All, I checked Geoff Huston's IPv4 estimate again today: http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html Assuming he's correct, we have 4 more RIPE meetings until IANA runs out of IPv4 addresses: RIPE 59 (2009 Autumn) RIPE 60 (2010 Spring) RIPE 61 (2010 Autumn) RIPE 62 (2011 Spring) And... that's it! IANA is done with IPv4! Then the real fun begins as we enter the RIR IPv4 run-out period. We then have 1 or 2 RIPE meetings until the RIRs run out of IPv4 blocks to hand out: RIPE 63 (2011 Autumn) RIPE 64 (2012 Spring... maybe) So... what is going on in the RIPE IPv6 working group at this critical phase? Since the last RIPE meeting there have been messages from the RIPE NCC about their IPv6ActNow stuff and a survey, and some messages about the minutes. The only thread with any content has been one about IPv6 minimum allocation sizes (thanks Marco!). This is not much. Since this group isn't actually doing anything, I propose we: 1. Shut down this working group after the next RIPE meeting. 2. Move discussion of IPv6 issues to other working groups (since "IPv6 issues" will become "IP issues" very soon anyway). Cheers, -- Shane
Hi, This is really concerning. We could provide *IPv6 connectivity only*, during a certain period of time, for some people feel the pain. :-) Anyway, this is an hot subject that should be raised next October. Looking forward to see you there, --- Nuno Vieira nfsi telecom, lda. nuno.vieira@nfsi.pt Tel. (+351) 21 949 2300 - Fax (+351) 21 949 2301 http://www.nfsi.pt/ ----- "Shane Kerr" <shane@time-travellers.org> wrote:
All,
I checked Geoff Huston's IPv4 estimate again today:
http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html
Assuming he's correct, we have 4 more RIPE meetings until IANA runs out of IPv4 addresses:
RIPE 59 (2009 Autumn) RIPE 60 (2010 Spring) RIPE 61 (2010 Autumn) RIPE 62 (2011 Spring)
And... that's it! IANA is done with IPv4!
Then the real fun begins as we enter the RIR IPv4 run-out period. We then have 1 or 2 RIPE meetings until the RIRs run out of IPv4 blocks to hand out:
RIPE 63 (2011 Autumn) RIPE 64 (2012 Spring... maybe)
So... what is going on in the RIPE IPv6 working group at this critical phase?
Since the last RIPE meeting there have been messages from the RIPE NCC about their IPv6ActNow stuff and a survey, and some messages about the minutes. The only thread with any content has been one about IPv6 minimum allocation sizes (thanks Marco!).
This is not much.
Since this group isn't actually doing anything, I propose we:
1. Shut down this working group after the next RIPE meeting. 2. Move discussion of IPv6 issues to other working groups (since "IPv6 issues" will become "IP issues" very soon anyway).
Cheers,
-- Shane
Hi, we're planning to use ipv6 only on our backbone. Our idea is to use ipv6 for backbone mpls and mpls vpn to holding old ipv4 customers and all ipv4 networks inside vpn BUT today LDP work only with IPv4. So now we can't use ipv6 for mpls and we have still use ipv4 addresses to run ldp on backbone and 6vpe for vpn. Any comments ? Thanks Isacco -- Ing. Isacco Fontana Trentino Network s.r.l. A socio Unico Direzione Servizi Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO Tel (+39) 0461.020200 Fax (+39) 0461.020201 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cap. Soc. sottoscritto € 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA 01904880224 E-mail: sede@trentinonetwork.it Società soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Autonoma di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 09:45:34AM +0200, Isacco Fontana wrote:
we're planning to use ipv6 only on our backbone. Our idea is to use ipv6 for backbone mpls and mpls vpn to holding old ipv4 customers and all ipv4 networks inside vpn BUT today LDP work only with IPv4. So now we can't use ipv6 for mpls and we have still use ipv4 addresses to run ldp on backbone and 6vpe for vpn.
Any comments ?
