- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

internal additional IPv4 assignment policy
by Lubos Pinkava 12 May '10

12 May '10

Hello, I've raised an idea concerning additional IPv4 assignments for our customers during RIPE60 beering with quite positive responses, so I would like to share it here and maybe get some additional feedback. We are a company running ISP/collocation business, promoting IPv6 since 2003 and already having substantial amount of IPv6 enabled customers. In our point of view, it's still pretty slow growth. What I indend to propose for our operations - active imediately - is this: - all customers requesting additional /25 (variable) shall have IPv6 assigned and asked for trying it (if not already done before) - all customers requesting additional /24 (variable) must already have active v6 services running (eg. NS/MX/web site for the beginning) There were several other ISP's interested, each of course with own specifics - but in general, we have agreed, that this can speed up IPv6 adoption especially in collocation / infastructure area and can still go through company processes. If there are more people interested, we can create some best practice document backing up our work. Any thoughts on this subject? Lubos Pinkava Casablanca INT s.r.o.

3 4

Re: [ipv6-wg] internal additional IPv4 assignment policy
by Geoffroy RIVAT 06 May '10

06 May '10

Hi, In-Reply-To: <4BE2BAAD.1040906(a)casablanca.cz> Lubos Pinkava wrote: > Hello, > > I've raised an idea concerning additional IPv4 assignments for our > customers during RIPE60 beering with quite positive responses, so I > would like to share it here and maybe get some additional feedback. > > We are a company running ISP/collocation business, promoting IPv6 > since 2003 and already having substantial amount of IPv6 enabled > customers. In our point of view, it's still pretty slow growth. > > What I indend to propose for our operations - active imediately - is this: > > - all customers requesting additional /25 (variable) shall have IPv6 > assigned and asked for trying it (if not already done before) > - all customers requesting additional /24 (variable) must already > have active v6 services running (eg. NS/MX/web site for the > beginning) This is a really good idea, on our network for each customers we have configured IPv6 and try to help them to use it. Our last procedure says to add firewall rules in both v4 and v6 when they ask using the last 2 bytes of the v4 address to map to their v6 address -- Geoffroy Rivat

1 0

Agenda for IPv6-wg @ RIPE 60 (v1)
by Shane Kerr 28 Apr '10

28 Apr '10

Hello, The IPv6 working group is scheduled for the same time at RIPE 60 in Prague as it was in RIPE 59 - immediately following the plenary on Tuesday. Here is a proposed agenda: A. Administrative stuff - Introduction - New charter - New chairs - Agenda bashing B. Javascript-based HTTP client measurements by Emile Aben C. IETF v6ops activity by Kurt Lindqvist D. CPE Overview by Marco Hogewoning E. IPv6 global policy review by Filiz Yilmaz F. IPv6-wg brainstorming . . . Y. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan Z. AOB & wrap-up The "brainstorming" session is an attempt to have some discussion about concrete ideas that we can use to reach the goals of the new charter. Marco will lead the session, but hopefully everyone will come with new ideas ready and join in. -- Shane

4 4

IPv6 client loss measurements, now on the web
by Tore Anderson 28 Apr '10

28 Apr '10

Hi list, I've finally gotten around to creating a web page dedicated to the measurements I've posted about here earlier. You'll find it at <http://fud.no/ipv6/>. It will be automatically updated every night, and it even has graphs. I think it'll be a much better home for the information than an IPv6 mailing list archive, so this means I won't be posting monthly reports any longer. Feel free to have a look! Any feedback is of course very welcome. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ Tel: +47 21 54 41 27

1 0

Agenda for IPv6-wg @ RIPE 60 (v2)
by Shane Kerr 27 Apr '10

27 Apr '10

All, An updated version of the agenda. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The IPv6 working group is scheduled for the same time at RIPE 60 in Prague as it was in RIPE 59 - immediately following the plenary on Tuesday. Here is a proposed agenda: A. Administrative stuff - Introduction - New charter - New chairs - Agenda bashing B. IPv6 at Web Clients and Caching Resolvers by Emile Aben, RIPE NCC C. IETF v6ops activity by Kurt Lindqvist, Netnod D. CPE Overview by Marco Hogewoning, XS4ALL E. IPv6 WorldWide Policy Review by Filiz Yilmaz, RIPE NCC F. Mobile broadband and IPv6 in Slovenia by Jan Zorz, go6.si G. Update on Recent RIPE NCC IPv6 Activity by Christ Buckridge, RIPE NCC H. IPv6-wg brainstorming . . . Y. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan Z. AOB & wrap-up The "brainstorming" session is an attempt to have some discussion about concrete ideas that we can use to reach the goals of the new charter. Marco will lead the session, but hopefully everyone will come with new ideas ready and join in. -- Shane

