- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

The DFZ and supernetting
by Jasper Jans 19 Sep '11

19 Sep '11

Hi, We have had a fair amount of discussions lately on and off this list about the explosion of routes in the DFZ as a result of people wanting PI space and the likes. Others are ofcourse if there is no NAT66 how do you handle multihoming of a small site - but that is besides the point here. I have been wondering - since BGP is all about reachability as a goal and not so much optimal routing/best path/etc. is the easy solution for growth in the DFZ not overly simple? The way I see it you will end up with three sets of routes that you will need to carry on your routers: 1) Own customer routes - these can be any prefix length between /48 and /64 2) Other LIRs aggregates in same RIR region - these are /32 and bigger 3) Supernets for other RIR regions - these are /12 or larger So it seems like the explosion of the DFZ can be managed by supernetting certain routes. Having come up with this idea my next was - ok what am I missing here since it seems a simple and easy fix that would work without breaking much if anything. Can anyone enlighten me why we should not want to head in this direction? Met vriendelijke groet, Jasper Jans Team Leader Network Operations Sr. Network Engineer T: 088 - 00 68 152 F: 088 - 00 68 001 M: 06 - 218 26 380 E: jasper.jans(a)espritxb.nl EspritXB Monitorweg 1, 1322 BJ Almere Postbus 60043, 1320 AA Almere T: 088 00 68 000 KvK: 1717 7850 F: 088 00 68 001 W: http://www.espritxb.nl http://www.linkedin.com/companies/espritxb http://twitter.com/EspritXB EspritXB levert traditionele spraakdiensten en IP-gebaseerde diensten zoals VoIP, internettoegang, VPN, pinnen, alarm en managed hosting aan MKB Nederland. Op dit e-mailbericht is een disclaimer van toepassing, welke te vinden is op http://www.espritxb.nl/disclaimer

5 6

More on IPv6 RA-Guard evasion (IPv6 security)
by Fernando Gont 06 Sep '11

06 Sep '11

Folks, A few months ago I had published a couple of IETF Internet-Drafts to tackle the problem of RA-Guard evasion -- A summary of the problem and pointers to relevant materials is available at: http://blog.si6networks.com/2011/09/router-advertisement-guard-ra-guard.html The two I-Ds are: * http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gont-v6ops-ra-guard-evasion-01.txt * http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-01.txt The former one explains the different attack vectors, and proposes operational counter-measures. The latter proposes a longer-term solution. I'm planning to revise these two I-Ds soon, so any comments/feedback/discussion would be really welcome. P.S.: In case you haven't, you may want to join the IPv6 Hackers mailing-list: http://www.si6networks.com/community/mailing-lists.html Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont(a)si6networks.com web: http://www.si6networks.com

2 2

RIPE 63 Registration and call for IPv6 WG agenda items
by Marco Hogewoning 29 Aug '11

29 Aug '11

Dear Colleagues, Registration for RIPE 63 is now open, this meeting will take place from October 31 until November 4 in Vienna, Austria. More information about this meeting, the venue and the online registration form can be found at http://ripe63.ripe.net/. If you wish to add an item to the IPv6 Working Group agenda, either something to discuss or something you want to present, please contact us via ipv6-wg-chairs [at] ripe [dot] net. Alternatively proposals for content can be submitted to the programme committee via http://ripe63.ripe.net/programme/submit-a-topic/. Deadline for these proposals is September 18th. We hope to see you all in Vienna, The chairs of the IPv6 Working Group, Marco, David and Shane

1 0

dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 23 Aug '11

23 Aug '11

Hi all, I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6 services to residential customers, if you are planning to provide static or dynamic IPv6 prefixes. Just to be clear, I'm for static prefix delegation to residential customers, however I heard that some ISPs are doing dynamic delegations, the same way as is common today with IPv4. I don't thin it make sense, as the main reason for doing so in IPv4 was address exhaustion and legacy oversubscription models such as PPP/dial-up. Regards, Jordi PS: I've sent this question to NANOG, got very few answers, so trying here ... ********************************************** 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.

