- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RIPE IPv4 Pool Graph
by Ahmed Abu-Abed 06 Apr '11

06 Apr '11

Greetings, RIPE NCC is now publishing an IPv4 pool graph with weekly updates, and the latest data show five /8 blocks are remaining. More at http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-po… Regards, -Ahmed

1 0

Is there a recommended list for sharing IPv6 deployment experience/woes/etc?
by Niall O'Reilly 29 Mar '11

29 Mar '11

A colleague in the Irish IPv6 TF was asking, and I couldn't think of just the right list. The kind of sharing of operational experience he's looking for doesn't seem to me to fall quite within the scope of the RIPE IPv6 WG list, and certanly not within the IETF v6ops list. I'll be glad to find I'm mistaken, or else to have suggestions ... Thanks in advance. Niall Begin forwarded message: > From: Gavin McCullagh <gavin.mccullagh(a)gcd.ie> > Date: 29 March 2011 12:02:46 GMT+01:00 > To: Irish IPv6 Task Force <ipv6tf(a)listserv.tssg.org> > Subject: [Ipv6tf] spoofed router advertisements > Reply-To: Gavin McCullagh <gavin.mccullagh(a)gcd.ie> > > > Hi folks, > > I realise this isn't a list for practical details of running IPv6, but is > there a list people do recommend? > > For some time now, on and off, we've been noticing bogus IPv6 router > advertisements, presumably from student laptops. [...]

6 6

New on RIPE Labs: 6to4 - Why is it so Bad?
by Mirjam Kuehne 21 Mar '11

21 Mar '11

[apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, In an earlier article on RIPE Labs, we showed that a large percentage of 6to4 connections fail. In this new article by Emile Aben, we look at why these connections fail and what can be done about this: http://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/6to4-why-is-it-so-bad Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: ipv6-wg -- confirmation of subscription -- request 440625
by Henk Uijterwaal 15 Mar '11

15 Mar '11

confirm 440625

1 0

"Preparing an IPv6 Addressing Plan" - New Manual Published on www.ripe.net
by Nathalie Trenaman 15 Mar '11

15 Mar '11

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has just published "Preparing an IPv6 Addressing Plan", an easy-to-read manual to help End Users effectively distribute large blocks of IPv6 address space over their networks. The document is available for download here: http://www.ripe.net/training/material/IPv6-for-LIRs-Training-Course/IPv6_ad… The manual was written by Sander Steffann and Surfnet. It has been translated from Dutch to English by the RIPE NCC. If you have any feedback about the manual, please send it to: <nathalie(a)ripe.net> Kind Regards, Nathalie Trenaman RIPE NCC Trainer

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
by Ahmed Abu-Abed 28 Feb '11

