- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

ip address pricing and protocol selection
by Wolfgang Zenker 31 Oct '20

31 Oct '20

Hello WG, I have a question for those of you that offer some kind of hosting. Do you charge your customers extra for IPv4 or IPv6 addresses? And if you have changed your policy on that recently, did that change your customers behaviour regarding their choice on ordering and publishing IPv4 / IPv6 addresses for the hosted services? Reason for asking: At our own hosting services we started out offering dual stack by default some 6 years ago, moved to ipv6-only by default about 2 years ago and since about one year we are charging extra for IPv4 addresses. This has led to a change in behaviour in our customer base, and I want to see if others are seeing similar changes or a different situation. You can reply off-list and I will summarize the results to the group. Please state if I should mention your name in the summary. Greetings, Wolfgang Zenker -- punkt.de GmbH Tel. +49 721 9109-500 Fax: -100 .infrastructure info(a)punkt.de https://infrastructure.punkt.de/ Kaiserallee 13a CEO: Jürgen Egeling, Daniel Lienert, Fabian Stein D-76133 Karlsruhe AG Mannheim HRB 108285

2 1

RIPE554-bis
by Tim Chown 30 Oct '20

30 Oct '20

Hi, I’m posting here as a heads-up that an effort has begun to revise RIPE-554, involving the original authors, myself and Tim Winters. We have a 5 min slot tomorrow in the 1pm CET IPv6 WG session to flag the work, to solicit input. The original publication was back in November 2010 with RIPE-501, which was updated in June 2012 with RIPE-554. There’s many references that have been obsoleted, and potentially much to add or remove. References to 2G cellular date the document. We’d like to begin by addressing the more strategic / structural questions. Such high level questions include: - Is there agreement to progress a –bis version now? Eight years have passed, people ask for guidance… - Should we keep the scope to (largely) enterprise or expand it? If so, to what? - Is the linkage to the IPv6 Ready Logo programme still desired? - Are there new classes of equipment to add, e.g. IoT/low power, WiFi controllers, …? - Are specific sections outdated, or are there significant new sections to add? - Should we add guidance on applying the content to different use cases? As separate docs? Appendices? We’ve currently working on the -bis as a Google doc, for which there’s a PDF of the current snapshot available from: https://go6.si/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/RIPE554-bis-v_01.pdf For now, please comment to the list, and maybe start a new thread for new topics. Tim

7 9

Rquirements for VPN
by christian bretterhofer 29 Oct '20

29 Oct '20

After reading https://go6.si/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/RIPE554-bis-v_01.pdf I see VPNs as part of the Network Security Equipment. But in my opinium there is not enough definition to be a VPN quality criteria. VPN external Protocol Must support IPv6 clients to IPv6 servers (6-to-6) ( Ipv6 Only) VPN external Protocol Must support IPv4 clients to IPv4 servers (4-to-4) (Ipv4 only) Transport inside of VPN VPN inner Protocol Must support IPv6 clients to IPv6 servers (6-to-6) VPN inner Protocol Must support IPv4 clients to IPv4 servers (4-to-4) VPN inner Protocol should support Dual stack. VPN inner Protocol should support 4in6 6in4 (transition protocols) The Idea from wireguard is maybe also a should the external protocol switch from Ipv6 to Ipv4 or Ipv4 to Ipv6 then the inner protocol should stay connected. Protocols with DNS64/NAT64 support would also help. maybe it fist into this recommendation document. -- --- best regards Christian Bretterhofer Enterprise User:

3 2

Minutes from ripe 80
by Jetten Raymond 28 Oct '20

28 Oct '20

Hi, We have published the RIPE 80 minutes as draft here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/ipv6/minutes/ipv6-workin… Let me know if these need any changes or corrections. Rgds, Ray

1 0

IPv6 WG @ RIPE81 Agenda
by Jen Linkova 08 Oct '20

08 Oct '20

The agenda for the IPv6 WG session at RIPE81 has been published: https://ripe81.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ipv6-wg/ Thanks to everyone who submitted a talk - this time we got really overbooked so my apologies if your talk was not accepted! See you in 3 weeks! -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: A Look Into the Tor Network Work on Supporting IPv6
by Alun Davies 01 Oct '20

