- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Fwd: New I-D: SLAAC and DHCPv6 (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00.txt)
by Fernando Gont 28 Feb '17

28 Feb '17

Folks, FYI: <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00> Abstract: IPv6 has two different mechanisms for dynamic/automatic host configuration: SLAAC and DHCPv6. These two mechanisms allow for the configuration of IPv6 addresses and a number of network parameters. While there is overlap in the parameters that can be configured via these two protocols, different implementations support only subsets of such parameters with either mechanism, or have no support for DHCPv6 at all. This document analyzes a problem that arises from this situation, and mandates that all host implementations support RFC 6105 (DNS options for SLAAC) and the stateless DHCPv6 functionality in RFC 3315. This document is targetted at the IETF v6ops wg. Please send your comments there (if possible), but we'll be happy to discuss this doc on this list, too. Thanks! Fernando (and co-authors) -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: New I-D: SLAAC and DHCPv6 (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00.txt) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 05:13:25 -0300 From: Fernando Gont <fgont(a)si6networks.com> To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops(a)ietf.org> Folks, Based on a recent discussion regarding the problem of conveying DNS information in IPv6 networks, we have submitted this short I-D, in the hopes of getting the aforementioned problem solved. Your feedback will be appreciated. Thanks! Fernando (and co-autors) -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00.txt Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 23:51:03 -0800 From: internet-drafts(a)ietf.org To: Fernando Gont <fgont(a)si6networks.com>, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net>, Madelen Garcia Corbo <madelen.garcia16(a)gmail.com>, Madelen Corbo <madelen.garcia16(a)gmail.com>, Guillermo Gont <ggont(a)si6networks.com> A new version of I-D, draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Fernando Gont and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration Revision: 00 Title: On the Dynamic/Automatic Configuration of IPv6 Hosts Document date: 2017-02-27 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 6 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00… Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration-00 Abstract: IPv6 has two different mechanisms for dynamic/automatic host configuration: SLAAC and DHCPv6. These two mechanisms allow for the configuration of IPv6 addresses and a number of network parameters. While there is overlap in the parameters that can be configured via these two protocols, different implementations support only subsets of such parameters with either mechanism, or have no support for DHCPv6 at all. This document analyzes a problem that arises from this situation, and mandates that all host implementations support RFC 6105 (DNS options for SLAAC) and the stateless DHCPv6 functionality in RFC 3315. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Commercial Incentives of IPv6 Deployment
by Mirjam Kuehne 22 Feb '17

22 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, Please find a new article on RIPE Labs. It is based on the IPv6 Best Practices document published for the Internet Governance Forum 2016 by Izumi Okutani, Sumon A. Sabir and Wim Degezelle. https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/commercial-incentives-of-ipv6-deployme… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuhne RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Bugfixing IPv6 Deployment Statistics
by Mirjam Kuehne 20 Feb '17

20 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, Unfortunately we found a bug in the dataset that shows the percentage of ASes announcing an IPv6 prefix. Please find the details on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/bugfixing-ipv6-deployment-statistics Kind regards, Mirjam Kuhne RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: IPv6 RIPEness in 2017
by Mirjam Kuehne 13 Feb '17

13 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, This new post on RIPE Labs provides an update on our IPv6 RIPEness project, including an analysis of IPv6 RIPEness for new Local Internet Registries: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/ipv6-ripeness-update Kind regards, Mirjam Kuhne RIPE NCC

1 0

Updated NOG wiki
by Michael Oghia 08 Feb '17

08 Feb '17

Dear colleagues, I went through and updated the NOG Wikipedia page this morning. Feel free to add resources/links, or additional NOGs that are not listed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Network_Operators%27_Groups Best, -Michael __________________ Michael J. Oghia iGmena <http://igmena.org/> communications manager Independent #netgov consultant & editor Belgrade, Serbia Skype: mikeoghia Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia>