28 Feb '11

Greetings, Compared to 6RD, the TSP protocol (RFC 5572) can also rapidly deploy IPv6, needing one /32 allocation while customer site prefixes can be /64, /56 or /48. Reason is TSP doesn't embed the customer's IPv4 address in its IPv6 address as 6RD does. Being a hot topic nowadays, its worth mentioning customer site access gear (CPE) requirements are more relaxed with TSP as it doesn't need the Service Provider IPv4-only access modem to be changed or upgraded. A TSP client can run in a small hardware device (thru an Ethernet interface connection) or a software client in the home network behind the SP modem while enabling all v6 capable nodes with the assigned prefix by automatically establishing a tunnel to the SP TSP tunnel server. Since TSP allows for static prefix assignment and larger prefixes than /64 without wasting v6 space, this would mimic a native deployment more closely. The stateful tunneling could be seen as any other encapsulation in the access, and a few service providers have it running already. In the long term, both 6RD and TSP will give way to reverse tunneling i.e. v4-in-v6, as this is the only way (after IPv4 depletion) for both protocols to co-exist on a host while having a mix of v4-only and dual-stack accessible services/website. Reverse tunneling's current protocols, DS-Lite and DSTM, are very similar to TSP's concept so the same clients & servers supporting TSP can be adapted to support DS-Lite. Unfortunately, until IPv4 disappears from web content, hosts and servers these coexistence mechanisms will be needed. Regards, -Ahmed From: Kurt Smolderen Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 11:13 AM To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD I strongly support the idea of assigning a smaller prefix to ISPs which are in a state of deploying IPv6 but need to use transitional mechanism for (some of) their customers. Mark has described one of the problems very clear in his email: if an ISP has only a /32 prefix and needs to use all 32 IPv4 bits in the 6rd configuration, only a /64 can be delivered to the home instead of the desired /56 or /48. Needing all 32 bits is for instance the case when an ISP offers internet connectivity to some of its customers via a partnership with another ISP. However, I want to point to an additional problem which appears when an ISP wants to deploy native IPv6 but needs to roll out 6rd (or any other transitional technique) as well. For native IPv6, the ISP will create an IPv6 addressing plan. This will normally include separate prefixes for the ISP's own servers, the ISP's backbone, the ISP's customers etc. For the 6rd domain, the full /32 range is however needed. So at this stage, the ISP has two options: 1) Implement 6rd only 2) Implement native IPv6 only and exclude some customers from being able to use IPv6 (those which would normally be connected through 6rd) I strongly believe we all agree 6rd is only a temporary solution. So I can't imagine we would prefer skipping native IPv6 deployments in favor of IPv6 transitional mechanisms. I also believe we all agree we should enable IPv6 for as much customers as we can, which makes me conclude the second 'option' is not really an option at all... My primary concern is that any ISP - regardless of how small or big it is - can independently of other organizations/ ISPs move forward with IPv6 deployment. RIPE can support this by adapting a policy which - albeit for a limited time span - allows the assignment of a contiguous IPv6 prefix which size does not only depend on the amount of customers the ISP has, but also incorporates the needed technologies to 'IPv6-enable' as much customers as possible. Regards, -Kurt

2 1

Benefits of IPv4 exhaustion
by Shane Kerr 25 Feb '11

25 Feb '11

All, As seen in today's xkcd: http://xkcd.com/865/ Happy Friday everyone! -- Shane

1 0

Fwd: [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations.
by Rob Evans 24 Feb '11

