- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

plea for increase participation in v6ops/IETF
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 13 Jun '17

13 Jun '17

Hello all, At the last LACNIC event, I mentioned on a couple of occasions the need for ISPs in the region, especially small and medium-sized ones, to participate in the decisions taken in the IETF IPv6 Operations Working Group (v6ops). I’m sending this here as well, as I believe the situation also apply to this region. When I asked among the attendees how many participate in v6ops, only one person raised his hand. What does it mean to participate in the mailing list? Follow some emails (sometimes only 1-2 a week, sometimes they can be several in a day), and therefore learn about what is being discussed and give your opinion and, given that decisions are made by Consensus, influence them. What consequences has NOT participating? That decisions against your interests/opinions could be taken, and obviously do not consider your perspective in the standards. Generally large operators are involved, which implies that your interests are not sufficiently represented, and in general are contrary to yours. Your "vote/opinion" is not worth more than yours, but the big one is present and the small/medium NO! I give you a very concrete example. The serious problem that small and medium ISPs have, is to continue offering IPv6 and IPv4 services to their customers, when they already do not have IPv4 addresses. Only the biggest ISPs have a great purchasing power and can influence the manufacturers to do for them what they need. One possibility to solve it, extending the life of IPv4, but not necessarily deploying IPv6, is using CGN, which is also very expensive, and breaks many things. The solution is simple. Deploying IPv6-only services in the last mile, which involves using transition mechanisms, such as 464XLAT that has been deployed on millions of smartphones worldwide, so that applications continue to operate transparently as they "believe" they have IPv4. What is the problem, then? That manufacturers of CPEs are based on an old specification (RFC7084) that does not contemplate these transition mechanisms, so when a small/medium ISP asks a manufacturer for a firmware upgrade or a new CPE, they do not include that solution and perhaps they offer it with an extra cost. In my view, this should change, and that is why I am working on a number of documents, including RFC7084-bis (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis/), To update this situation, but there is opposition from large ISPs and virtually no small/medium "talks" about it, and in fact these large ISPs deny the situation. In addition, the document also specifies the "automated" support of those cases in which the user installs other routers (which is very common as we all know, and will be more and more in IPv6, IoT, etc.), behind the router installed by the ISP, through homenet (HNCP). I am not asking for your support for my documents, but for understanding the problem and the solution that is being proposed and/or possible new ones, and for the opinion of not only those very few “big ones”, but also of many small and medium, who are most affected. If you want to subscribe to this list, search for "subscribing" at: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops You can see the files of the discussion in: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=v6ops I remind you that participating in the IETF does not require a presence in the meetings, as consensus is agreed in the list. Regards, Jordi ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: 12 Steps to Enable IPv6 in an ISP Network
by Mirjam Kuehne 08 Jun '17

08 Jun '17

Dear colleagues, Please find this new article by Jordi Palet Martinez on RIPE Labs: "12 Steps to Enable IPv6 in an ISP Network" https://labs.ripe.net/Members/jordipaletm/12-steps-to-enable-ipv6-in-an-isp… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuhne RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: 6th Anniversary of IPv6 Day and the next RIPE NCC Hackathon
by Mirjam Kuehne 06 Jun '17

06 Jun '17

Dear colleagues, We're celebrating the 6th anniversary of IPv6 Day with two IPv6 related articles on RIPE Labs: 6th Anniversary of the World IPv6 Day: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/nathalie_nathalie/6th-anniversary-of-the-worl… and Save the Date for the RIPE NCC IPv6 Hackathon in October: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/becha/save-the-date-ripe-ncc-hackathon-versio… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuhne RIPE NCC

1 0

New IPv6 Support for Governments Programme
by Mirjam Kuehne 17 May '17

17 May '17

Dear colleagues, Governments planning IPv6 deployments can now access assistance through our new IPv6 Support for Governments Programme. This is part of our ongoing efforts to work more closely with governments and encourage IPv6 adoption throughout our service region. We have explained our approach in more detail in a RIPE Labs article here: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/arne_kiessling/ipv6-support-for-governments-p… We have also documented this on our website here: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/ipv6/ipv6-for-governments If you represent a government that is planning to make an IPv6 allocation request, please get in touch with us by emailing <IPv6forGov(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuhne RIPE NCC

1 0

IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document - draft v.2 for review.
by Jan Zorz - Go6 16 May '17

16 May '17

Dear RIPE IPv6 WG, As promised at BCOP TF meeting on Monday, the co-authors present at the RIPE74 meeting gathered on Tuesday afternoon and did some editorial work, addressing majority of the comments and suggestions we got from the community based on first version of the draft. Draft version 2 is now available for reading at https://sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v2.pdf We'll have a short "lightning talk" in Thursday IPv6 WG session, please go and read the document (those that have enough time and energy), so we get more feedback and input for further improvements (if needed). See you all in couple of hours! For co-authors team, Jan Žorž

7 15

RIPE73 meeting minutes
by Jen Linkova 08 May '17

08 May '17

Hello, I know I should have sent this email long time ago but better late than never... Anyway, the meeting minutes for RIPE73 IPv6 WG sessions could be found at https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ipv6/minutes/minutes-from-the-ipv6… Please review them (especially if you said anything at the mic), and let us know if there are any errors/omissions. Again, sorry for being late with sending this email. I'd also like to thank RIPE NCC for providing the meeting minutes! -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry on behalf of IPv6 WG chairs.