1 0

high v6 user-base, less atlas probes.
by Vaibhav Bajpai 28 Jan '17

28 Jan '17

Hello, -- sorry for cross-posting Here is a list of top 20 countries that have a large v6 user-base [*] but are underrepresented by RIPE Atlas due to less number of deployed dual-stacked probes. Consider hosting a dual-stacked probe in these regions to help remove the region-based bias that v6 studies using RIPE Atlas may otherwise have: Full paper available here: http://goo.gl/hWGveA (§4) +----+------------+-----------| | CC | v6 Users | v6 Probes | |-----+----+------------+-----------| | 01 | BE | 56.48 % | 2.82 % | | 02 | LU | 35.23 % | 0.61 % | | 03 | GR | 33.66 % | 1.39 % | | 04 | CH | 33.48 % | 3.82 % | | 05 | PT | 29.01 % | 0.74 % | | 06 | IN | 22.25 % | 0.09 % | | 07 | US | 33.00 % | 13.21 % | | 08 | DE | 40.07 % | 21.25 % | | 09 | EC | 18.76 % | 0.04 % | | 10 | JP | 19.69 % | 1.35 % | | 11 | GB | 24.63 % | 7.00 % | | 12 | EE | 16.55 % | 0.26 % | | 13 | CA | 17.83 % | 1.91 % | | 14 | FI | 16.68 % | 1.39 % | | 15 | MY | 14.90 % | 0.13 % | | 16 | IE | 13.22 % | 0.87 % | | 17 | NO | 14.02 % | 1.83 % | | 18 | BR | 12.56 % | 0.83 % | | 19 | AU | 12.76 % | 1.09 % | |-----+----+------------+-----------| [*] The estimation of number of IPv6 users is taken from APNIC dataset: http://labs.apnic.net/dists/v6dcc.html -- Vaibhav -------------------------- Vaibhav Bajpai www.vaibhavbajpai.com Postdoctoral Researcher TU Munich, Germany --------------------------

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: IPv6-only at Microsoft
by Mirjam Kuehne 25 Jan '17

25 Jan '17

Dear colleagues, Please find this new article on RIPE Labs in which Marcus Keane explains why they are planning to do IPv6-only at Microsoft: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ipv6-only-at-microsoft Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: [Igfregionals] Published & for distribution: New IGF resources now available
by Michael Oghia 25 Jan '17

