- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Question about how I handle web sites in my IPv6 survey
by Mark Prior 02 Jan '24

02 Jan '24

Hi there, I'm seeking some views on how I should report some web failures on my IPv6 survey page <https://www.mrp.net/ipv6_survey/>. If a site has both A and AAAA records for a web site I will try to connect to the IPv6 address and see if there is a web site listening there. It will start at tcp port 80 and then follow any redirects until hopefully it finds a 200 response. The cases where it gets to a 200 are fine as that's "success" but there are some failure modes that I can't really make my mind up on so having some feedback would be potentially useful. In all these cases I see a site with A and AAAA records so I connect on port 80 of the IPv6 address(es). 1. If the connection fails should I just report that or should I do anything more? For example see if the site responds via IPv4. 2. If the connection succeeds (so I assume there should be a working IPv6 based web server) but after querying it with a HTTP/1.1 message sees the site resets the connection (or fails in some other manner). 3. The connection succeeds as does the query and I get a 301 redirect to a location that fails to connect (typically it's the https port but could be another domain name). Again is this enough or should it do something else? The difference is in how they are reported on the main survey page. If there is a problem then the cell will be blue but if I stop at the error then some indication of the error will appear in the cell. If after the failure I check if IPv4 works then the cell will still be blue but the indication in the cell will be the IPv4 status (more often than not this is success and so the indicator is type of connection (HTTP, HTTPS, HSTS, H2, etc) with a link to the web page. At the moment I'm not consistent and I probably should be :-) but what type of indication is more helpful? Finally in some cases I'll get a HTTP status code such as 403, 429 or 503 rather than 200 and these are reported with a background of either light green or light red depending on whether it occurred on an IPv6 or IPv4 connection. Should these be blue rather than a different green/red? Thanks, Mark.

