Hi, I’m posting here as a heads-up that an effort has begun to revise RIPE-554, involving the original authors, myself and Tim Winters. We have a 5 min slot tomorrow in the 1pm CET IPv6 WG session to flag the work, to solicit input. The original publication was back in November 2010 with RIPE-501, which was updated in June 2012 with RIPE-554. There’s many references that have been obsoleted, and potentially much to add or remove. References to 2G cellular date the document. We’d like to begin by addressing the more strategic / structural questions. Such high level questions include: - Is there agreement to progress a –bis version now? Eight years have passed, people ask for guidance… - Should we keep the scope to (largely) enterprise or expand it? If so, to what? - Is the linkage to the IPv6 Ready Logo programme still desired? - Are there new classes of equipment to add, e.g. IoT/low power, WiFi controllers, …? - Are specific sections outdated, or are there significant new sections to add? - Should we add guidance on applying the content to different use cases? As separate docs? Appendices? We’ve currently working on the -bis as a Google doc, for which there’s a PDF of the current snapshot available from: https://go6.si/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/RIPE554-bis-v_01.pdf For now, please comment to the list, and maybe start a new thread for new topics. Tim
Tim Chown via ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> writes: Hi,
- Is the linkage to the IPv6 Ready Logo programme still desired?
It this still a thing? Haven't heard of it in a long time.
- Are there new classes of equipment to add, e.g. IoT/low power,
Probably. Maybe another document? Does it make sense to have your network fully IPv6 ready when the majority of devices dose not support IPv6. And where do you take all the additional IPv4 addresses from?
WiFi controllers, …?
Yes! Including appliances used for captive portals, AAA servers, ... I'm currently getting paid for building some infrastructure in a WiFi project and will not ask about IPv6 anymore. It's to pain full.
- Are specific sections outdated, or are there significant new sections to add?
The SEND requirment? No OS I'm aware of does support it and it only makes sense when the networking hardware and the OS support it. Jens -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Delbrueckstr. 41 | 12051 Berlin, Germany | +49-151-18721264 | | http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jenslink@quux.de | --------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, Jens, On 28/10/20 18:32, Jens Link wrote: [...]
- Are specific sections outdated, or are there significant new sections to add?
The SEND requirment? No OS I'm aware of does support it and it only makes sense when the networking hardware and the OS support it.
I think SEND is a smart spec/artifact... but I also think that I would probably have a hard time finding a reason to deploy it. :-) And in the light that in year 2020 apparently folks still don't get to parse ND options properly, that's yet one more reason to stay away from complexity. Thanks! Regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> writes:
The SEND requirment? No OS I'm aware of does support it and it only makes sense when the networking hardware and the OS support it.
I think SEND is a smart spec/artifact... but I also think that I would probably have a hard time finding a reason to deploy it. :-)
Sure, but a) I always have to explain to people what SEND is and that it doesn't work when I'm doing IPv6 workshops and b) I know people putting something like "hardware must comply to RIPE 554" into tenders. Jens -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Delbrueckstr. 41 | 12051 Berlin, Germany | +49-151-18721264 | | http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jenslink@quux.de | --------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 29/10/20 05:26, Jens Link wrote:
Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> writes:
The SEND requirment? No OS I'm aware of does support it and it only makes sense when the networking hardware and the OS support it.
I think SEND is a smart spec/artifact... but I also think that I would probably have a hard time finding a reason to deploy it. :-)
Sure, but a) I always have to explain to people what SEND is and that it doesn't work when I'm doing IPv6 workshops
FWIW, when doing workshops, I don't use more than two slides to give a high-level overview of what SEND is about, and note why it's not currently deployable, and while it is very unlikely that it will be deployable any time soon. (For similar reasons, I don't even bother with things like mobile IPv6).
and b) I know people putting something like "hardware must comply to RIPE 554" into tenders.
The effect of that would be interesting to see (whether it would push implementation, or actually back-fire). I do think that, if/when considering inclusion of SEND in RIPE-554, the fact that it is IPR-encumbered be considered in the decision process. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
Hi, On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 05:45:14AM -0300, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 29/10/20 05:26, Jens Link wrote:
Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> writes:
The SEND requirment? No OS I'm aware of does support it and it only makes sense when the networking hardware and the OS support it.
I think SEND is a smart spec/artifact... but I also think that I would probably have a hard time finding a reason to deploy it. :-)
Sure, but a) I always have to explain to people what SEND is and that it doesn't work when I'm doing IPv6 workshops
FWIW, when doing workshops, I don't use more than two slides to give a high-level overview of what SEND is about, and note why it's not currently deployable, and while it is very unlikely that it will be deployable any time soon.
