- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

VS: [ipv6-wg] ipv6 test at ripe56 (not only laptops)
by Petteri Helin 08 May '08

08 May '08

Windows Mobile 6 (HTC Advantage) didn't work, which is not probably big surprise for anybody... :-) I think that WM6 should in theory support IPv6 but haven't heard of anybody actually have it working.... -- -------------------- Petteri Helin petteri.helin(a)tdc.fi ----- Alkuperäinen viesti ----- Lähettäjä: Raymond Jetten <raymond.jetten(a)elisa.fi> Lähetetty: 8. toukokuuta 2008 8:55 Vastaanottaja: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Aihe: [ipv6-wg] ipv6 test at ripe56 (not only laptops) Dear all, The other day we tested the ipv6 WLAN at the RIPE56 meeting on Berlin. Apart of the disconecting problem we ''forgot'' to test f.ex mobile phones with WLAN abilities, and all other PDA's with WLAN ability. I thionk it would be interesting to form a list of compatible devices etc and in this way show either where the problems are or which devices already are compatible. F.Ex. my phone a nokia E70 with the latest software, did not work at all with the v6 network, and software engineers in finland told me the mode is switched off by default and would need a software in which this is enabled. (tested with the default browser that comes with the phone and opera mini. i hope it is a good idea to answer to the list, or of this is not wanted please answer to my own address, i will try to publish the findings lateron (will tell you when and where). ************************************************************ Raymond Jetten Phone: +358 3 41024 139 Tietoliikenneasiantuntija Fax: +358 3 41024 199 Elisa Oyj / Verkonhallinta IP/MPLS Mobile: +358 45 6700 139 Hermiankatu 3A raymond.jetten(a)elisa.fi FIN-33720, TAMPERE http://www.elisafi ************************************************************

1 0

ipv6 test at ripe56 (not only laptops)
by Raymond Jetten 08 May '08

08 May '08

Dear all, The other day we tested the ipv6 WLAN at the RIPE56 meeting on Berlin. Apart of the disconecting problem we ''forgot'' to test f.ex mobile phones with WLAN abilities, and all other PDA's with WLAN ability. I thionk it would be interesting to form a list of compatible devices etc and in this way show either where the problems are or which devices already are compatible. F.Ex. my phone a nokia E70 with the latest software, did not work at all with the v6 network, and software engineers in finland told me the mode is switched off by default and would need a software in which this is enabled. (tested with the default browser that comes with the phone and opera mini. i hope it is a good idea to answer to the list, or of this is not wanted please answer to my own address, i will try to publish the findings lateron (will tell you when and where). ************************************************************ Raymond Jetten Phone: +358 3 41024 139 Tietoliikenneasiantuntija Fax: +358 3 41024 199 Elisa Oyj / Verkonhallinta IP/MPLS Mobile: +358 45 6700 139 Hermiankatu 3A raymond.jetten(a)elisa.fi FIN-33720, TAMPERE http://www.elisa.fi ************************************************************

3 2

ipv6 test at ripe56 (not only laptops) /Nokia E51 didnt work either
by Marton.HAJDU＠ec.europa.eu 08 May '08

08 May '08

Hi unfortunatelly, my Nokia E51 (100.34.20, 29.09.2007 RM-244 Nokia E51 02.1) did not work with v6 either. Regards, Marton

1 0

Agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE56
by David Kessens 07 May '08

