- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

New on RIPE Labs: Lightweight 4over6: One-step Further Than Dual-stack Networks
by Mirjam Kuehne 28 Jun '18

28 Jun '18

Dear colleagues, Please read this new RIPE Labs article by Diego Pino Garcia, one of the RACI fellows from RIPE 76. Diego describes lw4o6 (RFC 7596) and introduces Snabb, a toolkit that eases the development of high-performance network functions: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/diego_pino_garcia/lw4o6-one-step-further-than… Kind regards, Mirjm Kühne RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Spam Over IPv6 - Eight Years Later
by Mirjam Kuehne 18 Jun '18

18 Jun '18

Dear colleagues, A long time ago we published an article on the amount of spam we receive over IPv6. Now, eight years later, we were curious to see if the spam landscape has changed: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/ivodijkhuis/spam-over-ipv6-8-years-later Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

1 0

Invitation to supply feedback on ITU draft Recommendation on IPv6 address planning for IoT
by Jetten Raymond 15 Jun '18

15 Jun '18

Dear colleagues, RIPE 76 is coming closer and as you may have seen on the agenda, the date of the IPv6 WG has changed from Wednesday to Thursday. The reason for the date change you can read below and in the subject. If you want to present or have a topic that would be of great interest to the IPv6wg, send your presentation or explain the contents to ipv6-wg-chairs(a)ripe.net<mailto:ipv6-wg-chairs@ripe.net> and mention also how much time you would need. The session which will be on Thursday 17 may 2018, in Palais du Pharo, Marseille, France. Now back to the subject: During RIPE 74, Marco Hogewoning of the RIPE NCC, presented about ongoing work in ITU Study Group 20, which includes development of a Recommendation on an IPv6 address plan for IoT networks. In his presentation he also mentioned a Liaison Statement send by the ITU asking the RIPE NCC for feedback, to which they suggested that this work would be done in a more appropriate venue such as the RIPE community or at least that such a document would be developed in close coordination with the operational community. We, the chairs, have been following this discussion and after talking to RIPE NCC and some community members, we have understood that there has not been any operational feedback on this particular draft and ITU is still seeking input, for instance also by sending a Liaison Statement to IETF. In response to all this, we have decided to invite a representative of ITU, to join us in Marseille for RIPE 76 and present this work to us, for the purpose of collecting and incorporating feedback from IPv6 experts and network operators on their draft recommendation. We are happy to announce that ITU Study Group 20 has responded positively to our offer and have decided to share the current working draft with us, for the purpose of review and for RIPE community to provide feedback. As it is quite big, the text of this draft Recommendation Y.IPv6RefModel "Reference model of IPv6 subnet addressing plan for Internet of things deployment" has been made available on the IPv6 WG pages: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ipv6/documents/itu-ipv6refmodel We kindly invite you to provide feedback and comments on the contents of this document via this mailing list or of course the RIPE Forum web interface. The RIPE NCC has agreed to ensure that the comments will be collected and made available to the ITU via response to the Liaison Statement below. We of course also hope to discuss the feedback with the editor of the document during our second session at RIPE 76. Regards, Benedikt, Jen, Raymond Liaison Statement we received from ITU Study Group 20 in response to our invite: > ITU-T Study Group 20 Q3/20 thanks the RIPE NCC for their contribution that contained the invitation from the RIPE IPv6 Working Group. We thank the RIPE IPv6 Working Group for the invitation to present Draft Recommendation ITU-T Y.IPv6RefModel at the May 2018 RIPE meeting for the purpose of obtaining operational feedback and input. We are delighted to recognize the invitation from RIPE and confirm it is the intention of the editor of the Draft Recommendation ITU-T Y.IPv6RefModel to participate in the RIPE meeting in May 2018. > > Attached is a copy of the draft Recommendation. We look forward to the feedback and comments from the RIPE community. For Internal Use Only

8 8

New on RIPE Labs: IPv6 Adoption Statistics: How do APNIC and Facebook Compare?
by Mirjam Kuehne 13 Jun '18