When approached about missing IPv6 transport implementation (specs are there!) for LDP+RSVP, Cisco and Juniper both say "no customer demand". Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Hi Daniel, thanks for your answer. I think this (LPD over ipv6) is not a customer (isp/carrier) demand but a real problem when RIRs stop to allocate ipv4 addresses. How ISP/Carriers can build a new mpls backbone If big vendor not support the IPv6 over LDP and isp can't make request for new ipv4 blocks ? Isacco Daniel Roesen ha scritto:
On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 09:45:34AM +0200, Isacco Fontana wrote:
we're planning to use ipv6 only on our backbone. Our idea is to use ipv6 for backbone mpls and mpls vpn to holding old ipv4 customers and all ipv4 networks inside vpn BUT today LDP work only with IPv4. So now we can't use ipv6 for mpls and we have still use ipv4 addresses to run ldp on backbone and 6vpe for vpn.
Any comments ?
When approached about missing IPv6 transport implementation (specs are there!) for LDP+RSVP, Cisco and Juniper both say "no customer demand".
Best regards, Daniel
-- Ing. Isacco Fontana Trentino Network s.r.l. A socio Unico Direzione Servizi Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO Tel (+39) 0461.020200 Fax (+39) 0461.020201 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cap. Soc. sottoscritto EUR 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA 01904880224 E-mail: sede@trentinonetwork.it Società soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Autonoma di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Monday 07 September 2009 05:06:47 am Isacco Fontana wrote:
I think this (LPD over ipv6) is not a customer (isp/carrier) demand but a real problem when RIRs stop to allocate ipv4 addresses. How ISP/Carriers can build a new mpls backbone If big vendor not support the IPv6 over LDP and isp can't make request for new ipv4 blocks ?
Given how much money vendors are making from MPLS, it might be safe to say they'll have support for it when v4 runs out. The only question is which customer will be big enough for them to get it in there :-). My main concern is, given how much traffic is being carried by MPLS today (for better or worse), the earlier vendors put out native support for it in v6, the quicker bugs can be worked out. Even if support became available today, I'd probably feel safer not deploying it at least 3 releases from when it's launched, looking at the current state of v6 debug (or lack thereof) for folk that have deployed it. Cheers, Mark.
Do you think we can start discussion with big vendors (Cisco/Juniper) ? Mark Tinka ha scritto:
On Monday 07 September 2009 05:06:47 am Isacco Fontana wrote:
I think this (LPD over ipv6) is not a customer (isp/carrier) demand but a real problem when RIRs stop to allocate ipv4 addresses. How ISP/Carriers can build a new mpls backbone If big vendor not support the IPv6 over LDP and isp can't make request for new ipv4 blocks ?
Given how much money vendors are making from MPLS, it might be safe to say they'll have support for it when v4 runs out. The only question is which customer will be big enough for them to get it in there :-).
My main concern is, given how much traffic is being carried by MPLS today (for better or worse), the earlier vendors put out native support for it in v6, the quicker bugs can be worked out. Even if support became available today, I'd probably feel safer not deploying it at least 3 releases from when it's launched, looking at the current state of v6 debug (or lack thereof) for folk that have deployed it.
Cheers,
Mark.
-- Ing. Isacco Fontana Trentino Network s.r.l. A socio Unico Direzione Servizi Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO Tel (+39) 0461.020200 Fax (+39) 0461.020201 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cap. Soc. sottoscritto € 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA 01904880224 E-mail: sede@trentinonetwork.it Società soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Autonoma di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 05:36:13PM +0200, Isacco Fontana wrote:
Do you think we can start discussion with big vendors (Cisco/Juniper) ?
Of course. Go to your vendor, tell him "we are not going to buy your gear if you are not shipping LDP-over-IPv6"! If you're waving with enough money, they might even listen. But as long as everybody is just grumbling to himself, the vendors might truthfully say "noone has asked yet". Gert -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Monday 07 September 2009 11:36:13 pm Isacco Fontana wrote:
Do you think we can start discussion with big vendors (Cisco/Juniper) ?
Gert is right, the more we "collectively" speak to our vendors, the quicker they will likely implement the technology (it's not new, it's already been documented). For instance, I've been pushing Cisco and Juniper for an MPLS control plane for v6 for nearly 2 years now, but this isn't enough. Vendors tend to listen if: a) there is a collective. or b) as Gert and myself have already mentioned, you're waving wads of cash their way. Cheers, Mark.
