- ipv6-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Proposal for new charter: Version 2
by Shane Kerr 24 Nov '09

24 Nov '09

All, I've tried to combine all of the input and comments and produce a version of the text which hopefully includes all suggestions. Hopefully it is not too long: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists to promote IPv6 adoption. The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people to deploy IPv6, and to manage IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. These activities include: * Outreach * Education * Sharing deployment experiences * Discussing operational issues The working group will co-operate within the networking industry and without, to share resources and combine efforts. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Changes: * The 2nd paragraph was updated as per Sander's input. * I took David's point and removed "co-operation" as a activity, since as he indicated it is quite vague without the explanation. Instead I added the sentence at the end there. The idea is to make sure that we note that we have a goal of not duplicating work, but rather use the good stuff that other IPv6 and non-IPv6 organizations have done. If this doesn't make sense in the charter, we can of course leave it out. * I added David's activity about sharing deployment experiences - it seems to make sense. * I added a slightly modified activity based on David's last new one. His was "propose solutions for operational issues". I would rather see this as a more general discussion of operational issues - presumably solutions will be proposed where appropriate. If we want to focus on solutions, then we can revert to David's idea about proposing solutions. I think we are very close, and hopefully people are happy with this one. I don't have any objection to further modifications, although I am looking forward to moving past the rechartering and getting to some planning of what to do with the new-found working group super-powers! :) -- Shane

13 14

Announcement: RIPE NCC Training Courses
by Training Mailbox 10 Nov '09

10 Nov '09

[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/training/lir/outline.html - 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/training/rr/outline.html - 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

Happy Birthday Internet !! The first Internet connection
by Marc Manthey 29 Oct '09

29 Oct '09

happy birthday to Charley Kline and Leonard Kleinrock, who made this possible "The first message over the internet was send 29 october 1969" http://macbroadcast.org/index.php?q=node/34 greetings marc -- Les enfants teribbles - research / deployment Marc Manthey- Vogelsangerstrasse 97 50823 Köln - Germany Geo: 50.945554, 6.920293 PGP/GnuPG: 0x1ac02f3296b12b4d Tel.:0049-221-29891489 Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 project : http://opencu.org.uk blog: http://macbroadcast.org Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). Please note that according to the German law on data retention, information on every electronic information exchange with me is retained for a period of six months.

1 0

Proposal for new charter
by Shane Kerr 28 Oct '09

28 Oct '09

All, At the RIPE meeting in Lisbon, I agreed to draft a proposed new charter for the IPv6 working group. Here it is: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists to further IPv6 adoption. The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people deploy IPv6. These activities include: * Outreach * Co-operation * Education The IPv4 Internet will continue for a long time. The IPv6 working group is also concerned with IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Please use this mailing list for discussion. We would like to have a new charter in place before the next RIPE meeting. How this proposed charter was made: I looked at all of the other RIPE charters, and decided I wanted to keep this short and simple. I had a lunch meeting with David Kessens, Denesh Bhabuta, Carlos Friacas, Marco Hogewoning, Bernard Tuy, Lance Wright, and Jan Zorz. We discussed the new charter, although the above text has not been reviewed by them or anyone else. I thank them all! For those interested, here are some thoughts that went into the proposed charter: Background ---------- The current IPv6 working group charter is out-of-date: 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. It comes from a time when IPv6 was immature; the focus was keeping track of technological advances and working on experimental networks. That time is over, and the IPv6 working group needs an updated charter. Goal ---- The goal of creating a new charter is to do more than simply to update the text. We have almost finished allocating all IPv4 addresses. IPv6 is still only used by a small fraction of network traffic, many devices do not support IPv6 at all, and most organizations have no plans for IPv6 adoption. RIPE is a unique community, and should do what it can to help make the migration to IPv6 as easy as possible. A new charter is just the first step. Commentary ---------- The proposed new charter lists some activities: * Outreach * Co-operation * Education Outreach involves getting people, organisations, and groups to begin or continue IPv6 adoption. This includes vendors, governments, and developers. It also includes groups which are traditionally unrepresented, like gamers or content creators. Outreach means both going to other venues and inviting people from outside the RIPE community to visiting RIPE activities. Co-operation is working within the networking industry and without, to share resources and combine efforts. There are a large number of organisations and projects, and we should work with them whenever possible, so that IPv6 can fit in with their goals. This also includes co-operation with the many IPv6 efforts that exist worldwide. Education means all methods of increasing IPv6 knowledge. Note that the RIPE NCC is not able to do very much in terms of education, since it cannot compete with its members. However, the RIPE IPv6 working group can and should educate. -- Shane

19 37

Publication of default assignment sizes for end-user network ?
by Marco Hogewoning 28 Oct '09