24 Feb '11

Good people of the IPv6 Working Group, It was suggested to me that for some strange reason you may also be interested in this document and discussion... Best regards, Rob -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing Recommendations. Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:39:18 +0800 From: Rob Evans <rhe(a)nosc.ja.net> To: routing-wg(a)ripe.net All, You may remember that back in the mists of time (about a year ago) we had a document that updated RIPE-399 with some IPv6 routing recommendations. After the meeting last May, the authors were to go away and take out mention of any specific suggestions on filtering (e.g. /36). Over the past 12 months, Philip and I have been hard at work constantly refining this document to reflect the changing nature of the IPv6 routing table. Well, kind-of. Anyway, my laziness aside, appended is the document as it stands at the moment. Comments and discussion please! Rob RIPE Routing Working Group Recommendations on IPv6 Route Aggregation ==================================================================== Rob Evans Philip Smith Introduction ============ Recent discussion has shown there is a limited requirement to be able to advertise more specific prefixes from an IPv6 Provider Aggregatable (PA) allocation where a Local Internet Registry (LIR) contains several networks which are not interconnected, or for traffic engineering purposes. This document recommends such advertisements are limited in both length and scope. It is intended to supplement the working group's Recommendations on Route Aggregation [RIPE-399]. Background ========== The IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy for the RIPE region [V6-ALLOC] only allows LIRs to obtain more than the minimum PA allocation if they can demonstrate address utilisation that requires it. This fits with the address space management principle of conservation. However, as understood in the RIPE Routing Working Group's Recommendations on Route Aggregation [RIPE-399], there are occasionally requirements for the advertisement of more specific routes from within an allocation. With a few ISPs currently filtering at the minimum PA allocation (/32) within the relevant address ranges, this can cause significant difficulties for some networks wishing to deploy IPv6. Some reasons for wanting to advertise multiple prefixes from a PA allocation could be: - The LIR has several networks that are not interconnected. - Traffic engineering: A single prefix that covers an LIR's entire customer base may attract too much traffic over a single peering link This document is only concerned with IPv6 Provider Aggregatable (PA) allocations, and does not discuss Provider Independent (PI) prefixes. Recommendation ============== It is suggested that prefix filters allow for prudent subdivision of an IPv6 allocation. The operator community will ultimately decide what degree of subdivision is supportable, but the majority of ISPs accept prefixes up to a length of /48 within PA space. Advertisement of more specific prefixes should not be used unless absolutely necessary and, where sensible, a covering aggregate should also be advertised. Further, LIRs should use BGP methods such as NO_EXPORT [RFC-1997], [AS-PATHLIMIT], or provider-specific communities, as described in [RIPE-399] to limit the propagation of more specific prefixes in the routing table. Discussion ========== There is a valid need for some LIRs to advertise more than one IPv6 PA prefix. As either obtaining more address space and advertising more /32 prefixes, or advertising more specific prefixes within an already allocated /32 have the same impact on the routing table, it is suggested that the latter approach is taken to prevent address space wastage. It is understood that this may not cover all possibilities. There may be circumstances where sites will have to consider the suitability of Provider Independent addresses, or LIRs may have to consider mechanisms of obtaining more than a /32 of Provider Aggregatable space. References ========== [V6-ALLOC] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html [RIPE-399] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-399 [RFC-1997] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1997.txt [AS-PATHLIMIT] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-as-pathlimit-03 Work in Progress.

1 0

Announcement: RIPE NCC Training Courses
by Training Mailbox 22 Feb '11

22 Feb '11

[Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC invites you to register for one of our upcoming training courses: - The LIR Training Course This course teaches LIRs how to request Internet number resources and interact with the RIPE NCC. A course outline is available at: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/courses/lir/outline/ - The Routing Registry Training Course This course teaches LIRs how to use the RIPE Database for routing. A course outline is available at: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/courses/rr/ - The IPv6 Training Course This course teaches LIRs about the need for IPv6 and includes basic information on how to plan your deployment. A course outline is available at: http://www.ripe.net/training/ipv6/outline.html To see the location of upcoming courses and to register, please use the LIR Portal or complete the registration form on our website at: RIPE NCC Upcoming Courses List & Registration https://lirportal.ripe.net/lirportal/training/course-list.html If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at <training(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Rumy Kanis Training Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE 62 working group session
by Marco Hogewoning 22 Feb '11

22 Feb '11

Dear Colleagues, Registration for the RIPE 62 meeting, which takes place from 2 till 6 May in Amsterdam (NL). As you may have noticed the IPv6 working group is missing from the meeting plan. This is not an error, but an intentional change to the agenda. After some discussion with the working group chairs collective and other stakeholders, we concluded that the IPv4 run out and the associated need to deploy IPv6 will most likely be a very hot topic on this upcoming meeting. It has therefor been decided that the time originally allocated for our working group would be added to the plenary program. Any interesting IPv6 topics, and I'm sure there are many, will be placed in the plenary schedule. At the same time, the closing plenary on Friday morning will host a "IPv6 roundup". In this session we will discuss the outcome of the meeting, based on input received from the working groups and presentations or comments during the plenary sessions. In other words, no need to panic. The IPv6 working group will be present, although not in a formal setting this time. If you have any interesting information on IPv6 deployment, interactions between IPv4 and IPv6 and deployment of transitioning techniques. Please consider presenting about it on this meeting and send a short description of what you like to present together with your contact details to ipv6-wg-chairs at ripe dot net. See you in Amsterdam, The IPv6 working group chairs, Marco, Shane and David.

1 0