07 May '08

Our working group is scheduled to meet on: Wed, May 7, 14:00 - 15:30, in Bordeaux Room, Hotel Palace, Berlin Please see below for our agenda. David Kessens --- Agenda for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE56 When: Wed, May 7, 14:00 - 15:30 Where: Bordeaux Room, Hotel Palace, Berlin A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Quick update from the RIRs regarding ipv6 services - RIPE NCC (Andrei Robachevsky) - APNIC (George Michaelson) C. Experience with ipv6 on the wireless network before, after and during the IPv4 turn-off (James Aldridge, input from the audience) D. Follow-up: - Global IPv6 routing table status (discussion) (Gert Doering) - Problems in the current Global IPv6 Routing System (discussion) (Bernhard Schmidt) E. Report(s) about *actual* v6 traffic volume as compared to v4? *what's real* out there, not what's on powerpoint? - IPv6 traffic at AMS-IX (Arien Vijn) - (input from the audience) F. IPv6 deployment experience at AMS-IX (Arien Vijn) G. Deploying IPv6 at NETNOD (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) H. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond - 6DEPLOY IPv6 trainings in Europe and the rest of the RIR regions (Jordi Palet Martinez) - (input from the audience) ... Y. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan (input from the audience) Z. AOB ---

2 1

Fwd: [address-policy-wg] Joking follow-up, second round
by Turchanyi Geza 04 May '08

04 May '08

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Turchanyi Geza <turchanyi.geza(a)gmail.com> Date: May 4, 2008 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Joking follow-up, second round To: Carlos Friacas <cfriacas(a)fccn.pt> Hello, On 5/2/08, Carlos Friacas <cfriacas(a)fccn.pt> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > > > > 3, My suggestion was at RIPE 55 (and in my previous letter): let's do > > something similar in case of IPv6 what we have done with IPv4. "pseudo" > > dynamic IPv6! (Which is rather static, BTW.) > > > > For ISPs i'm assuming it would be easier to use static allocations, > instead of managing pools. Adding records to public databases is something > separate... Please rememeber, that I also suggested a technical solution: calculate the IPv6 addresses (subnet) from the previously allocated IPv4 address of the DSL user! That means: if we are able to allocate IPv4 addresses in "pseudo dynamic" way (wich is rather static), then we will be able to allocate IPv6 networks roughly at the same way. > 4, It is possible to allocate even /48 for every DSL users, even with the > > "pseudo" dynamic IPv6 allocation mechanism, however, why should we do > > it? If > > an "anonym" DSL user could use the same amount of the address space than > > a > > RIPE registered DSL user then nobody will register its address space in > > the > > database! > > > > You're trying to draw a line to distinguish residential users from > enterprises, is that it? No. I try to draw a line between "light" service and "serious" one (Or: between "dummies" and "experts".) > 5, The IPv6 address space is huge, however, if we do not know who is using > > it then we will loose it soon. > > > > We should always be able to link a single IPv6 address to an LIR/ISP... It won't help, unfortunately. How many people live in Holland? How many SIM card (mobile phone contract) exist? Much more, than people... > 6, Therefore my suggestion was amends previous policies (what were fine > > for > > the "experts", knowing what an IP address is and what a subnet is). > > > > > 8, I also would prefer if the "anonym" DSL users would share a visible > > different address space than the registered one. If IANA would reserve a > > prefix (preferably a /16) for the "anonym" DSL (mobile, CATV, etc) > > users, > > then the RIRs could allocate big pools from this prefix to ISPs using > > different allocation criteria than for the "registered" IPv6 networks. > > Different allocation criteria also mean: sparser usage at the beginning. If we allocate an IPv6 subnet to each and every DSL costumer, very few of them will realy use it at the beginning. However, fast IPv6 transition is not possible without this "generosity". The suggested size of the "anonym" pool is depend on the number of costumers: a /36 for very larg ISPs (more than 15 million costumers), a /40 for medium ISPs, a /44 for smaller ISP-s (less than 1 million costumers) Yes, there are ISP-s serving more than 15-16 millions costumers! This is one of the reasons why I suggested the creation of a new type of reusable addresses, the AS-local IPv4 address pool! > Back to the AS-local IPv4 address space concept: > > > > > > > > Private address space have to be unique within a routing domain, > > AS-local > > address space is unique within the given Autonomous System. (A group of > > autonomous Systems might share > > > > even this address space, but this is the exception, and not the rule.) > > > > > > > > I do think that the AS-local address pool can be created as a > > collaborative > > effort. IANA, ISPs can lease address blocks for this pool. This is not > > trading, but still a reallocation! Any reallocation policy should allow > > creation of a common address pool! > > > > > > > > It is easier to allocate "automatic" and "anonym" IPv6 network for DSL > > users > > if we have a > > > > big enough, better routable IPv4 address pool, an AS-local address pool. > > > > > > > > Please read also my proposals: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-joke… > > > > > > > > and my presentation: ( > > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi-two-jokes… > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Geza > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Joking follow-up, second round
by Turchanyi Geza 30 Apr '08

