- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 WG co-chair selection
by Janos Zsako 18 Sep '19

18 Sep '19

Dear Ray, > Its almost 3 years ago that I started as a IPv6-WG co-chair, I think you did a very good job, thank you. > so as per our current policy it's time to step down. > > However, I'm very willing to stand for re-selection, and serve another term as IPv6 WG co-chair, which I hope you all find a good idea. I am glad to hear this. I strongly support your re-election. Best regards, Janos > Rgds, > Ray

1 0

RIPE 78 Minutes
by Jetten Raymond 14 Sep '19

14 Sep '19

Hello all, The minutes from RIPE 78 are now available: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ipv6/minutes/ipv6-working-group-mi… Please let us know if you have any comments. Cheers, Jen, Benedikt and Ray

1 0

RIPE 79 IPv6 Working group
by Jetten Raymond 30 Jul '19

30 Jul '19

Hello All, The RIPE 79 meeting will take place will take place in Rotterdam Netherlands from 14-18 October 2019. https://ripe79.ripe.net/ The IPv6 WG session will most likely be on Thursday Morning. (still subject to change). Would you like to present at our WG session, and have a subject that would be of interest on IPv6, or develop IPv6 related RIPE policies, have useful recommendations, or plan other documents that will help the deployment of IPv6 ? We, the IPv6 WG co-chairs, would like to invite you to submit your presentation proposals, including a brief description of the content and the time you would need. Please send them directly to us: ipv6-wg-chairs at ripe.net<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg> . Once we start to make the final agenda, we will let you know if you are selected or not. Please be aware of the following: Due to potential technical issues, presenters/panelists should be physically present at the RIPE Meeting. RIPE Meeting attendees are quite sensitive to keeping presentations non-commercial, and product marketing talks are strongly discouraged. All sessions will be recorded and broadcasted, and will be publicly available afterwards, so make sure you own the copyrights of all content. See you in Rotterdam, Jen, Benedikt, Ray

1 0

IPv6 SLAAC renum/problems IETF I-D (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum-00.txt)
by Fernando Gont 07 Jul '19

07 Jul '19

Folks, To make the story short: Based on the recent discussion we had on our IETF I-D draft-gont-6man-slaac-renum, we have posted this new I-D which focuses on discussing the problem, and describing operational mitigations. The document is available at: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum-00.txt Comments are welcome. It is being discussed on the IETF v6ops wg mailing-list: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/5D2hdpB6QHRm9u-MUj6erQaLZY0 If possible, post your comments on the v6ops wg list. But comments are welcome, whether there, here, or even unicast to us (co-authors) ;-) Thanks! Cheers, Fernando -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum-00.txt Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2019 08:59:12 -0700 From: internet-drafts(a)ietf.org To: Fernando Gont <fgont(a)si6networks.com>, Jan Zorz <jan(a)go6.si>, Richard Patterson <richard.patterson(a)sky.uk> A new version of I-D, draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Fernando Gont and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum Revision: 00 Title: Reaction of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Renumbering Events Document date: 2019-07-06 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 14 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum-00 Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum Abstract: In scenarios where network configuration information related to IPv6 prefixes becomes invalid without any explicit signaling of that condition (such as when a CPE crashes and reboots without knowledge of the previously-employed prefixes), nodes on the local network will continue using stale prefixes for an unacceptably long period of time, thus resulting in connectivity problems. This document analyzes these problem scenarios, and discusses operational workarounds to improve network robustness. 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

IPv6 faster than IPv4 (also with 464XLAT)
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 26 Jun '19

26 Jun '19

We already knew that from previous measurements, however the nice thing from this article is that it is analyzing many different providers worldwide: https://teamarin.net/2019/06/25/why-is-ipv6-faster/ Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

1 0

RIPE NCC Receives Additional /12 IPv6 Allocation from IANA
by Nikolas Pediaditis 07 Jun '19

07 Jun '19

Dear colleagues, On 5 June 2019, the RIPE NCC received the following IPv6 allocation from IANA: 2a10:0000::/12 All allocations of IPv6 unicast address space made by IANA to RIRs are listed here: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments/ipv6-unic… We received our previous /12 allocation (2a00:0000::/12) on 3 October 2006. The conditions under which we qualified for an additional allocation are described in the IANA Policy For Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to RIRs: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/allocation-ipv6-rirs-2012-02-25-en The RIPE NCC is the first RIR to receive an additional /12 IPv6 block. As today is also the seventh anniversary of World IPv6 Launch Day, we took the opportunity to look at some of the history of IPv6 and how it has been distributed in our service region: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/riccardo_stagni/we-re-running-out-of-ipv6 Kind regards, Nikolas Pediaditis Registration Services & Policy Development Assistant Manager RIPE NCC

6 6

Useful Information / RIPE78
by Thomas Schäfer 17 May '19

17 May '19

Hi, Is it right, that I can use https://ripe78.ripe.net/on-site/tech-info/ipv6-only-network/ or https://ripe78.ripe.net/on-site/tech-info/dns-over-tls-resolvers/ but not both at the same time? Regards, Thomas -- There’s no place like ::1 Thomas Schäfer (Systemverwaltung) Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Centrum für Informations- und Sprachverarbeitung Oettingenstraße 67 Raum C109 80538 München ☎ +49/89/2180-9706 ℻ +49/89/2180-9701

3 4

IPv6 WG Ripe 77 meeting minutes, your comments please
by Jetten Raymond 07 May '19