25 Jan '17

Dear colleagues, The 2016 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) intersessional work has been published, including the Best Practice Forum (BPF) outcome documents for the IXP and IPv6 BPFs. Best, -Michael __________________ Michael J. Oghia iGmena <http://igmena.org/> communications manager Independent #netgov consultant & editor Belgrade, Serbia Skype: mikeoghia Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brian Clarke GUTTERMAN <BGUTTERMAN(a)unog.ch> Date: Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:38 PM Subject: [Igfregionals] Published & for distribution: New IGF resources now available To: Anri van der Spuy <anri(a)avds.consulting>, Wim Degezelle < wdegezelle(a)drmv.be> Cc: bp_gender(a)intgovforum.org, igfregionals(a)intgovforum.org, bp_ipv6(a)intgovforum.org, outreach_com_2015(a)intgovforum.org, intersessional_2015(a)intgovforum.org, dc(a)intgovforum.org, bp_ixps(a)intgovforum.org, "bp_cybersec_2016(a)intgovforum.org" < bp_cybersec_2016(a)intgovforum.org> Dear Internet Governance Stakeholders, - We are glad to let you know that the IGF has just published all of the tangible outcomes from its intersessional activities conducted in 2016. These outputs include: - BPF Gender: Outcome resource 2016 <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/3406…> (access and gender) & recommendations roadmap <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/3406…> (online abuse and gender-based violence); - BPF on Internet exchange points (IXPs) <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/bpf-ixps>; - BPF on commercial and economic incentives to deploy IPv6 <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/bpf-ipv6>; - BPF Cybersecurity <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/bpf-cybersecurity> (‘Building Confidence and Security in the use of Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) through Enhanced Cooperation and Collaboration’); and - Policy Options for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s) <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/3416…> (Phase II). These resources are the outputs from bottom-up, inclusive, and community-driven activities of the IGF that took place over the course of 2016 (for more information about these initiatives, please see the Notes at the end of this email). The IGF, along with the facilitators and rapporteurs for all of the respective intersessional activities, are grateful for the invaluable support given and time invested in these activities by numerous stakeholders and volunteers. We would also like to recognise the leadership and dedication of the coordinators, facilitators, and lead experts who supported the IGF’s intersessional work over the past year, including Aaron Hughes, Anri van der Spuy, Brian Gutterman, Constance Bommelaer, Douglas Onyango, Izumi Okutani, Jac SM Kee, Maarten Van Horenbeeck, Marco Hogewoning, Markus Kummer, Salanienta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Sumon A. Sabir, Renata Aquino Ribeiro, Segun Olugbile, and Wim Degezelle, among many others. What can you do with the IGF’s intersessional resources? We encourage all stakeholders to share these resources with their respective communities to ensure that the IGF resource outputs also become useful inputs into other processes of relevance to the Internet and its governance in 2017 and beyond. We hope these resources will not only be useful for policymakers and other stakeholders, but will also continue to symbolise the IGF community’s belief that multistakeholder collaboration is fundamental in effectively addressing pertinent Internet policy challenges. What’s next for the IGF’s intersessional activities? All outputs from the IGF’s intersessional activities are intended to be living documents that can be updated at any time. At the first Open Consultations and IGF multistakeholder advisory group (MAG) meeting in March 2017, stakeholders will discuss potential themes for the next cohort of intersessional activities, including what will happen with the 2016 BPFs and their outputs. The IGF Secretariat invites stakeholders to submit written contributions to the current public consultation <https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-community-public-consu…> stock-taking exercise. In these contributions, stakeholders are also welcome to send recommendations and proposed themes for intersessional activities in 2017. Written inputs should be sent to takingstock(a)intgovforum.org by Friday 27 January. Kind regards, IGF Secretariat NOTES About the IGF The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) serves to bring people together from various stakeholder groups as equals in discussions on public policy issues relating to the Internet. While the IGF has no negotiated outcomes, it serves the important function of informing and inspiring those with policymaking power in both public and private sectors. The IGF facilitates a common understanding of how to maximise Internet opportunities and address risks and challenges that arise. One of the ways in which it does so is through its intersessional activities, which are conducted following recommendations <http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf> from the UN CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF and form part of a broader effort by the IGF community to produce more tangible outputs to “enhance the impact of the IGF on global Internet governance and policy”. About the IGF’s intersessional activities The IGF Best Practice Forums (BPFs) <https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/best-practice-forums-4> continue to offer unique platforms to investigate topical Internet policy challenges by collecting community input and experiences in a flexible and bottom-up manner. Through their substantive outreach efforts and continued calls for input and contributions, the BPFs have already enabled more diverse and varied participation in IGF processes, including from a richer variety of regions and stakeholder groups. By continuously involving new people in their work, the various BPFs also contributed to enlarging the global footprint of the IGF. BPFs worked throughout the year in an open and inclusive way via open mailing lists, regular virtual meetings, and BPF workshops during the 11th IGF meeting in Guadalajara, Mexico, from 6 to 9 December 2016. About the BPF Gender The BPF Gender’s second publication, entitled ‘Overcoming Barriers to Enable Women’s Meaningful Internet Access <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/3406…>’, builds on its work in 2015, when it also published an extensive resource <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/best-practice-forums/623-bpf-onlin….> on online abuse and gender-based violence. In 2016, the BPF furthermore produced a user-friendly infographic roadmap <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/3406…> for addressing online abuse and gender-based violence, based on the key recommendations for diverse stakeholder groups from its 2015 report. The BPF Gender is also partnering with ITU and UN Women’s EQUALS <http://equals.org> partnership, a global initiative aimed at addressing gender inequality, to raise awareness of its outputs. Further details of this collaboration will soon be announced. About the BPF Cybersecurity The 2016 IGF BPF on Cybersecurity <https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/bpf-cybersecurity> built upon the previous work of the IGF CSIRTS and SPAM BPFs. Its work was also guided by the WSIS +10 review process which produced an outcome document <http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/UNPAN96078.pdf> with a strong focus on "building confidence and security in the use of information and communications technologies", making an IGF BPF related to cybersecurity even more relevant. The 2016 discussions and output report <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/3405…> addressed cooperation and collaboration on cybersecurity issues between stakeholder groups as an overarching theme. About the BPF on Internet exchange points (IXPs) The BPF Contributing to the Success and Continued Development of Internet exchange points (IXPs) <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/bpf-ixps> collected best current practices that have proven to contribute to building strong and successful IXPs. Exchanging traffic at an IXP has a number of benefits that can contribute to a more affordable, stable, faster and more reliable Internet of a higher quality in a region. The success of an IXP will be measured by its ability to sustainably contribute to the development of its local Internet ecosystem. The BPF on IXPs focused on the management and operation of an IXP and identified factors that can contribute to success. About the BPF IPv6 IPv6 is the Internet’s addressing system that was developed to deal with IPv4 exhaustion and to make the Internet future-proof. The fast growing number of networks that already supports IPv6 today proofs that IPv6 is a technically feasible option for business. The BPF Understanding the commercial and economic incentives behind a successful IPv6 deployment <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/bpf-ipv6> collected case studies on commercial experiences with IPv6 deployment to better understand challenges and incentives, and provide an opportunity to learn from each other. About Policy Options for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s) - Phase II In 2016, the IGF furthered its seminal work on Policy Options for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s) by investigating challenges and opportunities for addressing and overcoming barriers to meaningful Internet access, promoting meaningful access in diverse contexts and regions, and ensuring that meaningful access also supports the achievement of the UN sustainable development goals. Read the report here <http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/3416…> . Brian Gutterman | Associate Programme Officer Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum United Nations Office at Geneva | Dependance La Pelousse Email: bgutterman(a)unog.ch | Tel: +41229173423 <+41%2022%20917%2034%2023> | intgovforum.org _______________________________________________ Igfregionals mailing list Igfregionals(a)intgovforum.org http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfregionals_intgovforum.org