30 Apr '08

Hi, Many thank for your comments in the first round. I appreciated that most of you read my text and commented only after reading as a whole. Those who listened me at RIPE 55 had been in better position. Let me clarify some details: I fully agree that the final document should not use the term "dummy" and "expert". However, these words emphasize the difference between different class of users. 1, Actually an IP address of a DSL user is not in the RIPE database, expect in the very exceptional case when the DSL user have a fix IPv4 address, may be even a subnet. 2, There are many ways to allocate IPv6 network for DSL users; however, it is hopeless to create database entries for them. The reasons are not only technical, but political. With IPv4 most of the DSL users had pseudo-anonym IPv4 addresses, their contact details had been known only by their ISP (and by the police, eventually), and the ISP is not allowed at all to publish the user data in any open database. 3, My suggestion was at RIPE 55 (and in my previous letter): let's do something similar in case of IPv6 what we have done with IPv4. "pseudo" dynamic IPv6! (Which is rather static, BTW.) 4, It is possible to allocate even /48 for every DSL users, even with the "pseudo" dynamic IPv6 allocation mechanism, however, why should we do it? If an "anonym" DSL user could use the same amount of the address space than a RIPE registered DSL user then nobody will register its address space in the database! 5, The IPv6 address space is huge, however, if we do not know who is using it then we will loose it soon. 6, Therefore my suggestion was amends previous policies (what were fine for the "experts", knowing what an IP address is and what a subnet is). 7, I still propose a common policy: how to distinguish between an "anonym" DSL user and a "registered" one. My proposal is: an "anonym" DSL user should receive a minimum IPv6 allocation. In this case the "minimum" is one subnet (/64) or, if there are automatically usable subnets for special purpose then the minimum size might include those subnets. If a DSL user need more then should fill an address request, and registered. 8, I also would prefer if the "anonym" DSL users would share a visible different address space than the registered one. If IANA would reserve a prefix (preferably a /16) for the "anonym" DSL (mobile, CATV, etc) users, then the RIRs could allocate big pools from this prefix to ISPs using different allocation criteria than for the "registered" IPv6 networks. Back to the AS-local IPv4 address space concept: Private address space have to be unique within a routing domain, AS-local address space is unique within the given Autonomous System. (A group of autonomous Systems might share even this address space, but this is the exception, and not the rule.) I do think that the AS-local address pool can be created as a collaborative effort. IANA, ISPs can lease address blocks for this pool. This is not trading, but still a reallocation! Any reallocation policy should allow creation of a common address pool! It is easier to allocate "automatic" and "anonym" IPv6 network for DSL users if we have a big enough, better routable IPv4 address pool, an AS-local address pool. Please read also my proposals: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-joke… and my presentation: ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi-two-jokes… Many thanks for your attention, Geza