Hi, yes I agree but during IETF 74 Swallow, Kompella and others said the next generation backbone networks will based on mpls for transport so I think the support of ldp over ipv6 should be added before the RIRs stop to allocate ipv4 addresses. Isacco Mark Tinka ha scritto:
On Monday 07 September 2009 11:36:13 pm Isacco Fontana wrote:
Do you think we can start discussion with big vendors (Cisco/Juniper) ?
Gert is right, the more we "collectively" speak to our vendors, the quicker they will likely implement the technology (it's not new, it's already been documented).
For instance, I've been pushing Cisco and Juniper for an MPLS control plane for v6 for nearly 2 years now, but this isn't enough. Vendors tend to listen if:
a) there is a collective.
or
b) as Gert and myself have already mentioned, you're waving wads of cash their way.
Cheers,
Mark.
-- Ing. Isacco Fontana Trentino Network s.r.l. A socio Unico Direzione Servizi Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO Tel (+39) 0461.020200 Fax (+39) 0461.020201 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cap. Soc. sottoscritto € 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA 01904880224 E-mail: sede@trentinonetwork.it Società soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Autonoma di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, I'm quite sure that we, as network operations people, will be discovering more and more "glitches" in the big vendors IPv6 implementations as we transit along. As far as I go, I'm sure we'll be getting very "gray-haired" due to this... Ragnar Us On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Isacco Fontana < isacco.fontana@trentinonetwork.it> wrote:
Hi, we're planning to use ipv6 only on our backbone. Our idea is to use ipv6 for backbone mpls and mpls vpn to holding old ipv4 customers and all ipv4 networks inside vpn BUT today LDP work only with IPv4. So now we can't use ipv6 for mpls and we have still use ipv4 addresses to run ldp on backbone and 6vpe for vpn.
Any comments ?
Thanks Isacco --
Ing. Isacco Fontana
Trentino Network s.r.l. A socio Unico
Direzione Servizi Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete
Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO Tel (+39) 0461.020200 Fax (+39) 0461.020201
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cap. Soc. sottoscritto € 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA 01904880224 E-mail: sede@trentinonetwork.it Società soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Autonoma di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 6.9.09 18:00, Ragnar Belial Us wrote:
Hi,
I'm quite sure that we, as network operations people, will be discovering more and more "glitches" in the big vendors IPv6 implementations as we transit along. As far as I go, I'm sure we'll be getting very "gray-haired" due to this...
Ragnar Us
More glitches we report back to developers/vendors, more glitches we get fixed. :) Jan Zorz
On Sunday 06 September 2009 03:45:34 pm Isacco Fontana wrote:
we're planning to use ipv6 only on our backbone. Our idea is to use ipv6 for backbone mpls and mpls vpn to holding old ipv4 customers and all ipv4 networks inside vpn BUT today LDP work only with IPv4. So now we can't use ipv6 for mpls and we have still use ipv4 addresses to run ldp on backbone and 6vpe for vpn.
I may need to pull up some old e-mails to confirm, but the last time we spoke to Juniper, they planned to have support for an MPLS control plane for IPv6 some time end of this year (nothing yet, so far). As for Cisco, no firm commitment. Let me give them another ping and see if I turn up anything useful. Cheers, Mark.
On 4 Sep 2009, at 16:20, Nuno Vieira - nfsi wrote:
We could provide *IPv6 connectivity only*, during a certain period of time, for some people feel the pain. :-)
This has already been done at RIPE meetings, as well as other RIR & IETF meetings. f
Shane, On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 05:04:10PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote:
Since the last RIPE meeting there have been messages from the RIPE NCC about their IPv6ActNow stuff and a survey, and some messages about the minutes. The only thread with any content has been one about IPv6 minimum allocation sizes (thanks Marco!).
This is not much.
Since this group isn't actually doing anything, I propose we:
1. Shut down this working group after the next RIPE meeting. 2. Move discussion of IPv6 issues to other working groups (since "IPv6 issues" will become "IP issues" very soon anyway).