1 0

Major additions to Team Cymru's Bogon Feed - includes IPv6 prefixes
by Steve Santorelli 19 Apr '10

19 Apr '10

Team Cymru is pleased to announce a significant addition to our bogon reference project which might be of interest to this list as it relates to IPv6 matters. The new portions of the project are offered at no cost to the community, and the original bogon lists and feeds are not being changed or canceled, just augmented. The new "fullbogon" feed includes prefixes allocated to RIRs, but not assigned by the RIRs to end-users, ISPs, etc, providing a more complete view of the unassigned space that should not be seen on the Internet. This new service is therefore more granular than the original feed, including a wide variety of non-routable prefixes as well as unassigned prefixes and it also includes IPv6 prefixes. Simply email bogonrs(a)cymru.com with your ASN, peering IP addresses and whether you use MD5 authentication. See an overview in the 46th episode of Team Cymru's 'The Who and Why Show' at www.youtube.com/teamcymru, as well as a more basic overview in episode 12. For a more detailed explanation, see <http://www.team-cymru.org/Services/Bogons/>. Even more so than the original feed, there are significant changes to the list every day and the feed automatically recalculates the prefixes as they are allocated from the regional registries, so make sure you are able to regularly update your lists. Internet security is all about "the other guy." If one sizeable network is insecure, it WILL be used to abuse other networks. We look forward to continuing to help our community to secure the edge. Why is this important? Bogons are defined as Martians (private and reserved addresses defined by RFC 1918 and RFC 5735) and netblocks that have not been allocated to a regional internet registry (RIR) by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. A bogon prefix is a route that should never appear in the Internet routing table on a Router. A packet routed over the public Internet (obviously, not including over VPNs or other tunnels) should never have a source address in a bogon range. These are commonly found as the source addresses of DDoS attacks and our research has previously shown that, in some cases, up to 60% of DDoS packets were obvious bogons (e.g. 127.1.2.3, 0.5.4.3, etc.). This new service comprises a larger set which also includes IP space that has been allocated to an RIR, but not by that RIR to an actual ISP or other end-user. While not all DDoS attacks use bogons, every little bit helps. Note additionally that bogon filtering is a component of anti-spoofing filtering, which is also very important. Internet security is all about "the other guy." If one sizeable network is insecure, it WILL be used to abuse other networks. We look forward to continuing to help our community to secure the edge. warm regards, Steve. -- Steve Santorelli,Team Cymru, Inc.|www.team-cymru.org steve(a)cymru.com|[moderated] Also, please note that there are many way to keep up with what Team Cymru are doing, see the lower part of: http://www.team-cymru.org/About/contact.html plus: * join our announce list via cymru-announce-subscribe(a)cymru.com * see what we see, www.team-cymru.org/Monitoring/Graphs * probably the best news feed in the world, www.team-cymru.org/News * cool stuff you can use, www.team-cymru.org/Services/ * see our Twitter feed at http://twitter.com/teamcymru

1 0

The end of IPv4 and the arrival of IPv6 in spanish newspaper
by García Fernández, Fernando 10 Apr '10

10 Apr '10

It seems that it's finally getting to the mass media. A spanish newspaper (Publico, one of the top ten if you can say clasify them), publish an article called "Internet runs out of address" with the subtitle "The OCDE tells that we must speed up the deployment of the new protocol IPv6". I think this is a good start. For those who understand spanish (or who dare to believe to Google translation) here is the URL: http://www.publico.es/ciencias/305214/internet/quedasin/direcciones Regards, Fernando -- Tecnocom Fernando García Fernández D.G. Integración de Redes y Sistemas Josefa Valcarcel, 26 Edificio Merrimack III Madrid - 28027 Tel. Fijo: 901900900 ext 40383 Fax: (+34) 914313240 Tel. Móvil: (+34) 649428591 E-mail: fernando.garcia(a)tecnocom.es http://www.tecnocom.es

1 0

Question on Challenges of IPv6 deployment
by Edu Abume 05 Apr '10

05 Apr '10

Hi, This site has been very educative and helpful to me. Can anyone tell me: The challenges organizations face with IPv6 deployment, The organizational settings (types) that really needs to deploy quickly and Probably the deployment methodologies they prefer to use. Thanks. Edu