28 Oct '09

Fellow WG members, This is something that seems to be lingering around for some time now and from talking to various people seems that there is some basic need for a system for this. I understand the IPv6-WG may not be the correct place to solve the issue, however I do think this is a nice platform to try and see if we can work out what the actual need is for that and hopefully this can result in some draft proposal that can be taken to the appropriate working group or even to another body for the actual implementation. As per RIPE-481 section 5.5 there is no need to register assignments of a /48 or longer into the public RIR/NIR database, as long it's registered by the LIR and that data is accessible by the RIR. Now this does not forbid you to register individual assignments into the public database, but doing so poses various problems. Not only the sheer number of assignments can be a problem, but also keeping that registration up-to-date will have serious impact on your day to day operations and especially with residential users there might be privacy issues as well. From an IR perspective this all makes sense and seems like reasonable behavior and I'm not intending of changing this. From what I see in the emerging deployments is that there are quite some differences between various operators on what the default assignment size to end users is and even in the same operator the actual size assigned might vary in between the various products from anywhere between a /128 to establish a link up to the full /48 possible. Together with these emerging deployments and this is primarily focussed on eyeballs but it may also apply to hosting as well, there seems to become a need to establish things like GEO-IP services but also blacklists for, as an example, email. Within IPv4 these kind of services can pretty much be done with a resolution of the full 32 bits registering individual IP addresses and still end up with a manageable list. With IPv6 emerging this situation changes, as most as not all customers will receive at least a /64 it seems natural to do some form of aggregation and I already can think of 2 reasons why: - Doing it on the full /128 will have the risks the lists become too big and maintaining and distributing them becomes impossible - Within the /64 it's fairly easy to switch addresses or to simply select multiple, so for instance a virus can use an almost unlimited number of source addresses to do evil. Naturally this has already led to aggregation, people working on collecting this data and generating these blacklists and also get-up services have invented there own scheme, some of them register individual /64's, others seem to have or start using a model where presence of X numbers of individual /64 blocks will lead to automatic aggregation and the next 'natural' boundary for that is /48. This in itself can lead to issues for instance when you assign /56 to a customer premises and somebody decides to aggregate he may as well block 256 house holds and not the one doing evil. Now talking with people the problem seems big enough that it needs fixing, in fact we may as well fix it before it goes wrong. Now I realize there are various way how to attack this and various platforms or community bodies to address this. At this point in time the RIR seems a reasonable place and what I'm trying with this post is see if there is some consensus about the fact this is a problem worth fixing and hopefully together and as a WG we can generate some output by for instance writing a draft proposal and bring it to other working groups or standardization bodies. So about the solution, one of the things I'm thinking about is asking the database group to implement an additional and optional attribute for inet6num which can hold the standard assignment size used for this block. So for instance I can put an object there saying 2001:980:1000::/36 is used for residential DSL assignments and default assignment size is /48 and that 2001:980:2000::/36 is used for hosting purposes and assignment size is a /64. That way people can find out about and aggregate their lists or even abuse complaints according to boundaries set by the operator and they no longer have to guess and potentially harm themselves or other users because there educate guess was of by 8 bits. This is only one possible solution, I also heard a voice saying we could try and solve this in DNS and it might be taken to IETF others suggested that instead of the database this should be published as a machine parseable list on a static URL. Now I'm perfectly happy to write that proposal, in fact some of it is already done. So is this worth going after, did I miss something here, can you provide arguments supporting this or against this approach and what sort of solution would you like. Looking forward to your comments either on this list or privately, especially from people who are in the business of data collection/ publishing. While we work on the new charter let's together try and proof this WG still is capable of producing something usefull :) Grtx, Marco Hogewoning (Both operator and concerned citizen)

2 2

Re: Proposal for new charter
by Geert Jan de Groot 25 Oct '09

25 Oct '09

> The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people > deploy IPv6. These activities include: > * Outreach > * Co-operation > * Education I also would like to propose to add "handle early deployment experiences" or wording to that effect - as I reported yesterday, the PMTU-thing reported on the list during the RIPE meeting. We're at the beginning of large-scale deployment and I believe that we cannot accept the "if something doesn't work, just switch off the IPv6 stack" approach people currently have to take, and I have a few reasons to believe my problem is not unique. We're testing new technology, building a new network - making support work for large-scale consumer-grade deployment is one of the next challenges we face, I think. Geert Jan