3 4

IPv6-WG draft minutes from RIPE87
by Raymond Jetten 02 Jan '24

02 Jan '24

Hello All, A happy new year to all of you ! below are the draft minutes from the RIPE87 meeting in Rome. A big thank you to Matt for taking the notes Please comment if you want any changes before Friday 12.1 Session: IPv6 Working Group RIPE 87 Date: Thursday, 30 November 11:00 - 12:30 (UTC+1) WG co-Chairs: Benedikt Stockebrand, Jen Linkova, Raymond Jetten Scribe: Matt Parker Status: Draft View the video archive<https://ripe87.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ipv6-wg/> View the stenography transcript<https://ripe87.ripe.net/archives/steno/39/> View the chat archive<https://ripe87.ripe.net/archives/chat/39/> 1. Welcome Raymond Jetten, IPv6 Working Group Co-chair The presentation is available at: https://ripe87.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/88-IPv6-WG-Opening… Raymond opened the session, welcomed the attendees and approved the minutes from RIPE 86. He also explained the process that would be followed for the upcoming Working Group Co-chair selection and reminded everybody to follow the microphone etiquette throughout the session. There were no questions. 2. Co-Chair Change Raymond Jetten, IPv6 Working Group Co-chair Benedikt Stockebrand stepped down as IPv6 Working Group Co-chair, having fulfilled the role for nine years. Raymond thanked Benedikt for his service. The two new candidates for the Working Group Co-chair role, Christian Seitz and Paolo Volpato, joined Raymond on stage. They briefly introduced themselves and explained to the Working Group why they would be a good choice for the role. A poll was conducted using Meetecho. There were no questions. 3. Currently Available Solutions to Provide IPv6-based Multi-homing Connectivity Paolo Volpato, Huawei The presentation is available at: https://ripe87.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/82-IPv6-Multihomin… Paolo gave a high level summary of the work being carried out in the IPv6 Operations (v6ops) working group in the IETF, focussing specifically on support for multi-homing in IPv6. Gert Döring, SpaceNet AG, commented that his favourite model was the dual provider aggregatable prefix. Not only because it's less burden on the routing table, but also because it empowers the client machines to make decisions. He added that problems remain with source address selection and source address failover but that there is potential for bright solutions. Rinse Kloek, Delta Fiber, agreed with Gert and stated that he is not a big fan of using PI space for multihoming. This is due to the impact that it could have on the growth of the global routing table. Urban Suhadolnik, TU Graz, asked whether they had looked into mobile IP extension? Paolo replied that that they had not yet, but that it is something they can consider. Jan Zorz, 6connect, commented that if we use PA space, and one of the CPE dies, then the neighbor reachability protocol will take care of switching to the other gateway. He added that the source selection mechanism is still fundamentally broken, but work is ongoing at the IETF to address this. Finally, he recommended a draft from Jen Linkova to address the problem of a CPE coming back to life and receiving a different prefix. Jen stated that it is a functioning solution and Jan offered to help with the next steps. Jen Linkova, asked in her personal capacity, whether we should focus on a limited number of scenarios, covering perhaps 80% of our current use cases, rather than trying to consider all possible scenarios? Jen also responded to Jan's comment about host gateway tracking by stating that she believes both Microsoft Windows and Apple do this already, and that some work is happening on Linux. Once the Linux problem is solved most of the normal host operating systems will be covered. Brian Turnbow, twt spa, observed that he had received three different tenders over the last year where they had their own AS number and their own, de-aggregated, /48 assignment. He explained that the tenders came from multinational American companies who were assigning /48s worldwide to different sites, all from their own block. He commented that he had not seen it yet from any European companies. There were no further questions. 4. What's New on the IPv6 Front at the IETF? Eric Vyncke, Cisco The presentation is available at: https://ripe87.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/102-20231130-RIPE-… Eric provided an update about what is new on the IPv6 Front at the IETF. Jan Zorz stated that he really likes the idea of prefix delegation to every host, if every host has a /64 you could run a web server on IP, so there would be no need for IP ports. Tom Hill, BT, commented that he is a co-author on the Trusted Domain SRv6 draft which is seeking an optional ether type for SRv6. He stated that the reason he did this is that the Micro-SID draft would allow you to forgo the SRH in the packet, which he found concerning. Jordi Palet Martinez, The IPv6 Company, mentioned that there is a draft being updated which is important to the community - RFC 7084, Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers. Tobias Fiebig, MPI-INF, mentioned two additional drafts. The first is updating the DNS trans record requirements making IPv6 an equal citizen to IPv4, which Tobias commented was long overdue. The second deals with IPv4 via IPv6 next hops which we have for NLRI and BGP announcements. There were no further questions. 5. Deployment of 464XLAT in a Medium-sized Operator Jordi Palet Martinez, The IPv6 Company The presentation is available at: https://ripe87.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/104-464XLAT-deploy… Jordi discussed his experiences deploying 464XLAT in a medium sized operator. Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works Inc, explained that one of the problems he had discovered with his dual-stacked network was troubleshooting IPv4 only customers. He asked Jordi whether he sometimes had to undo dual stack on them to find out what was broken? Jordi replied that it is sometimes necessary to disable either IPv4 or IPv6 to investigate a problem, but in general it wasn't too much of a problem. Rinse Kloek asked whether Jordi had found a CPE vendor that supported the CLAT part of 464XLAT. Jordi responded by stating that he is one of the authors of RFC 8585 (Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers to Support IPv4-as-a-Service) and that the other two authors are both vendors who support it. However, he agreed that it may be necessary to speak with the vendor regarding specific configuration requirements and mentioned that not all customers will be happy using open source for this. Urban Suhadolnik asked Jordi for clarification on the APNs with Apple that he mentioned. Is it correct that there is an OTA from Apple that updates them? Jordi replied that no, you need to have an OTA platform on your network. Urban stated that he was also asking for Android because the configuration is already there, it is in the OS when you get the phone. Jordi agreed that it is much easier in Android, if they see that they can choose IPv6 it just works, there is no need to change the PDP type manually. There were no further questions. 6. Thanks, Wrap Up and Rate the Talks [5 min] Raymond and Jen announced the result of the Working Group Co-chair selection, Christian Seitz was selected. Raymond reminded everybody to rate the talks at RIPE 87 and Jen asked the working group to submit talks for RIPE 88 in Krakow. The session was closed. For Internal Use Only