You clearly have not read the minutes and/or have been at any of the meetings as we have run out of time every single meeting in the past few years and we needed the largest meeting room available. In any case, are you coming to the next RIPE meeting so that I can put this on the agenda and you can propose this to the working group ? David Kessens ---
Hi, On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 08:47:29AM -0700, David Kessens wrote:
You clearly have not read the minutes and/or have been at any of the meetings as we have run out of time every single meeting in the past few years and we needed the largest meeting room available.
Which might not be *so* contradictory in the end. If we consider IPv6 to be "the mainstream Internet" in the future, the IPv6 content will sort of naturally move to "the plenary" (because that's what we all should be interested in, no?). If that happens, the question "what remains to be specifically discussed inside the IPv6 WG" is a valid one. I don't think that this is a very realistic scenario for the next few years, though - and I expect lots of "IPv4 centric" talk in the plenary. Like "how can I make my NAT devices scale?" and "how can I make my users stop hating me for NATting to death all their connections"... :-) OTOH, maybe we should create an IPv4 WG (and an IPX WG) for those still stuck with last century's legacy networking protocols. half-seriously, Gert Doering -- myself -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Gert, On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 06:25:09PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 08:47:29AM -0700, David Kessens wrote:
You clearly have not read the minutes and/or have been at any of the meetings as we have run out of time every single meeting in the past few years and we needed the largest meeting room available.
Which might not be *so* contradictory in the end.
If we consider IPv6 to be "the mainstream Internet" in the future, the IPv6 content will sort of naturally move to "the plenary" (because that's what we all should be interested in, no?). If that happens, the question "what remains to be specifically discussed inside the IPv6 WG" is a valid one.
Yes, that should be the natural course when IPv6 is going to become more mainstream. Even now already, we carefully weigh (with plenary/eof program committee) whether certain topics are more fit for the plenary program or for the IPv6 working group. David Kessens ---
David, On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 08:47 -0700, David Kessens wrote:
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 05:04:10PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote:
Since the last RIPE meeting there have been messages from the RIPE NCC about their IPv6ActNow stuff and a survey, and some messages about the minutes. The only thread with any content has been one about IPv6 minimum allocation sizes (thanks Marco!).
This is not much.
Since this group isn't actually doing anything, I propose we:
1. Shut down this working group after the next RIPE meeting. 2. Move discussion of IPv6 issues to other working groups (since "IPv6 issues" will become "IP issues" very soon anyway).
You clearly have not read the minutes and/or have been at any of the meetings as we have run out of time every single meeting in the past few years and we needed the largest meeting room available.
On the contrary, I have been at most of the RIPE meetings in the last few years, and read most of the minutes. I think you are making a common mistake of management, which is you are confusing cost with benefit. This confusion is natural, because cost is often relatively easy to measure, compared to benefit. The time spent in meetings talking about IPv6 is a cost. I don't disagree that there have been rooms full of IPv6 advocates or people who want to learn about IPv6, talking for hours and hours. What I am unsure of is the actual benefit of this activity. The suggestion to close the working group is partially an observation that this discussion between IPv6-aware people actually works AGAINST the idea of IPv6 adoption. I had a look at the charter for this working group: The IPv6 working group follows the progress of specification and implementation of the new IP version. It coordinates implementations in Europe and is going to create testbeds. Based on that I guess the working group is at least partially successful. I see lots of "following", although not much "coordinating" and certainly no testbeds. Perhaps it is time to move beyond the traditional administrative and technical co-ordination of RIPE and begin shameless advocacy. Widespread IPv6 adoption is in the best interests of everyone. I am sure we can think of a lot of ways that RIPE can use its unique position to improve IPv6 adoption. The discussion about vendors saying "no demand" is a good point. Things like petitions signed by a huge number of ISPs in Europe may have an effect. It may also be possible to encourage governments in the RIPE region to insist on IPv6 for new purchases. I doubt there would be a shortage of ideas if people were asked for them. However, none of that seems to be happening now. If it is, it is happening "off-camera", certainly not on the mailing list. Maybe that is okay, given the working group seems to be chartered to merely keep track of what is going on. But honestly, I don't see the point. Surely we can find something better to do with our time than see another chart showing IPv6 traffic rise 20% (*)? As Gert noted, IPv6 discussion should naturally move to wider forums. I actually quite like his idea of having an IPv4 working group - or perhaps we should call it the Post-Exhaustion Working Group.