1 0

Joking follow-up
by Turchanyi Geza 30 Apr '08

30 Apr '08

Hi, Is there anyone experienced in creating RIPE policy documents AND ready to help me to create a new one? (Or: two new ones). In the previous RIPE meeting I gave a talk ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi-two-jokes…) and attached a copy of a draft-RFC ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-joke… ) I realized that some of my ideas relate to policies, other relate to technologies. As there is a separate policy working group now, I try to create a policy document as well – and need some help to formalize and may be finalize, correct my ideas. Highlights: 1, AS-local IPv4 address pool creation and maintenance 2, IPv6 address pool and address allocation for dummies Details1 (AS-local IPv4): The drafts ( http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/turchanyi--two-joke…) gives more details, please find a short summary below. One of our responses to IPv4 address scarcity was the creation of "IPv4 private address pool" in 1994-1996. However: The scope of private addresses is not defined well; The private address pool size is too small for large ISPs; Network Address Translation should be in use at every routing domain borders. AS-local IPv4 pool should be similar but a little bit different compared to private address pool: Uniquely use in every Autonomous system (or collaborative group of ASs) Different set of IPv4 addresses (different scope!); Mechanism to add and revoke address-blocks by contributors to this pool should be implemented (in order to create a contribution-friendly atmosphere); Network Address Translation should be applied only if the destination address is outside of the originator Autonomous System boundary. The introduction of AS-local addresses would help us not only maintain our present IPv4 service, however, support the IPv4->IPv6 transition. (See below) Details2 - IPv6 address pool and address allocation for dummies: As everybody knows, there are well defined IP address allocation policies for fixed, static networks, like an University campus, or an enterprise network. These sites should have administrative and technical contact persons, the "tech" knows what an IP address is, the "admin" pays the bill, and both person is in the database of the Regional Registry. However, a huge part of the IP address space is used differently: both the "tech" and the "admin" work for the ISP, and the actual costumer of the IP address might not even know that he/she is using an IP address. (is a dummy costumer, only in this respect). This is the typical case in DSL environment today with IPv4. The introduction of IPv6 won't change too much. Shall we treat and regulate the IP address allocation for the "dummies" in the same way as we do it for the "experts"? I do not think so. In fact, we can not. Is there any policy for the "dummies"? I was unable to find it. If you have 30 millions "dummy" DSL (or cable modem, or mobile-phone) users how would you provide IP addresses for them? Of course, global addresses are the best. However, as there are not enough global addresses, some tricks should be applied. Common practice: allocate IP addresses dynamically. (BTW: dynamic allocation also mean pseudo-anonym and temporary allocation.) Dynamic allocation saves addresses considerably. However: If only 50% of the costumers connect at peak time today, tomorrow this may increase to 60%. That means: the need for addresses increased 20% while the costumer base is still the same. Using non-global, reusable IP addresses still does not solve all the problems. 30 millions is much more than the total size of the private address pool. Even if the ISP would assume, that not all users connect to the network at the same time, it might not help for long time as the number of costumer being on-line at peak time might increase. AND: using private addresses also means loosing functions. If your computer has a private address, you can not provide any services outside the private address domain (this stops using a couple of popular games, etc) This restriction is unavoidable consequence of using any kind of reusable addresses. However: the private address domain is very restricted. By using AS-local addresses, we would have a larger routing domain and fewer restrictions.) If we create an AS-local address pool, then it is possible to allocate reusable IP addresses in a more stable manner. This allocation is still a dynamic allocation, however, rather stable AND easy to couple IPv6 allocation with it. However, if we allocate IPv6 networks for every costumer that use dynamic IPv4 allocation today then most of them won't use for a while the IPv6 stuff. AND this IPv6 allocation will be pseudo-anonym, not directly reflected in the RIPE (or other RIRs) database. Therefore I suggest that ISP-s should have a dedicated IPv6 address pool for "dynamic IPv6" allocations and these address pool should be easily recognizable. (This was the reason why I proposed in my talk at RIPE 55, that all "dynamic IPv6" pool should be allocated from an IANA dedicated /16 prefix) The size of the "dynamic IPv6" network should be the minimal one: /64. If there are mechanism that allows automatic use a subnet, than a little bit bigger size might be allowed (max /60), however if /56 or /48 would be allowed than there wont be any more interest to have a RIPE registered network instead a "dynamic" one, therefore my suggestion is to declare in the policy that a "dynamic" IPv6 allocation should be as narrow as possible. OK. Please help me to rewrite the above idea to formulate policies. Thanks, Geza Turchanyi INFO-C