1 0

Allocating a /16 to a large enterprise ?
by Eric Vyncke (evyncke) 12 Dec '23

12 Dec '23

[This is about ARIN, but curious to see if anybody has any insight...] A colleague of mine showed me https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET6-2630-2, i.e., a /16 allocated by ARIN to Capital One (AFAIK a US bank). Of course, this may be a tool bug, or a human encoding mistake, else I will start to fear an IPv6 addresses exhaustion in the future (only 2**13 of /16 out of 2000::/3). If anyone has any insight, then I will welcome this insight in this specific case. Regards -éric

6 5

follow up on the IPv6-wg session at RIPE 87
by Raymond Jetten 07 Dec '23

07 Dec '23

Dear list Members, During RIPE 87 Benedikt Stockebrand has stepped down as IPv6 WG Co-Chair. Again Benedikt, on behalf of Jen and me thanks for the many years of having you. Jen and I decided to give Benedikt a small present after stepping down. A bottle of quality Italian wine, a wine bottle opener, a glass to drink from, and bag of popcorn. We had 2 candidates to fill Benedikt's place. Christian Seitz, and Paolo Volpato. We used Meetecho's poll as a platform where participants on site and remote could show their preference. The result was that Christian is now our new co-chair, Welcome Christian. We hope to see you all again in Krakow Poland next may. On behalf of Jen and Christian, Raymond Jetten RIPE IPv6 Working Group co-Chair To the co Chairs: ipv6-wg-chair(a)ripe.net<mailto:ipv6-wg-chair@ripe.net> To the mailing list: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:ipv6-wg@ripe.net> For Internal Use Only

1 0

The Candidates for the IPv6-wg Co-chair position
by Raymond Jetten 28 Nov '23

28 Nov '23

Dear IPv6-wg list members and RIPE community. In the upcoming RIPE meeting (RIPE87) we will select a new co-chair, who will fill the gap, since Benedikt Stockebrand has decided to step down and not run for another term. The selection process will be done at the IPv6-wg session, via the meeting system "Meetecho". There will be a poll on who do you want to select. This system is available for all onsite and online. You will all get a link from the meeting organization to the Meetecho website, keep it near... You can still register for the meeting online or onsite: https://ripe87.ripe.net/attend/register/ In response to our request on the list we are glad to announce that we have 2 interested candidates: Christian Seitz Paolo Volpato They will send in their personal motivations and backgrounds to this list soon. We would like the members of this list to show their support for their preferred candidate, or send questions to the candidates, so we can discuss this even before the meeting. The decision however will be made at the meeting as said before. Best regards, The IPv6 WG chairs. For Internal Use Only

7 6

]REPOST] Animation showing IPv6 growth over time.
by Raymond Jetten 13 Nov '23

13 Nov '23

Some very nice visuals, enjoy ! Subject: [118attendees] Animation showing IPv6 growth over time. Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2023 07:16:53 -0600 From: Nick Buraglio <buraglio(a)forwardingplane.net> Reply-To: Nick Buraglio <buraglio(a)forwardingplane.net> To: 118attendees(a)ietf.org This set of animations have made the rounds within some of the IPv6 groups at IETF and it was thought that the 118 participants may find it encouraging and interesting. These animations showing both the growth of IPv6 over time were compiled by a researcher named Barrett Lyon using data from RouteViews* data. The animation of v6 starts on May 9th, 2003, as that is when RouteViews began compiling their IPv6 data. Enjoy! IPv4 vs IPv6 Full: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo5glK9czIE 1m social media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMyFRGGGWOQ IPv6 with labels Full: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj9RjUtZ54o 1m social media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj9RjUtZ54o * https://www.routeviews.org/routeviews/ For Internal Use Only

1 0

Survey for operators on IPv6 Extension Headers
by Justin Iurman 06 Nov '23

06 Nov '23

Hi all, On behalf of the University of Liege (Belgium), we've been doing measurements on IPv6 Extension Headers over the last two years. More specifically, we're trying to evaluate how they are processed by routers along the path, and so from the edge. Now, we would like to compare our observations with the reality of operators. For that, we propose this very short survey [1] to operators and would really appreciate if you could complete it. Note that we guarantee anonymity of your answers by not sharing any data. Looking forward to your input. Thanks, Justin [1] https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeHgEWVQMrAbB9-pRf-T-mDHXxRxw-mAqO…