In any case, are you coming to the next RIPE meeting so that I can put this on the agenda and you can propose this to the working group ?
I guess I'm a little confused. I thought I already did propose this to the working group? :) In any case I'll be at the next RIPE meeting, and will be happy to discuss this there. -- Shane (*) From 0.000012% to 0.000014% I mean. ;)
Perhaps it is time to move beyond the traditional administrative and technical co-ordination of RIPE and begin shameless advocacy. Widespread IPv6 adoption is in the best interests of everyone.
Have you heard of <ipv6-wg@ripe.net>, not to mention the RIPE postion statement on IPv6? Advocacy can be bad as well as good. I think that the blind advocacy of the past has actually hurt IPv6 adoption and we need to be careful not to carry that forward. There are sound business and technical reasons to deploy IPv6 over the next couple of years, and to upgrade software and systems to support that deployment.
I am sure we can think of a lot of ways that RIPE can use its unique position to improve IPv6 adoption.
I'm sure that we can think of lots of ways in which RIPE's unique position makes it relatively powerless when it comes to impacting IPv6 adoption.
The discussion about vendors saying "no demand" is a good point. Things like petitions signed by a huge number of ISPs in Europe may have an effect.
This is the kind of ridiculousness that comes from blind advocacy. Vendors do not listen to petitions, they listen to customers. When we needed one of our vendors to support IPv6 in order to use their equipment in an internal IPv6 trial, we went and talked to them. In a month or so they had added IPv6 support and supplied units for us to test. The bottleneck is not the vendors, it is the technical people who know about the need to deploy IPv6 but fail to engage with their coworkers in the same company to coordinate IPv6 readiness activities.
It may also be possible to encourage governments in the RIPE region to insist on IPv6 for new purchases. I doubt there would be a shortage of ideas if people were asked for them.
Have you heard of the EU's IPv6 Task Force? <http://www.ipv6.eu/> If they can't get government to insist on IPv6 for new purchases then RIPE certainly can't either.
Surely we can find something better to do with our time than see another chart showing IPv6 traffic rise 20% (*)?
I agree about that. It is better to share case studies, and to talk about events rather than look at meaningless traffic charts. In fact, the WG could coordinate certain actions, for instance, as many WG members as possible will collect IPv6 roadmaps from DSL gateway vendors, and the WG will collate the data and report on how many DSL vendors support IPv6, how many have a date for support, how many are vague and how many do not have it on their roadmap. That is an example of one action. The following RIPE meeting would see a new action planned, perhaps engaging with your city's IT staff to see when they expect to be buying IPv6 access, then collate some stats. Note that each one of those events spreads awareness of IPv6 and provides an opportunity for a press release, further spreading awareness. In marketing, there is a rule of thumb that you must repeat your message 7 times before it takes hold. Advocacy is a form of marketing.
I guess I'm a little confused. I thought I already did propose this to the working group? :) In any case I'll be at the next RIPE meeting, and will be happy to discuss this there.
It's a shame that RIPE no longer follows the IETF traditions from which it grew, and treat the mailing list as the primary venue for discussion. --Michael Dillon
Have you heard of <ipv6-wg@ripe.net>, not to mention the RIPE postion statement on IPv6?
Cut and paste error above <http://www.ipv6.eu/>
However, none of that seems to be happening now. If it is, it is happening "off-camera", certainly not on the mailing list. Maybe that is okay, given the working group seems to be chartered to merely keep track of what is going on. But honestly, I don't see the point. Surely we can find something better to do with our time than see another chart showing IPv6 traffic rise 20% (*)?
Shane, +1. Totally agree. Jan Zorz, go6.si
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:45 +0200, Shane Kerr wrote:
But honestly, I don't see the point. Surely we can find something better to do with our time than see another chart showing IPv6 traffic rise 20% (*)?