13 Jun '18

Dear colleagues, Both APNIC and Facebook publish statistics on IPv6 adoption per country. Next to the visualisations, these organisations also provide the numerical data. We take a look at these to see how the two methodologies compare. Please read on RIPE Labs: IPv6 Adoption Statistics: How do APNIC and Facebook Compare? https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/ipv6-adoption-statistics-how-do-apnic… Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

1 0

Experiences with IPv6-only MX as primary?
by Shane Kerr 11 Jun '18

11 Jun '18

Hello, I set up a mail server zone to have an IPv6-only primary and a dual-protocol secondary, like this: ; SMTP chooses lower-priority first, so smtp-primary is preferred example.com. 300 MX 10 smtp-primary.example.com. example.com. 300 MX 100 smtp-secondary.example.com. ; smtp-primary is IPv6-only smtp-primary.example.com. 300 AAAA 2001:DB8::1 ; smtp-secondary has both IPv6 and IPv4 addresses smtp-secondary.example.com. 300 AAAA 2001:DB8::2 smtp-secondary.example.com. 300 A 192.0.2.11 Mail delivery via IPv6 works fine (as you would expect), and mail delivery from some IPv4-only servers also works fine (as I think the standards dictate). My concern is that some mail servers may choke on this setup. For example, http://mailtester.com complains "Network is unreachable". Of course, I also worry about all the spammers who may not be able to deliver because of incomplete mail implementations on the trojans and other viruses infecting their zombie hosts. 😉 Does anyone have any experience with a similar setup? Have there been problems? Cheers, -- Shane

2 1

Celebrating the Anniversary of World IPv6 Launch on RIPE Labs
by Mirjam Kuehne 07 Jun '18

07 Jun '18

Dear colleagues, We've been celebrating the sixth anniversary of the World IPv6 Launch with an RIPE NCC::Educa IPv6 Day event and a series of IPv6-related articles on RIPE Labs. Blockers to IPv6 and How to Overcome Them: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/david_holder/blockers-to-ipv6-adoption Celebrating IPv6 Launchiversary: A View from RIPE Atlas and K-root: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/stephen_strowes/ipv6-launchiversary-a-review-… So Long and Thanks for All the IPv6 (an article on the dissolution of the Dutch IPv6 Task Force): https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_hogewoning/so-long-and-thanks-for-all-t… RIPE NCC::Educa IPv6 Day (and the RIPE NCC's perspective on IPv6 deployment): https://labs.ripe.net/Members/ulka_athale_1/ripe-ncc-educa-ipv6-day Happy reading :-) Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

1 0

Y.IPv6RefModel is out of scope for the ITU
by Nick Hilliard 31 May '18

31 May '18

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ipv6-wg wrote on 26/05/2018 12:16: > I already said this before, but "... in running such networks vis > [via] the RIR policy making fora." is wrong. Stepping back a bit, what we're discussing here is not whether address assignment / allocation models should be dealt with by the RIRs or the IETF, but whether they are in scope for the ITU. The answer to this is that all aspects of IP number resource management are resoundingly out of scope for the ITU. This includes all IP number resource assignment and allocation issues, all addressing models, and by direct implication, the SG20 work on the Y.IPv6RefModel work item. There needs to be a crystal clear statement from the RIR community that this entire exercise is wildly out of scope for the ITU, that SG20 needs to cease and desist from reaching into areas outside their competence, and that the Y.IPv6RefModel work item needs to end, immediately and permanently. Nick