07 May '19

Hello All, Here are the minutes form the previous meeting in Amsterdam, if you have any comments on the content of them, please contact us ( ipv6-wg-chairs(a)ripe.net<mailto:ipv6-wg-chairs@ripe.net> ) In a little over 2 weeks we will approve the minutes including the comments at the RIPE78 meeting in Reykjavik. IPv6 Working Group Minutes - RIPE 77 Date: 18 October 2018, 11:00 - 12:30 WG Co-Chairs: Jen Linkova, Benedikt Stockebrand, Raymond Jetten  Scribe: Massimiliano Stucchi   Status: Draft 1. Welcome/Agenda Bashing/Meeting Minutes The presentation is available at https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2278/ There were no questions or comments. 2. IPv6 Work at IETF (v6ops/6man WGs updated) Jen Linkova, WG Co-Chair The presentation is available at: https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2279/ Pawel Lunin from Scaleway mentioned that RFC8475 was recently published, and asked for a more detailed explanation from Jen Linkova, one of the authors. Marco Hogewoning from RIPE NCC thanked the presenters and asked to point those interested towards smaller Internet drafts that haven't been adopted by Working Groups. He suggested taking a look at a specific draft on ENUM numbers and said that participants in the room should comment on that. Cyril Malevanov from Selectel spoke against IPv6 on behalf of the operators from St. Petersburg. He said he wanted his voice to be heard, and to state his opinion. Alissa Cooper, IETF Chair, thanked the presenters on behalf of the IETF. She also stated that if there were ideas, people could approach her and other IETF participants to get help. There were no more questions or comments. 3. Clusters in the Expanse: Understanding and Unbiasing IPv6 Hitlists Oliver Gasser, RACI The presentation is available at: https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2283/ Jen Linkova, Google, said she liked the conclusions because she finds it hard to understand the issue of security by obscurity. The presenter answered that there was a previous paper that compared the reachability of IPv4 against IPv6 and the outcome was that IPv6 addresses are more likely to respond because firewall rules were not set. Randy Bush, IIJ and Archis asked about the IPv6 responsiveness graph in the slides and how it compares to IPv4. The presenter answered that the numbers are in the paper, but couldn't provide any more data as he couldn't remember it in detail. There were no more questions or comments. 4. We Don't Need IPv6 - Update Jens Link The presentation is available at: https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2285/ Jen Linkova, Google, commented during the presentation that she wouldlike to do the"IPv6 bullshit bingo" if any more references to a paper mentioned during thepresentation will be highlighted. Randy Bush, IIJ, mentioned that they tried turning off IPv4 at the lastIETF,specifically for the IPv6-related Working Groups (6man, v6ops) and it didn'twork out the way they would have liked. They tried NAT64. Hesaid unfortunately there is still work to be done. Jen Linkova said there were bugs in the network, and 75% of the peoplereported they had no problems getting work done in a survey sent later. There were no more questions nor comments. 5. The Art of Running Out of IPv6 Addresses Benedikt Stockebrand The presentation is available at: https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2287/ Jan Zorz thanked the presenter and seconded the fact that history repeats itself over and over again, and errors keep being repeated. There were no more questions nor comments. --- The minutes are also available online: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ipv6/minutes/ipv6-working-group-mi… Rgds, IPv6-WG-Chairs: Jen, Benedikt, Ray

1 0

Agenda for the IPv6 Working group at Ripe 78 Reykjavik
by Jetten Raymond 01 May '19

01 May '19

Dear All, We have published the agenda for the IPv6 working group at the Ripe 78 meeting in Reykjavik Iceland Thursday, 23 May 09:00 - 10:30 A. Welcome, Agenda Bashing [5 min] B. IPv6 Reliability Measurements [30 min] Geoff Huston C. Large-Scale Deployment of IPv6-Enabled Wi-Fi Hotspots [30 min] Enno Rey D. Update on ITU SG-20 IPv6 Deployment Plan [5 min] Marco Hogewoning E. Mobile IPv6 BCOP Doc [5 min] Massimiliano Stucchi F. RIPE-690 Follow-up: SLAAC’s Reaction to Renumbering Events - IETF I-D [15 min] Jan Zorz Thursday, 23 May 14:00 - 15:30 This session will be shared with the Routing Working Group Technology Deep Dive on Modern Router Architectures Ignas Bagdonas See you all in Reykjavik ! Rgds, IPv6 wg co-chairs: Jen, Benedikt and Ray

1 0

Update on ITU-T SG 20 activities: Ceased work on Y.IPv6RefModel
by Marco Hogewoning 18 Apr '19

18 Apr '19

Dear colleagues, At the meeting of ITU-T Study Group 20, in Geneva from 9-18 April, it was decided to end the work item to develop a "Reference model of IPv6 subnet addressing plan for Internet of things deployment" (Y.IPv6RefModel). We again would like to thank this working group for its contribution - both in reviewing the draft recommendation and sharing your concern about the technical merits of the proposed model. We would also like to thank our colleagues from ARIN, GSMA, the administrations of the United Kingdom, United States, Canada and Germany, and the Rapporteur and Associate Rapporteur of Question 3/20 for their contributions, advice and ongoing support in resolving this matter. The RIPE NCC of course, remains committed to promoting and supporting the deployment of IPv6, also with regards to those elements of the Internet of Things that deploy the Internet protocol. We hope to provide a more comprehensive report during this working group’s meeting at RIPE 78 in Reykjavik. Greetings from Geneva, Marco Hogewoning Senior External Relations Officer RIPE NCC

2 1