November 2014 - ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Short report on Saudi IPv6 Task Force meeting
by Marco Hogewoning 26 Nov '14

26 Nov '14

Hello, As part of my day job I was close by in the region and the opportunity to visit the 16th meeting of the Saudi Arabian IPv6 Task Force. Still a lot of nice stuff going on down there with a steady progress towards deployment of IPv6. Not only in the more traditional telecoms and connectivity sector, but also with a strong focus on getting the users in other sectors on board such as the banks and the oil industry. A short report can be found on RIPE Labs https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_hogewoning/16th-meeting-of-the-saudi-ar… Cheers, Marco (who still has an interest in the topic)

1 0

Re: [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
by Yannis Nikolopoulos 24 Nov '14

24 Nov '14

hello, a rather late reply On 11/12/2014 11:26 AM, Wilhelm Boeddinghaus wrote: > Am 12.11.2014 um 08:32 schrieb Aleksi Suhonen: >> Hello, >> >> On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote: >>> Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need >>> two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal >>> IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. >> >> In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about >> address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list >> for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In essence, I support >> this proposal. sorry, but this just doesn't make sense. RIPE's IPv6 WG is about promoting IPv6 adoption and there's definitely a long way to go... http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ipv6 > Hi, > > But > please let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We > will need that for the next 10 years until we all have as much > experience with IPv6 as we have with IPv4 today. +1 regards, Yannis > Regards, > > Wilhelm

1 0

Re: [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
by Alex Saroyan 13 Nov '14

13 Nov '14

+1 don't merge. Regards /Alex Saroyan Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: >Hi, > >On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 01:53:21PM +0100, Wilfried Woeber wrote: >> [...] >> > That said, if I was more involved with the address policy WG, I'd also >> > expect to get involved if someone proposed to dump some other WG >> > discussions into "my" mailing list. >> >> Also donning my (past) DB-WG hat for a minute, there's always the possibility >> to include an item like "input from other WGs or TFs" into the WG Meeting's >> draft agenda. I have done that for years, and it worked quite OK (for the >> most recent time in London, receiving input from Routing. So, *that*is no >> reason in my books to talk about dismantling a useful and active WG. >> >> No rocket science here, just a tad of looking across the fence :-) > >Fully agree. And, to come back to where this whole thread started - while >IPv6 WG doesn't *do* policy by charter, there are people in the IPv6 WG >who are interested in IPv6 address policy, but do not regularily follow >the AP WG list. Which is why Erik threw the ball over the fence "you >might be interested in this, so here's a notification so you don't miss it". > > >And, speaking as a member of the IPv6 community, I do not think the idea >to dismantle the IPv6 WG (or it's list) has much merit - there are still >operational technical challenges to IPv6, and it's thus useful to have >a WG focusing on these. AP will take care of addressing challenges (and >if AP does policy things that do not work out operationally, they listen). > >Gert Doering > -- some relevant hats >-- >have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > >SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard >Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann >D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) >Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

2 1

Re: [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]
by Jen Linkova 13 Nov '14

13 Nov '14

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2012(a)ssd.axu.tm> wrote: >> Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need >> two different wg for addressing? Because IPv6 WG is not for addressing. IPv6 is not 'IPv4 with bigger address space'. >the day we start treat IPv6 as normal >> IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. I have no objection to *this* statement, so I'd expect that all discussions related to IPv[4,6] address policy are happening in this mailing list, while IPv6 WG discusses technical aspects of IPv6 deployment. > In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about > address policy. Exactly. >In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for > IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. I strongly disagree. Shall I read it as a proposal to shut down IPv6 WG as well? I'd object to say the least. There are a lot of topics to discuss on IPv6 WG which do not belong to address policy. Anyway, I'm surprised to see a discussion about shutting down a mailing list happening in *another* mailing list. If community feels like 'there is nothing to discuss in IPv6 WG mailing list anymore' (which does not seem to be a case as I can see from the replies to your message), it should be discussed there. I'm adding ipv6-wg@ to Cc: so people are aware of this discussion, however from my point of view we've seen enough support to keep IPv6 list untouched. -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

6 5

FW: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
by Erik Bais 11 Nov '14

11 Nov '14

Hi, This email is to inform the people who are subscribed on the IPv6 WG list but not on the Address Policy WG list. There is a policy proposal currently in discussion phase to Allow IPv6 Transfers. > You can find the full proposal at: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-12 > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 28 November 2014. Regards, Erik Bais -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: policy-announce-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:policy-announce-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Marco Schmidt Verzonden: donderdag 30 oktober 2014 13:43 Aan: policy-announce(a)ripe.net CC: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Onderwerp: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-589, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-12 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 28 November 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

3 3

[training] RIPE NCC Training Courses January-March 2015
by Training Services 10 Nov '14

10 Nov '14

Dear colleagues, Our training team travels the RIPE NCC service region to deliver training courses to our members without any additional cost. Over the next few months, we'll be in Milan, Madrid, Munich, Podgorica, Prague, Moscow, Riga, Ramallah, Edinburgh, Copenhagen, Amsterdam. Visit the following page to register and to check which training courses we are giving in your area: https://lirportal.ripe.net/training/courses The RIPE NCC delivers the following training courses: - LIR Training Course - RIPE Database Training Course - Basic IPv6 Training Course - Advanced IPv6 Training Course - Routing Security Training Course - DNSSEC Training Course The RIPE NCC delivers the following tailor-made workshops: - Measurements Tools Workshop - Introduction to BGP For more information visit: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/courses With kind regards, Rumy Spratley-Kanis Training Services Manager

1 0

RIPE 69: Test your gear and software without IPv4!
by Marco Hogewoning 03 Nov '14

03 Nov '14

Hello and welcome to London, This message probably only has relevance if you are visiting the RIPE 69 Meeting, But feel free to continue reading even when you are not. As you are setting up wireless you may have noticed a network called ‘IPV6ONLYEXP’. This network is once again setup so you can see if your applications hold up in an environment that only provides you with an IPv6 address. The password is in the bottom of this email. Please note: This network is provided as-is and on a BEST EFFORT basis, the RIPE NCC will NOT PROVIDE SUPPORT. Of course the main functionality will be monitored and acted upon when things go wrong, but ops will be unable to help you with devices or software configuration and/or troubleshooting. The network has a NAT64 gateway attached, which means that you should be able to connect to the whole Internet, even when the service does not support IPv6 yet. This also means that some applications will be confused and complain there is no connectivity, even when there is. This is exactly why we have this setup running, you can find out for yourself what works and what doesn’t. If you find an issue, please feel free to share it on this list. Even more important however, please also file a bug report or send a notification to the creators, so they are aware and hopefully can make it work in the next release. Of course, since we have done this before, we have a few know problems: - For NAT64 to work you must make use of the resolvers as advertised by the network, these are patched to do the translations - A wide variety of Android devices will not be able to pick up the advertised DNS servers and while connected, will fail to work properly - Skype does not work! - A number of IOS apps will complain there is no network, while they actually do work, please try what happens if you ignore those pop-ups So good luck and enjoy the meeting. If you do have questions or want to chat about it, please use this list or find me or Andrew Yourtchenko on site. I would like to thank RIPE NCC, especially Menno, Razvan and Marco v T for helping out and making this possible. The password is “iknowbesteffort”, this is different from the main meeting password :) See you in a bit in London, Marco Hogewoning

1 0