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: IPv6 RIPEness Through the Years
by Mirjam Kuehne 13 Apr '17

13 Apr '17

Dear colleagues, In 2010, we introduced IPv6 RIPEness to recognise Local Internet Registries in the RIPE NCC service region that had begun deploying IPv6. Seven years later, we looked at how the IPv6 RIPEness level of the RIPE NCC membership evolved over time. Please find some interesting results on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/ipv6-ripeness-through-the-years Kind regards, Mirjam Kuhne RIPE NCC

1 0

IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions
by Jan Zorz - Go6 13 Apr '17

13 Apr '17

Dear RIPE IPv6 WG, As promised at last RIPE meeting in Madrid, we produced a first draft of "Best Current Operational Practice for operators: IPv6 prefix assignment for end-users - static (stable) or dynamic (non-stable) and what size to choose." The aim of this document is to document the best current operational practice on what size of IPv6 prefix ISPs should assign/delegate to their customers and should they delegate it in a stable, static way or should it change over time. Please find the PDF attached and also accessible at: https://www.sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v1.pdf We are submitting this document to RIPE IPv6 WG (here) to check the technical validity of the document and also get consensus on it. We are also submitting it to RIPE BCOP TF to check if this is a real best operational practice and get consensus on it there. Please, read the document and send back comments to this mailing list. All feedback is more than welcome. On behalf of co-authors, Jan Žorž P.S: This document is not intended to document what practices may be in future and what they might look like, but to reflect the best methods of implementing IPv6 at the time of publication. Updates to this document will be published to reflect changes in best current practices where there are developments in standards and implementations.

13 30

ipv6-wg: SixXS is shutting down
by Pim van Pelt 28 Mar '17

28 Mar '17

Colleagues of RIPE's IPv6 working group, In 1999, Jeroen and I started SixXS, a project which aimed to provide IPv6 connectivity to users who wanted to learn about the network protocol and gain experience operating IPv6 networks. Our vision was to facilitate migration to IPv6 in content and access providers. We were able to provide IPv6 to 50’000+ individual users and companies in 140+ countries, using servers hosted at 40+ Internet providers in 30+ countries. We are incredibly proud of what we’ve accomplished together, and how many people have gotten to know all about IPv6 due to our combined efforts. We have completed a retrospective and rationale document, which details our experience developing and operating the SixXS tunnelbroker over the last 18 years. We have worked through our plans with the many dedicated ISPs that have been involved: https://www.sixxs.net/sunset/ We have reached out to users recently, giving them 6 weeks to make alternative plans. We have chosen a somewhat symbolic date of 2017-06-06 to turn down the SixXS service. Our website will remain as a tombstone. Please feel free to pass this along to any group or list you feel would benefit from it, and reach out to <info(a)sixxs.net> or to myself directly <pim(a)ipng.nl> if you have thoughts you’d like to share between now and then. Kindest Regards, Pim van Pelt and Jeroen Massar (SixXS founders) -- Pim van Pelt <pim(a)ipng.nl> PBVP1-RIPE - http://www.ipng.nl/

3 2

including a CLAT (464XLAT) SSID in RIPE meetings
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 24 Mar '17

24 Mar '17

Hi all, I was suggesting the NCC OPS team to include in the meeting network a VM machine that provides a “CLAT” SSID in the meeting network. They suggested that, same as it was done for the NAT64 SSID, the topic is discussed in the IPv6 WG, as there is not a “formal” procedure to agree on that. So, I checked with the IPv6 WG co-chairs and they asked me to foster this topic in the mailing list … so here we are. While 464XLAT has been extensively tested and deployed in the cellular world, I think most of the wireline and wireless (not cellular) ISPs, haven even heard about it or evaluated the potential for those environments, the same that happens probably with MAP-T/E. Having just a NAT64 gives the impression to the people that today you can deploy IPv6-only access to customers and we know is not the case, because the app. Even if 80% (which will take YEARS to happen) of the app developers “correct” their apps, you will still get many things broken in homes and offices. So is undesirable (in my opinion) to work (only) in that direction. And even more, those apps, hardware, etc., that will never be updated, will never work with a NAT64-only scenario. With 464XLAT (or MAP), you avoid deploying CGN, which is a high cost, and you provide the *same* functionality that today “regular” customers (residential, SMEs, even many big companies that don’t have to export IPv4 services outside their LANs). If we demonstrate this “live” in the RIPE meeting network, I think we can change some of the participant’s minds, and I believe the cost of that is really small, may be a couple of hours of one of your OPS team colleagues, as I’ve already done the work and I’m happy to help them on testing in their lab, document what I’ve done (already working on that), and anything else they may need. Also, if the NAT64 is already there, it becomes much easier, as only the VM with the CLAT is needed (unless you want to “separate” the NAT64 for each SSID). By the way, the plan is to have this also in the next meetings of other RIRs (already planned). So, opinions? Regards, Jordi ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

2 2