As Gert noted, IPv6 discussion should naturally move to wider forums. I actually quite like his idea of having an IPv4 working group - or perhaps we should call it the Post-Exhaustion Working Group.
From the RIR perspective I agree on both points. It is however worth noticing that the RIPE-meetings traditionally have served a bigger role, comparable to that of the combined ARIN+NANOG meetings. Maybe this should be part of a wider discussion of the function of RIPE meetings, and/or whether there are other alternatives for the European operators community to share their experiences.
//per
On 16/09/2009, at Wed, Sep 16, 00:45, Shane Kerr wrote:
Perhaps it is time to move beyond the traditional administrative and technical co-ordination of RIPE and begin shameless advocacy. Widespread IPv6 adoption is in the best interests of everyone.
I am sure we can think of a lot of ways that RIPE can use its unique position to improve IPv6 adoption. The discussion about vendors saying "no demand" is a good point. Things like petitions signed by a huge number of ISPs in Europe may have an effect. It may also be possible to encourage governments in the RIPE region to insist on IPv6 for new purchases. I doubt there would be a shortage of ideas if people were asked for them.
Perhaps one option is to look to intoduce a policy like the one which is currently in final call in the APNIC region. It's prop-073: Simplifying allocation/assignment of IPv6 to APNIC members with existing IPv4 addresses http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-073 Terry Manderson and I pushed for this when we realised that a number of people had misconceptions about how difficult it is to get IPv6 address space. I know that a similar proposal was mooted in the RIPE region and it failed to be adopted for a number of reasons but perhaps it's time for the IPv6 Working Group to advocate for this and other measures that make adoption easier. Terry and I advocated strongly that people on the APNIC sig-policy group and other who attend APNIC meetings were not necessarily an ideal litmus test about how easy or hard adopting IPv6 is - they're mostly people who get it and I'm sure the same applies in the RIPE region and other RIRs. Regards, andy
Hi, On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:00:25AM +1200, Andy Linton wrote:
Perhaps one option is to look to intoduce a policy like the one which is currently in final call in the APNIC region. It's prop-073: Simplifying allocation/assignment of IPv6 to APNIC members with existing IPv4 addresses http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-073
Terry Manderson and I pushed for this when we realised that a number of people had misconceptions about how difficult it is to get IPv6 address space.
Getting IPv6 address (as a LIR) is as easy as it gets. Fill in the template, send to hostmaster@ripe.net, get address space. I've just done it with a new LIR, and no single question(!) got asked. The counter argument in the discussion we had in the APWG list regarding similar proposals was "what good is it going to do, to allocate address space to people that won't use it" - because if they *want* to use it, getting it is really easy. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 141055 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Shane Kerr wrote: (...)
I had a look at the charter for this working group:
The IPv6 working group follows the progress of specification and implementation of the new IP version. It coordinates implementations in Europe and is going to create testbeds.
I certainly agree we need to review the WG's charter. Regards, Carlos
Since this group isn't actually doing anything, I propose we:
1. Shut down this working group after the next RIPE meeting. 2. Move discussion of IPv6 issues to other working groups (since "IPv6 issues" will become "IP issues" very soon anyway).
Given that we are just now moving into the time period when people will be seriously deploying IPv6, I strongly oppose this move. Instead, RIPE should promote this WG, and it would not hurt to clarify its terms of reference. For instance, how does the RIPE IPv6 WG differ from ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de ? It costs nothing to carry a mailing list with very low traffic, and even if it only serves as an announcement list for the next three years, that is atill a worthwhile use of the RIPE resources. --Michael Dillon
Here I say again my lovely 5c ;) Here are mostly people building networks and thinking in network engineering way. But the most usual people are not. Regular people go to the Internet not for IPv4 or IPv6. They go for *CONTENT*. And the main problem there is no content in the IPv6 Internet. RIPE *CAN* help to promote IPv6 by sponsoring content providers. For example, by assigning IPv6 PI for free completely or for some trial period to hosting/colo/VDS providers. It will be a big step forward. michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
Since this group isn't actually doing anything, I propose we:
1. Shut down this working group after the next RIPE meeting. 2. Move discussion of IPv6 issues to other working groups (since "IPv6 issues" will become "IP issues" very soon anyway).