6 7

Call for agenda items and draft agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE56
by David Kessens 24 Apr '08

24 Apr '08

During next RIPE meeting, our working group is scheduled to meet on: Wed, May 7, 14:00 - 15:30, in Bordeaux Room, Hotel Palace, Berlin I have prepared a draft agenda (see below) with the all the usual agenda items. At this point, I would like to invite all of you to propose other agenda items that are relevant for the deployment of ipv6 in the RIPE service region. Note that we care more about the technical content of your topic than the presentation method: very brief topics without presentation slides that just need a brief discussion are just as welcome as longer presentations with slides. I would also like to draw your attention to the following: The RIPE NCC is planning to turn off IPv4 connectivity on the wireless network for the duration of around an hour on the wednesday morning. This will allow us to try out how one could survive on an IPv6 only network and to draw attention to all the issues that still need to be worked out in order to make this work 100% seemless for the rest of the Internet users. In order to help you prepare, in addition to the normal dual stack wireless network, there will be an IPv6 only wireless network available during the whole meeting and the RIPE NCC will provide instruction sheets on how to configure various popular operating systems. Obviously, the participants of the IPv6 working group don't need all this as we are already fully prepared for the coming of IPv6. However, you are very welcome to participate by helping other people to get their setup to work with IPv6 or by submitting reports and bugfixes/workarounds on problems that are discovered when trying this out. The actual operational details about this event will be posted by the RIPE NCC. In addition to our working group session and the ipv6 only event, I would like to encourage you to take a look at the plenary agendas. There are a large number of presentations scheduled that touch directly or indirectly on IPv6. I hope this helps and see you all in Berlin, David Kessens --- Draft agenda for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE56 When: Wed, May 7, 14:00 - 15:30 Where: Bordeaux Room, Hotel Palace, Berlin A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Quick update from the RIPE NCC regarding ipv6 services (RIPE NCC) C. Experience with ipv6 on the wireless network before, after and during the IPv4 turn-off (RIPE NCC, input from the audience) D. Report(s) about *actual* v6 traffic volume as compared to v4? *what's real* out there, not what's on powerpoint? (input from the audience) E. Follow-up: Global IPv6 routing table status (discussion) (Gert Doering) F. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience) ... Y. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan (input from the audience) Z. AOB ---

2 3

Conference, Internet and Technology 08, invitation
by Vilem Sladek 02 Apr '08

02 Apr '08

Dear Mr., dear Mrs., my name is Vilem Sladek and I work for CZ.NIC (www.nic.cz) in Prague. For May 2008 we prepare the conference Internet and Technology 08, where we would like to present Internet experiences from the World. We would like also introduce more about IPv6, so we would like to invite you to Prague, to present about IPv6 to the Czech community. The conference is planed on 20th of May, will start at 10 a.m. and finished at about 5 p.m. The conference will be divided it to four parts (Domains, Internet Resources, Technologies and Zeitgeist). Your presentation is planed to second block (Internet resources). We are really interested in this topic and would like to introduce it to the Internet community in the Czech Republic. Please, could you send me the information or call me, if you want to know more detail, if you would like to came, if we can do anything for you for welcome you at the conference Internet and Technology 08. Thank you for your interest and will looking forward the answer. Best regards form Prague Vilem Sladek -- Vilém Sládek Communication Specialist CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. Americka 23, 120 00 Praha 2 Czech Republic T +420 222 745 117 F +420 222 745 112 M +420 739 452 919 www.nic.cz

1 0

What is difference among /32 , /48 and /64 as charge?
by Yavuz Maşlak 08 Feb '08

08 Feb '08

We are a LIR as small class. We want to apply for ipv6. Is there a difference as charge apply for between /32 and /64 ? I mean, a LIR who has large class, when that LIR applies for /32 and has it, What does that LIR cost for that ? Also, While We are a LIR as small; 1- Can we apply for ipv6 /32 ? 2- What is difference among /32 , /48 and /64 as charge? Thanks a lot.

3 2