9 14

Announcement: RIPE NCC Training Courses
by Training Mailbox 23 Aug '11

23 Aug '11

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC invites you to register for one of our upcoming training courses: - The LIR Training Course This course teaches LIRs how to request Internet number resources and interact with the RIPE NCC. A course outline is available at: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/courses/lir/outline/ - The Routing Registry Training Course This course teaches LIRs how to use the RIPE Database for routing. A course outline is available at: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/courses/rr/ - The IPv6 Training Course This course teaches LIRs about the need for IPv6 and includes basic information on how to plan your deployment. A course outline is available at: http://www.ripe.net/training/ipv6/outline.html To see the location of upcoming courses and to register, please use the LIR Portal or complete the registration form on our website at: RIPE NCC Upcoming Courses List & Registration https://lirportal.ripe.net/lirportal/training/course-list.html If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at <training(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Rumy Spratley-Kanis Training Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

IPv6 Hackers mailing-list
by Fernando Gont 09 Aug '11

09 Aug '11

Folks, We have created the "IPv6 Hackers" mailing-list for discussion of IPv6 security issues. The charter of the list is: ---- cut here ---- This list was created for the discussion of IPv6 security issues and low/packet-level issues related to the IPv6 protocols. It is meant to provide forum for IPv6 security researchers and IPv6 networking professionals to discuss low-level IPv6 networking and security issues that could eventually lead to advances and improvements in the area of IPv6 security and IPv6 networking. Discussion of unrelated networking or security topics are considered "off topic". Subscription to the list is open to the community. ---- cut here ---- You can subscribe to the mailing-list here: http://lists.si6networks.com/listinfo/ipv6hackers/ We have also created a mailing-list for spanish-speaking IPv6 hackers (ipv6hackers-es). You can subscribe to this list here: http://lists.si6networks.com/listinfo/ipv6hackers/ General information about our mailing-lists is available at: http://www.si6networks.com/community/mailing-lists.html Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont(a)si6networks.com web: http://www.si6networks.com

1 0

New Article on RIPE Labs: IPv4 and IPv6 Performance on World IPv6 Day
by Mirjam Kuehne 01 Aug '11

01 Aug '11

Dear colleagues, The next article in a series about the measurements we've done during World IPv6 Day is comparing the performance of IPv4 and IPv6. Please read on RIPE Labs: http://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/measuring-world-ipv6-day-comparing-i… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: AW: [ipv6-wg] dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 27 Jul '11

27 Jul '11

However I think this is an educational problem of those agencies you can't offer dynamic and stable services to access the home, and privacy goes beyond a stable address. So miss-protecting privacy actually is against user services. Regarding the routing table, my guess is that you should aggregate all the customer prefixes, in a small number of prefixes for each BRAS, PoP, etc., so no difference here with IPv4. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: <Olaf.Bonness(a)telekom.de> Responder a: <Olaf.Bonness(a)telekom.de> Fecha: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:49:27 +0200 Para: <ip(a)ioshints.info>, Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> Asunto: AW: [ipv6-wg] dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers >Regarding Jordis question I've to add that regulatory agencies in some >countries are not voting for static/permanent prefix delegation to >customers, because of privacy reasons. > >Kind regards >Olaf > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: ipv6-wg-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net] >> Im Auftrag von Ivan Pepelnjak >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juli 2011 09:45 >> An: jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es; ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net >> Betreff: RE: [ipv6-wg] dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to >> residential customers >> >> Unfortunately you have to do static prefix delegation because >> it's impossible to renumber the customer's inside LAN within >> a reasonable time interval with today's state of IPv6 SLAAC. >> >> However, static delegations might cause IPv6 routing table >> explosion unless you're very careful (with dynamic IPv4 >> address allocation you could define address pool on BRAS and >> advertise just the pool prefix into the rest of the network). >> >> Ivan >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: ipv6-wg-admin(a)ripe.net >> [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of >> > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ >> > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 3:02 PM >> > To: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net >> > Subject: [ipv6-wg] dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential >> > customers >> > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6 services to >> residential >> > customers, if you are planning to provide static or dynamic >> IPv6 prefixes. >> > >> > Just to be clear, I'm for static prefix delegation to residential >> > customers, however I heard that some ISPs are doing dynamic >> delegations, >> > the same way as is common today with IPv4. >> > >> > I don't thin it make sense, as the main reason for doing so >> in IPv4 was >> > address exhaustion and legacy oversubscription models such >> as PPP/dial-up. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Jordi >> > >> > PS: I've sent this question to NANOG, got very few answers, >> so trying here >> > ... >> > >> > >> > >> > ********************************************** >> > 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. >> > >> >> >> ********************************************** 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.

1 0

Re: is ok
by Aurelio Diaz Pereira 27 Jul '11

27 Jul '11

confirm 764810

1 0

RIPE-501 and IPSEC on CPEs
by Ahmed Abu-Abed 26 Jul '11

26 Jul '11

Hello All, Reading RIPE-501 spec for basic CPEs, I see that IPSEC & IKE are mandatory under "host" equipment. Is this a necessity ? Many IPv4 CPEs do not support IPSEC to keep the costs down. Regards, -Ahmed

8 19