 28 Jun '16

28 Jun '16

FYI -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [v6ops] RFC 7872 on Observations on the Dropping of Packets with IPv6 Extension Headers in the Real World Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:57:35 -0700 (PDT) From: rfc-editor(a)rfc-editor.org To: ietf-announce(a)ietf.org, rfc-dist(a)rfc-editor.org CC: v6ops(a)ietf.org, rfc-editor(a)rfc-editor.org A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 7872 Title: Observations on the Dropping of Packets with IPv6 Extension Headers in the Real World Author: F. Gont, J. Linkova, T. Chown, W. Liu Status: Informational Stream: IETF Date: June 2016 Mailbox: fgont(a)si6networks.com, furry(a)google.com, tim.chown(a)jisc.ac.uk, liushucheng(a)huawei.com Pages: 15 Characters: 30924 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world-02.txt URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7872 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17487/RFC7872 This document presents real-world data regarding the extent to which packets with IPv6 Extension Headers (EHs) are dropped in the Internet (as originally measured in August 2014 and later in June 2015, with similar results) and where in the network such dropping occurs. The aforementioned results serve as a problem statement that is expected to trigger operational advice on the filtering of IPv6 packets carrying IPv6 EHs so that the situation improves over time. This document also explains how the results were obtained, such that the corresponding measurements can be reproduced by other members of the community and repeated over time to observe changes in the handling of packets with IPv6 EHs. 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 -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando(a)gont.com.ar || fgont(a)si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont(a)si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

1 0

measuring the effects of happy eyeballs
by Bajpai, Vaibhav 22 Jun '16

22 Jun '16

Dear v6 WG, Measuring the Effects of Happy Eyeballs --------------------------------------- A paper on measuring the effects of happy eyeballs [RFC 6555] just got accepted last week. This uses a 3-years long ('13 - '16) dataset of TCP connect times towards ALEXA top 10K websites collected from 80 dual-stacked SamKnows probes. We just released [a] the paper. Thought to share it along: [a] http://goo.gl/JmKEax Feedback most welcome! You may recall preliminary versions of this work at RIPE 66 [b] and IETF 87 [c]. [b] https://ripe66.ripe.net/archives/video/1208 [c] https://vimeo.com/71407427 Abstract -------- The IETF has developed protocols that promote a healthy IPv4 and IPv6 co-existence. The Happy Eyeballs (HE) algorithm, for instance, prevents bad user experience in situations where IPv6 connectivity is broken. Using an active test (happy) that measures TCP connection establishment times, we evaluate the effects of the HE algorithm. The happy test measures against ALEXA top 10K websites from 80 SamKnows probes connected to dual-stacked networks representing 58 different ASes. Using a 3-years long (2013 - 2016) dataset, we show that TCP connect times to popular websites over IPv6 have considerably improved over time. As of May 2016, 18% of these websites are faster over IPv6 with 91% of the rest at most 1 ms slower. The historical trend shows that only around 1% of the TCP connect times over IPv6 were ever above the HE timer value (300 ms), which leaves around 2% chance for IPv4 to win a HE race towards these websites. As such, 99% of these websites prefer IPv6 connections more than 98% of the time. We show that although absolute TCP connect times (in ms) are not that far apart in both address families, HE with a 300 ms timer value tends to prefer slower IPv6 connections in around 90% of the cases. We show that lowering the HE timer value to 150 ms gives us a margin benefit of 10% while retaining same preference levels over IPv6. Best, Vaibhav =================================== Vaibhav Bajpai www.vaibhavbajpai.com Room 91, Research I School of Engineering and Sciences Jacobs University Bremen, Germany ===================================

1 0

Fwd: [Bp_ipv6] Starting IPv6 BPF 2016: Next call on 23rd June
by Michael Oghia 22 Jun '16

22 Jun '16

FYI. The IGF's Best Practice Forums provide tangible and useful outputs, and this year's IPv6 BPF aims to build on last year's momentum. I encourage anyone working with IPv6 to participate and spread this around your networks. Best, -Michael Oghia __________________ Independent #netgov consultant & editor 2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador Istanbul, Turkey Skype: mikeoghia Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> Date: Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 6:06 PM Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Starting IPv6 BPF 2016: Next call on 23rd June To: "bp_ipv6(a)intgovforum.org" <bp_ipv6(a)intgovforum.org> Dear Colleagues, We are starting work on IPv6 BPF 2016 and I am serving as a MAG Coordinator this year, with my colleague Sumon Ahmed Sabir. You can see our profiles at: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/3030-mag-2016-membersh… To start work for the BPF this year. we would like to invite you to: 1) Share your feedback on the attached Scope and Goals document for IPv6 BPF 2016 Close comments by: Fri 1st July 2) Join us in the call at UTC1600 Thu 23rd June *Register* < https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?RGID=ra8e66724ded8a366ee621… > After your request has been approved, you'll receive instructions for joining the meeting. To share some background, last year’s BPF on IPv6 focused on creating capacity building platforms and awareness raising, in the form of national and regional IPv6 taskforces and other initiatives. Building upon the conclusions of last year, the BPF on IPv6 organizers now suggest a focus on the economic decisions and commercial drivers behind the decision to adopt IPv6. Therefore, the target is non-technical people who can share economic/business perspectives. As we did last year, we would like to start with fixing the Scope and Goals document, to be the basis of our work for the output document to be produced as our BFP. Best Regards, Izumi Okutani _______________________________________________ Bp_ipv6 mailing list Bp_ipv6(a)intgovforum.org http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org