1 0

Fwd: [menog] Network Diagnostic Tool
by Michael Oghia 20 Dec '16

20 Dec '16

FYI, might be a useful resource to some. Note that according to the OP, "most of the features support IPv6" Best, -Michael ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mehrdad Arshad Rad <arshad.rad(a)gmail.com> Date: Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 6:52 AM Subject: [menog] Network Diagnostic Tool To: menog(a)lists.menog.org Hi, I've started to develop an open source tool 5-6 months ago to help neteng/sysadmin/sysops please take look at the below links and let me know if you have any suggestions. https://github.com/mehrdadrad/mylg You can download it for different operating systems at http://mylg.io Features: - Popular looking glasses (ping/trace/bgp): Telia, Level3 - More than 200 countries DNS Lookup information - Local ping and real-time trace route - Packet analyzer - TCP/IP and other packets - Quick NMS (network management system) - Local HTTP/HTTPS ping (GET, POST, HEAD) - RIPE information (ASN, IP/CIDR) - PeeringDB information - Port scanning - Network LAN Discovery - Web dashboard - Configurable options - Direct access to commands from shell - Support vi and emacs mode, almost all basic features - CLI auto complete and history features Thanks, Mehrdad _______________________________________________ Menog mailing list Menog(a)lists.menog.org http://lists.menog.org/mailman/listinfo/menog

1 0

Fwd: [Bp_ipv6] BPF IPv6 - agenda & remote participation
by Marco Hogewoning 07 Dec '16

07 Dec '16

Dear colleagues, Later today I will be moderating part of a panel discussion, which is to conclude this year's efforts in documenting IPv6 best practice as part of the intersessional work for the Internet Governance Forum. Times mentioned are local for Guadalajara, Mexico. Which is UTC -6, which makes the start of this 22:00 Amsterdam (CET) time. Despite this being pretty late for a lot of you, we hope to welcome you via the remote participation links below. Groet, MarcoH -- RIPE NCC Begin forwarded message: > > Subject: [Bp_ipv6] BPF IPv6 - agenda & remote participation > > Dear all , > > The updated agenda for today’s BPF IPv6 workshop at the IGF can be found at http://sched.co/8hte . > > The workshop is scheduled today Wednesday 7 December at 3:00-4:30 PM in workshop room 1. > > Remote participation: Wed. 7 Dec 9:00 PM UTC / WS room 1 / RP links at https://igf2016.sched.org/info > > The latest version of the draft document: google docs / IGF Review platform > > > Kind Regards > Wim > > _________________________ > > Wim Degezelle > Consultant IGF BPF IPv6 > Consultant IGF BPF on IXPs > > _______________________________________________ > Bp_ipv6 mailing list > Bp_ipv6(a)intgovforum.org > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org

1 0