1 0

IPv6 brokenness in Norway, March 2010 (fwd)
by Tore Anderson 01 Apr '10

01 Apr '10

Hi, I've been posting these reports to the ipv6-ops list for some time now. Shane Kerr asked if I could post them here too, something which I don't mind doing at all, so here comes the one for March: -------- Opprinnelig melding -------- Emne: IPv6 brokenness in Norway, March 2010 Dato: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 01:35:01 +0200 Fra: Tore Anderson <tore.anderson(a)redpill-linpro.com> Organisasjon: Redpill Linpro AS Til: ipv6-ops(a)lists.cluenet.de Hi list, I'm happy to announce that the client loss is at an all-time low: 0.074% over the whole month, and it's been steadily decreasing. Buggy versions of Opera as well as Mac OS X appears to be responsible for about 95% of all measured client loss. Some noteworthy dates and events: 20100302: Opera 10.50 released, using getaddrinfo() on Windows. Gets an initial boost thanks to the Microsoft browser ballot. 20100322: Opera pushes 10.51 to their auto-update function. 20100324: A-Pressen Interaktiv re-joins the experiment. 20100327: First day of (extended) Easter holiday for many Norwegians. 20100331: The Gathering, a large data-party, kicks off. Provides native IPv6 connectivity to all participants. The numbers show that the release of Opera has helped quite a lot. Before the release of 10.50, the overall client loss was above 0.090%, but already right before Easter holiday it's below 0.065%. Easter holiday shows an interesting effect - both the measured amount of native IPv6 _and_ client loss drop sharply. The reason for this is that there's one particular network here in Norway that is the by far largest deployment of native IPv6 (about 80-85% of all requests over native IPv6 comes from it), but it is at the same time one of the largest causes of client loss, because it aggravates the Mac OS X/Opera problems significantly by filtering 6to4 traffic on ingress for a large number of end users (that have no native IPv6 service). The typical user on this network is also much more likely to take an extended Easter holiday than the the rest of Norway's population, I believe. I've been measuring the uptake of Opera 10.50+ on Windows Vista/7 in the whole period, and it has been steadily increasing even during the extended Easter holiday. About 72.5% of the Win Vista/7 Opera users were using 10.50+ at the end of the month. So while I do expect the client loss number to rebound somewhat when Easter holiday is over (on the 6th of April), I will be very surprised if it stabilises higher than 0.06-0.07%. The Mac OS X problem appears to occur when a client station has internet service using NAT/RFC 1918 numbering for IPv4, and 6to4 for IPv6. The Apple Airport Extreme SOHO router can operate in this way, and did so by default up until recently. In this case, OS X, or more precisely its getaddinfo() implementation, will prioritise 6to4 over IPv4. In addition, GNU libc (therefore all major Linux distributions) behave in the same way, but I'm not able to measure any impact, probably because there's so few Linux users to begin with. The issue is not actually a bug, but a shortcoming of RFC 3484. I've elaborated on it in reports to Apple and the glibc developers here: http://lists.apple.com/archives/Ipv6-dev/2010/Mar/msg00003.html http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11438 As an aside it's a bit fun to see how a relatively small deployment of IPv6 eyeballs like the data party (around 5000 participants I think) can dramatically change the amount of hits coming in from hosts with native IPv6. It more than doubled overnight. There's two reports attached, one generated from the readers of VG Multimedia - the online edition of Norways largest newspaper, and also Norway's largest web site, and the other from the readers of A-Pressen Interaktiv - an umbrella organisation that publishes the online editions of about 70 regional newspapers. When put together, they constitute Norway's fourth largest web site. In addition to the overall calculation, I've done five other calculations so you can see the individual impact of the different problems I've identified: - One that excludes hits from buggy versions of Opera on Windows Vista/7 (which auto-configures 6to4 and Teredo by default) excluded, - one that excludes hits from buggy versions of Opera on other versions of Windows (where a user must explicitly enable 6to4/Teredo), - one that excludes all hits from Mac OS X, - one that excludes all of the above, and - one that excludes all hits from the two significant end-user networks in Norway that filter 6to4 ingress traffic (one of them is the one I discussed above). This calculation does _not_ exclude Opera/OS X; when Opera and OS X are excluded, the two networks have about the same levels of client loss as rest of the internet. The seventh column shows approximately how much of the total client loss would have been avoided (in percentage points and percent), if the software in question didn't prefer 6to4 over IPv4, or, in the last case, if the two end-user networks mentioned didn't filter 6to4 on ingress. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ Tel: +47 21 54 41 27

1 0

ipv6 multicast
by Kristoff Bonne 01 Apr '10

01 Apr '10

Hi, As multicast is part of standard ipv6-stack, I was wondering how many ISPs who have ipv6 enabled have (or plan to have) ipv6 enabled on their backbone. Are there any statistics on this? Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.

1 0