"... SeND has never gained any ground, and I don’t expect that to change anytime soon. Actually I expect SeND to be forgotten at some point ;-)." from: "A Quick Security Evaluation of IPv6" https://theinternetprotocolblog.wordpress.com/2020/10/25/a-quick-security-ev... Hence I don't think there should be any mention of SeND in RIPE554-bis. cheers Enno
(For similar reasons, I don't even bother with things like mobile IPv6).
and b) I know people putting something like "hardware must comply to RIPE 554" into tenders.
The effect of that would be interesting to see (whether it would push implementation, or actually back-fire).
I do think that, if/when considering inclusion of SEND in RIPE-554, the fact that it is IPR-encumbered be considered in the decision process.
Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
-- Enno Rey Cell: +49 173 6745902 Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator
please can you remove me from this mailing list, thanks On 29/10/2020 07:42, Fernando Gont wrote:
Hi, Jens,
On 28/10/20 18:32, Jens Link wrote: [...]
- Are specific sections outdated, or are there significant new sections to add?
The SEND requirment? No OS I'm aware of does support it and it only makes sense when the networking hardware and the OS support it.
I think SEND is a smart spec/artifact... but I also think that I would probably have a hard time finding a reason to deploy it. :-)
And in the light that in year 2020 apparently folks still don't get to parse ND options properly, that's yet one more reason to stay away from complexity.
Thanks!
Regards,
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 5:30 PM Jens Link <lists@quux.de> wrote:
Tim Chown via ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> writes:
Hi,
- Is the linkage to the IPv6 Ready Logo programme still desired?
It this still a thing? Haven't heard of it in a long time.
Yes this program is still on-going. It recently updated to 8200/8201 support and It currently has over 2000 devices with over 100 getting the Logo this year.
- Are there new classes of equipment to add, e.g. IoT/low power,
Probably. Maybe another document? Does it make sense to have your network fully IPv6 ready when the majority of devices dose not support IPv6. And where do you take all the additional IPv4 addresses from?
WiFi controllers, …?
Yes! Including appliances used for captive portals, AAA servers, ...
I'm currently getting paid for building some infrastructure in a WiFi project and will not ask about IPv6 anymore. It's to pain full.
- Are specific sections outdated, or are there significant new sections to add?
The SEND requirment? No OS I'm aware of does support it and it only makes sense when the networking hardware and the OS support it.
Jens --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Delbrueckstr. 41 | 12051 Berlin, Germany | +49-151-18721264 | | http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jenslink@quux.de | --------------- |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am Mi., 28. Okt. 2020 um 18:19 Uhr schrieb Tim Chown via ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg@ripe.net>:
For now, please comment to the list, and maybe start a new thread for new topics.
A nitpick: I expect a technical document from IPv6 proponents in 2020 to use the full UTF8 charset; I'm sure more of the names in the Acknowledgement section should use non-ASCII characters. Please fix this. Best Martin
Hi, Tim, On 28/10/20 14:18, Tim Chown via ipv6-wg wrote:
Hi,
I’m posting here as a heads-up that an effort has begun to revise RIPE-554, involving the original authors, myself and Tim Winters. We have a 5 min slot tomorrow in the 1pm CET IPv6 WG session to flag the work, to solicit input.
The original publication was back in November 2010 with RIPE-501, which was updated in June 2012 with RIPE-554.
There’s many references that have been obsoleted, and potentially much to add or remove. References to 2G cellular date the document.
We’d like to begin by addressing the more strategic / structural questions. Such high level questions include:
- Is there agreement to progress a –bis version now? Eight years have passed, people ask for guidance…
I personally think this would be a good idea.
- Should we keep the scope to (largely) enterprise or expand it? If so, to what?
FWIW, I would keep the scope of this document, and span other efforts if necessary (divide and conquer).
- Is the linkage to the IPv6 Ready Logo programme still desired?
IMO, probably not.
- Are there new classes of equipment to add, e.g. IoT/low power, WiFi controllers, …?
I'd probably update the current work and, if necessary, then span other efforts. -- the current docs are dated, and it's probably better to focus on bringing them up to date in a timely manner, than to open the door to all sorts of stuff which might take way more time to finish.
- Are specific sections outdated, or are there significant new sections to add? - Should we add guidance on applying the content to different use cases? As separate docs? Appendices?
I will review the doc and come back with comments. Thanks! Regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
participants (7)
-
Enno Rey -
Fernando Gont -
Jens Link -
Martin Schröder -
Tim Chown -
Timothy Winters -
twall