2 2

IPv6 survey web page
by Mark Prior 03 Nov '23

03 Nov '23

Hi all, Some folks in this WG may not know that I maintain a web page that shows accessibility to web, mail and DNS services via IPv6 across a number of domains. As I have just rewritten the script that generates it I thought I would take that opportunity to promote it a little. Back in 2007 at an Internet2 Joint Techs meeting Ron Broersma of DREN presented a talk on IPv6 adoption that included a coloured chart that showed a small number of Internet2 related domains and if they had IPv6 accessible web, mail and DNS. Basically the argument was that it was fine to have IPv6 plumbing but what were you doing with it (and the answer was not a lot). After chatting with Ron I decided to code up something and create a web page so I could report back any changes. Early in the piece the updates were ad hoc (probably driven by meeting deadlines) but eventually it was run by cron. Now it runs daily and works though a largish list of domains seeing if there are web, mail (smtp, submission and imap/pop), DNS, NTP, XMPP and SIP services available via IPv6. Also there is DNSSEC because something has to have worse deployment than IPv6 :-) Originally research and education domains dominated the list but over time I have added ISP/telcos and other commercial companies. There are probably zombie domains in the list too. Anyway that's enough of a background. If you are interested then have a look at <https://www.mrp.net/ipv6_survey/>. I am happy to add more domains if you want to suggest them. Regards, Mark.

1 0

Call for co-chair candidates for the IPv6-WG
by Raymond Jetten 02 Nov '23

02 Nov '23

Dear IPv6 Working Group, Benedikt Stockebrand, who has been one of the co-chairs of the IPv6 Working Group since RIPE 69 has announced he wishes to step down at the RIPE 87 meeting in Rome, at the end of his term. Thus, we have a call for candidates. The term of a IPv6 WG co-chair is three years. A current co-chair may stand for re-selection at the end of their term or may resign voluntarily at any time. What is the IPv6 WG doing: The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people to deploy IPv6, and to manage IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. These activities include: Outreach Education Sharing deployment experiences Discussing and fixing operational issues The co-chairs also prepare the program for the IPv6 WG session at the ripe meetings. The working group will cooperate with operators and others, both inside and outside the networking industry, to share resources and combine efforts. The tasks and expectations of a WG co-chair are described here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-692 A WG co-chair must comply with the Code of Conduct: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-766 If you feel you are interested in this or have any questions on this, you can drop the current co-chairs a note ipv6-wg-chair(a)ripe.net<mailto:ipv6-wg-chair@ripe.net> We kindly request you to respond at latest Friday 10-November-2023 midday CET (Amsterdam), when the call for candidates will be closed. After this we will announce the candidates on the list, and you can express your support. The official selection will take place at the RIPE 87 Meeting in Rome during the IPv6 Working Group session. On behalf of the IPv6 WG co-chairs, Ray RIPE IPv6 Working Group co-Chair To the co Chairs: ipv6-wg-chair(a)ripe.net<mailto:ipv6-wg-chair@ripe.net> To the mailing list: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:ipv6-wg@ripe.net> For Internal Use Only

2 2

IPv6 mobile deployment (was: Why did the Google IPv6 statistics dropped for the, Netherlands?)
by Geert Jan de Groot 11 Oct '23

11 Oct '23

Hi, May I ask a different, but related question: While IPv6 migration on classic networks (server farms, internet-at-home connections) is ongoing (and has been ongoing for many, many years, alas), we don't seem to make any progress with mobile data networks. My phone shows test-ipv6.com 10/10 when connected to my home wifi, when I connect via my mobile provider, I only get IPv4/CGN. For me, this has been the case for quite a while, with multiple providers. "Mobile" is important for IPv6 migration. Without IPv6 accessibility from mobile networks, the IPv6 migration unfortunately is only engineering overhead because it will never lead to an actual migration. So, what is the opinion of the working group on this one? I did ask the Dutch regulator and they didn't seem to be interested at all in making the migration work. That worries me. Are things different in other countries? Examples we can point to? Geert Jan

6 5