01 Oct '20

Dear colleagues, With support from the RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund 2019, the Tor project has implemented IPv6 support across its network. Read how the work they've done will help make sure users across the RIPE NCC service region will have a more reliable experience on the Tor network: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/tor_grants/a-look-into-the-tor-network-work-o… Kind regards, Alun Davies RIPE NCC

1 0

IPv6 WG@RIPE81: Call for Presentations
by Jen Linkova 18 Sep '20

18 Sep '20

Hello, RIPE81 will be virtual, from Oct 27th till Oct 30th. IPv6 Working Group is tentatively scheduled for Oct 29th, 13:00 - 13:45. We are looking for talks - please email ipv6-wg-chair(a)ripe.net if you'd like to present. Thanks! -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

1 1

[news] The IPv6 Fundamentals – Analyst Exam Is Live
by Sandra Bras 17 Aug '20

17 Aug '20

Dear colleagues, The IPv6 Fundamentals – Analyst exam is now live! You can use your LIR’s vouchers to schedule a RIPE NCC Certified Professionals exam using our online exam platform. The IPv6 Fundamentals - Analyst exam is intended for individuals who are familiar with best current practices in IPv6. It certifies your ability to calculate IPv6 subnets, create an IPv6 addressing plan and recognise the application of IPv6 transition mechanisms, among other skills. We would like to thank the RIPE community members who supported the exam creation process by writing and reviewing questions, and also answering our Job Task Analysis survey. You can find out more about the IPv6 Fundamentals – Analyst badge at: https://www.ripe.net/support/certified-professionals/ipv6-fundamentals-anal… <https://www.ripe.net/support/certified-professionals/ipv6-fundamentals-anal…> As for us here at Learning and Development, we’re getting back to work on our next exam – IPv6 Security Expert, which we expect to launch towards the end of 2020 or early 2021. All the best for the exam! Best regards, Sandra Bras Assistant Manager, Learning and Development RIPE NCC

1 0

IPv6 Exam Guide is Available
by sbras＠ripe.net 04 Aug '20

04 Aug '20

Dear colleagues, We’re putting the finishing touches on the first IPv6 exam in RIPE NCC Certified Professionals – “IPv6 Fundamentals – Analyst”. This exam is intended for people who are familiar with IPv6 best current practices and certifies your ability to calculate IPv6 subnets, create an IPv6 addressing plan, and recognise the application of specific IPv6 transition mechanisms, among other skills. Many of you have already shown interest in this exam. As requested, we’ve made the study guide available in advance so you can start preparing. You can read more about the exam and download the study guide here: https://www.ripe.net/support/certified-professionals/ipv6-fundamentals-anal… We will let you know when exam scheduling is available. Best regards, Sandra Sandra Bras Assistant Manager, Learning and Development RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: [v6ops] Question about "Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers"
by Fernando Gont 29 Jul '20

29 Jul '20

Folks, FYI. The document is this one: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-04 And the request input should be directed to <v6ops-chairs(a)ietf.org>, following the instructions described bellow. Thanks! Cheers, Fernando -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [v6ops] Question about "Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers" Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 22:55:45 -0700 From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf(a)gmail.com> Reply-To: V6Ops-Chairs <v6ops-chairs(a)ietf.org> To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops(a)ietf.org> It looks like Fernando (et al) revised this and posted draft -04 on Saturday, and there has been a flurry of discussion. I haven't been through the document or the entire thread yet, but I do observe that a number of people have comments, and several people have expressed interest in the document. Let me ask the obvious question: you we want to adopt this as a working group draft? I won't ask you to hum; whether you wish to say "yes", "no", or "abstain", please reply to this email *privately* (which is to say, to v6ops-chairs) with that word prepended on the subject line. I'll give us 48 hours, which is to say that I will evaluate and state the result Thursday evening Pacific time. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&q=%22draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-… https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&q=%22Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers%22 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops "Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets with Extension Headers", Fernando Gont, Nick Hilliard, Gert Doering, Warren Kumari, Geoff Huston, 2020-07-25, _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list v6ops(a)ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

1 0