6 7

comments on Y.Pv6RefModel
by Jim Reid 26 May '18

26 May '18

I lurk on this list. However I have to say something about this document, mostly because of what’s happening at ITU SG20. It’s taken a lot of work by Marco and others to persuade SG20 to engage with RIPE. And it’s important that we respond clearly. I just have three things to say. 1) The document is very poor. [I’m being uncharacteristically diplomatic.] It contains lots of errors. The proposed addressing plans are just wrong. It would be a *huge* mistake for anyone to adopt these and much, much worse if SG20 recommends them for global adoption. SG20 should abandon this fundamentally flawed document. Work on it simply has to stop. 2) IP addressing plans for IoT devices can’t and shouldn’t be discussed in isolation. They have to be developed in the context/circumstances of the networks where these devices will be used: ie alongside everything else that’s using or will be using the Internet. If members of SG20 have ideas on IP addressing plans, they are more than welcome to come to the RIR fora where their suggestions can be discussed/analysed and possibly incorporated into RIR address policy. That work can’t and shouldn’t take place at SG20. Or elsewhere in the ITU. 3) It’s unacceptable for the ITU to even attempt to get involved in IP addressing. It’s out of scope. They should stick to co-ordination of E.164 numbers and X.25 addresses. IP addressing is primarily a matter for the RIRs. And other Internet-related fora like RIPE, NANOG, IETF, etc. There’s no role for the ITU in this at all.

5 9

Re: [ipv6-wg] comments on Y.Pv6RefModel
by Willy MANGA 25 May '18

25 May '18

Hi, > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 10:07:13 +0100 > From: Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> >[...] > 3) It?s unacceptable for the ITU to even attempt to get involved in IP addressing. It?s out of scope. They should stick to co-ordination of E.164 numbers and X.25 addresses. IP addressing is primarily a matter for the RIRs. And other Internet-related fora like RIPE, NANOG, IETF, etc. There?s no role for the ITU in this at all. maybe a coordonnated letter from NRO (or ICANN), ISOC which explained *diplomatically* that IP addressing is a matter of RIRs :) -- Willy Manga @ongolaboy https://ongola.blogspot.com/

1 0

itu document on ipv6 addressing for iot
by James Morrow 25 May '18

25 May '18

i read this document with a mixture of astonishment, confusion and horror. it's awful. the document is utterly, utterly broken. it has no redeeming or worthwhile qualities at all. the only thing it's good for is an example of how #not# to do an ip addressing plan based on errors and poorly articulated, mistaken assumptions. it also shows beyond any doubt that itu should not meddle in ip addressing because it has no competence or mandate to get involved in this field. i've already seen far too many deeply flawed itu documents on ipv6, such as the 2009? nav6 study. this one's much, much worse. it's painfully obvious whoever wrote this junk has no understanding and operational experience of how to design or deploy an ipv6 addressing plan for any non-trivial ipv6 network. the document is not a sound piece of work that makes any sort of technical or engineering sense. the document is riddled with errors - far too many to list. it makes ridiculous assertions that have no basis in fact and does not provide any references to justify these claims or let someone check them. i started to write down these flaws and then gave up in disgust. why should i do somebody else's homework for them? conflating ipv6 uptake rates with developed/developing countries is yet another serious failing. these things are completely orthogonal to each other. the unstated assumptions are wrong too. first of all, the notion of "special" ipv6 addressing plans for iot devices is foolish. these don't need to be treated differently and shouldn't be treated differently from anything else that's connected to the internet - at least from an addressing perspective. next, it's beyond absurd to suggest or imply there could be one over-arching addressing plan that can be used and will work perfectly for iot devices in any network or every use case. that's just basic common sense. how you'd do that depends on the actual network and its requirements. for example take smart lightbulbs: an addressing plan for home use wouldn't be suitable for a large building (school, hospital, office block, etc) or for a town's street lights. they'd all have different (subnet) addressing plans that were suited to their specific needs - number of lights, topology, security, planned expansion, architecture(s), link-layer connectivity, redundancy / spofs, budget, latency, bandwidth, interoperability and compatibility with existing systems / networks (if any), access controls and so on. the document doesn't even hint at any of those considerations. the only thing to be done with this document is kill it. kill it with fire. it's too far gone to be fixed or salvaged.. imo, the wg needs to tell itu to stay well away from ip addressing and leave this to the experts who actually build and run ip networks.

3 4