Given that we are just now moving into the time period when people will be seriously deploying IPv6, I strongly oppose this move.
Instead, RIPE should promote this WG, and it would not hurt to clarify its terms of reference. For instance, how does the RIPE IPv6 WG differ from ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de ?
It costs nothing to carry a mailing list with very low traffic, and even if it only serves as an announcement list for the next three years, that is atill a worthwhile use of the RIPE resources.
--Michael Dillon
On Friday 04 September 2009 19:14:45 michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
Since this group isn't actually doing anything, I propose we:
1. Shut down this working group after the next RIPE meeting. 2. Move discussion of IPv6 issues to other working groups (since "IPv6 issues" will become "IP issues" very soon anyway).
Given that we are just now moving into the time period when people will be seriously deploying IPv6, I strongly oppose this move.
I agree with Michael about that. An IPv6 WG is useful. However there are good point in Shane's posts.
Instead, RIPE should promote this WG, and it would not hurt to clarify its terms of reference. For instance, how does the RIPE IPv6 WG differ from ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de ?
I read that "IPv6 discussion should naturally move to wider forums". Can anyone mention any such forums active right now? Is ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de such a forum?
It costs nothing to carry a mailing list with very low traffic, and even if it only serves as an announcement list for the next three years, that is atill a worthwhile use of the RIPE resources.
I see this as a more general issue. I find RIPE mailing lists under-utilized in general. Kostas
Hi, Thus wrote Kostas Zorbadelos (kzorba@otenet.gr):
its terms of reference. For instance, how does the RIPE IPv6 WG differ from ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de ?
I read that "IPv6 discussion should naturally move to wider forums". Can anyone mention any such forums active right now? Is ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de such a forum?
Not speaking authoritatively, but since noone else seems to want to pick it up: ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de is for operational issues in IPv6, like eg "Why is the shortest path to my next door neighbour suddenly crossing the pacific, twice?" or "Can you see my prefix?" or "Announcement of prefix XX is doing funny things", as well as "Could a IPv6-clueful person from AS YY please contact me offlist?". It is not limited to the RIPE region but intended as a nanog equiv for IPv6 networks. Of course, topic shift happens. :) regards, spz -- spz@serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler)
On Sep 25, 2009, at 7:44 AM, S.P.Zeidler wrote:
Hi,
Thus wrote Kostas Zorbadelos (kzorba@otenet.gr):
its terms of reference. For instance, how does the RIPE IPv6 WG differ from ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de ?
I read that "IPv6 discussion should naturally move to wider forums". Can anyone mention any such forums active right now? Is ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de such a forum?
Not speaking authoritatively, but since noone else seems to want to pick it up: ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de is for operational issues in IPv6, like eg "Why is the shortest path to my next door neighbour suddenly crossing the pacific, twice?" or "Can you see my prefix?" or "Announcement of prefix XX is doing funny things", as well as "Could a IPv6-clueful person from AS YY please contact me offlist?". It is not limited to the RIPE region but intended as a nanog equiv for IPv6 networks. Of course, topic shift happens. :)
Is this a normal mailman subscription site ? Is there a subscription page ? Regards Marshall
regards, spz -- spz@serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler)
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 08:16:29AM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Is this a normal mailman subscription site ? Is there a subscription page ?
http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-ops Yes, standard Mailman. Best regards, Daniel (ipv6-ops admin) -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
participants (18)
-
Andy Linton -
Carlos Friacas -
Daniel Roesen -
David Kessens -
Fearghas McKay -
Gert Doering -
Isacco Fontana -
Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si -
Kostas Zorbadelos -
Mark Tinka -
Marshall Eubanks -
Max Tulyev -
michael.dillon＠bt.com -
Nuno Vieira - nfsi -
Per Heldal -
Ragnar Belial Us -
S.P.Zeidler -
Shane Kerr