1 0

Icon with IPv6
by Alexey Galaev 21 Jun '16

21 Jun '16

Hi all. Do anyone have isometric icon with IPv6 logo? We are creating animated form to order servers with IPv6. Now that looks like http://storage2.static.itmages.com/i/16/0621/h_1466530601_3472813_28e93c8b0… Thanks. Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Reducing the BGP Table Size - A Fairy Tale
by Mirjam Kuehne 20 Jun '16

20 Jun '16

Dear colleagues, Please find a new article on RIPE Labs: George Michaelson is discussing the issue of the relative sizes of the IPv4 and IPv6 Internet in BGP.: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/ggm/reducing-the-bgp-table-size-a-fairy-tale?… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Maximum acceptable IPv6 prefix in BGP table?
by Sergey 16 Jun '16

16 Jun '16

Hi, Looking at the BGP table I see stuff like this, not even /64: 2001:218:2000:5000::3a0/126 *[BGP/170] 2d 08:02:02, localpref 180 AS path: 12714 31133 3491 10026 I, validation-state: unverified > to 2a00:d18:fe03:fefe:a76d::1 via ae2.3386 As we can see this wasn't rejected by 3 AS-es. AFAIK, the minimum allocated space from RIRs is /48. Should we filter prefixes longer than this? -- Kind regards, CTO at *Foton Telecom CJSC (ru.fotontelecom)* Tel.: +7 (499) 679-99-99 AS42861 on PeeringDB <http://as42861.peeringdb.com/>, Qrator <https://radar.qrator.net/as42861>, BGP.HE.NET <http://bgp.he.net/AS42861> http://ipv6actnow.org/

9 14

Re: [ipv6-wg] Maximum acceptable IPv6 prefix in BGP table?
by Mark Tinka 15 Jun '16

15 Jun '16

On 15/Jun/16 11:39, Colin Petrie wrote: > We tried this out last year: > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/has-the-routability-of-longer-than-… > > TL;DR - global usefulness of longer-than-/24 is still pretty low. Thanks, Colin. On my side, I'm not immediately keen to fill FIB slots with >/24 or >/48. But I'll keep an eye on what the rest of the community does and adjust accordingly if it makes sense. Mark.

1 0

RIPE Policy vs IETF RFC
by Nathalie Trenaman 14 Jun '16

14 Jun '16

Dear colleagues, As you might know, the current IPv6 policy states very clear that assignments to customers must be a minimum of a /64. 5.4.1. Assignment address space size End Users are assigned an End Site assignment from their LIR or ISP. The size of the assignment is a local decision for the LIR or ISP to make, using a minimum value of a /64 (only one subnet is anticipated for the End Site). https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655 On the other hand, a while ago, RFC7608 (BCP198) was published, stating: 2. Recommendation IPv6 implementations MUST conform to the rules specified in Section 5.1 of [RFC4632]. Decision-making processes for forwarding MUST NOT restrict the length of IPv6 prefixes by design. In particular, forwarding processes MUST be designed to process prefixes of any length up to /128, by increments of 1. In practice, this means that the RFC suggests that a customer can get an IPv6 assignment of any size, while the RIPE policy says the minimum should be a /64. I’m interested to know what the community thinks about this and if alignment between this RFC and the RIPE policy is needed. Nathalie Künneke-Trenaman IPv6 Program Manager RIPE NCC

9 9

New on RIPE Labs: How are you Deploying IPv6? Take this Survey
by Mirjam Kuehne 31 May '16

31 May '16

Dear colleagues, For those of you who missed Jordi Palet's original announcement, his call for the IPv6 deployment survey is now also on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/jordipaletm/how-are-you-deploying-ipv6-take-t… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

v4 versus v6 -- who connects faster?
by Vaibhav Bajpai 23 May '16

23 May '16

Dear v6 WG, Here [a] is a toy v6 service I came up with during the RIPE Atlas hackathon over this weekend. Thought I share this along: [a] http://goo.gl/hbzbwD <http://goo.gl/hbzbwD> You enter a dual-stacked website (ALEXA top 10K) and it shows you the difference in TCP connect times over v4 and v6 as seen by all dual-stacked RIPE Atlas probes (~1.3K probes). You can also filter the visualisation from a specific origin-AS. This additional filter can be useful to view performance towards a website from a specific origin-AS (say DTAG). Disclaimer: This is an outcome of a 1.5d long hackathon project. As such, the codebase is possibly inundated with bugs. Please don’t see it as a production service :-) Best, Vaibhav =================================== Vaibhav Bajpai www.vaibhavbajpai.com <http://www.vaibhavbajpai.com/> Room 91, Research I School of Engineering and Sciences Jacobs University Bremen, Germany ===================================

6 11