6 5

Procedural approach for approval of new charter
by David Kessens 19 Oct '09

19 Oct '09

Hi, First of all, a big thank you to Shane for writing the new proposed charter. I propose that we spend until Oct 23 to give feedback to Shane. At that point, we will ask whether Shane can do a revision and I will issue a Last Call when the revision is ready so that we can get a new charter in place as soon as possible. And finally, it is nice to have a new shiny charter, but it is even more important that we as a community actually do something with it. For example, there is nothing that should stop individual participants to do proposals or volunteer for any activities that would bring our new charter (closer) to completion. For example, it would be good to hear how and whether we can do something regarding the issue that Geert Jan brought up about a week ago. David Kessens --- ----- Forwarded message from Shane Kerr <shane(a)time-travellers.org> ----- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:36:10 +0200 From: Shane Kerr <shane(a)time-travellers.org> To: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter All, At the RIPE meeting in Lisbon, I agreed to draft a proposed new charter for the IPv6 working group. Here it is: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists to further IPv6 adoption. The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people deploy IPv6. These activities include: * Outreach * Co-operation * Education The IPv4 Internet will continue for a long time. The IPv6 working group is also concerned with IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Please use this mailing list for discussion. We would like to have a new charter in place before the next RIPE meeting. How this proposed charter was made: I looked at all of the other RIPE charters, and decided I wanted to keep this short and simple. I had a lunch meeting with David Kessens, Denesh Bhabuta, Carlos Friacas, Marco Hogewoning, Bernard Tuy, Lance Wright, and Jan Zorz. We discussed the new charter, although the above text has not been reviewed by them or anyone else. I thank them all! For those interested, here are some thoughts that went into the proposed charter: Background ---------- The current IPv6 working group charter is out-of-date: 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. It comes from a time when IPv6 was immature; the focus was keeping track of technological advances and working on experimental networks. That time is over, and the IPv6 working group needs an updated charter. Goal ---- The goal of creating a new charter is to do more than simply to update the text. We have almost finished allocating all IPv4 addresses. IPv6 is still only used by a small fraction of network traffic, many devices do not support IPv6 at all, and most organizations have no plans for IPv6 adoption. RIPE is a unique community, and should do what it can to help make the migration to IPv6 as easy as possible. A new charter is just the first step. Commentary ---------- The proposed new charter lists some activities: * Outreach * Co-operation * Education Outreach involves getting people, organisations, and groups to begin or continue IPv6 adoption. This includes vendors, governments, and developers. It also includes groups which are traditionally unrepresented, like gamers or content creators. Outreach means both going to other venues and inviting people from outside the RIPE community to visiting RIPE activities. Co-operation is working within the networking industry and without, to share resources and combine efforts. There are a large number of organisations and projects, and we should work with them whenever possible, so that IPv6 can fit in with their goals. This also includes co-operation with the many IPv6 efforts that exist worldwide. Education means all methods of increasing IPv6 knowledge. Note that the RIPE NCC is not able to do very much in terms of education, since it cannot compete with its members. However, the RIPE IPv6 working group can and should educate. -- Shane ----- End forwarded message ----- David Kessens ---

1 0

Proposal to Remove Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy Implemented
by Nathalie Trenaman 08 Oct '09

08 Oct '09

Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that policy proposal 2000-06,"Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy", has been implemented. The RIPE NCC is now ready to accept requests for IPv6 address space under the new policy. This proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html The updated "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-481.html The following FAQ has also been updated to reflect this policy implementation: http://www.ripe.net/info/faq/rs/ipv6.html Regards, Nathalie Trenaman Registration Services RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [ipv6-wg] On deploying IPv6 for consumers..
by Andy Linton 08 Oct '09

08 Oct '09

I noted Geert Jan de Groot's message on the list about PMTU problems. The following was posted on the NZ v6 list and might be of interest. andy Begin forwarded message: > From: Ben Stasiewicz <ben(a)wand.net.nz> > Date: 6 October 2009 5:24:43 PM > To: ipv6-techsig(a)listserver.internetnz.net.nz > Subject: [Ipv6-techsig] IPv6 PMTUD issues, some data > Reply-To: ben(a)wand.net.nz, ipv6-techsig(a)listserver.internetnz.net.nz > > Hi there, > > I'm a fourth-year Waikato University student who works for WAND in his > spare time. > > Earlier this year Geoff Huston wrote a very interesting article [1] in > which he describes and diagnoses a problem he had downloading an RFC > using IPv6. He determined that it was due to PMTUD failure (probably > caused by ICMPv6 filtering close to the web server) and suggests > lowering the MTU on interfaces used for IPv6 traffic to avoid this > problem. This and the resulting ipv6-techsig discussion [2] > motivated me > to do a university project (supervised by Dr. Matthew Luckie) that > investigates problems with PMTUD in IPv6. It aims to determine the > prevalence of PMTUD failure in IPv6 by running tests to a large number > of IPv6-enabled web servers on the Internet. > > As part of my investigation, I have written a module for scamper [3] > (an > Internet measurement tool created by Matthew) that can be used to > determine whether PMTUD for a given web server is successful. It is > based on the the IPv4 PMTUD test used by tbit [4]. I won't bore you > with > the exact details of the algorithm, but the general idea is: > > Establish a connection to the web server and make an HTTP request > for a > specific object. Do not acknowledge the response. Instead, send an > ICMPv6 Packet Too Big (PTB) message asking it to reduce the size of > its > packets to 1280 bytes. If the web server retransmits the HTTP response > using a smaller packet size, conclude that PMTUD was successful. > Otherwise if the retransmitted response packet is not smaller than the > original, retransmit the PTB message. If after two retransmissions > (three PTB messages) the server still hasn't reduced the size of its > HTTP response packet, conclude that PMTUD failed. > > The test halts if the original response packet is not larger than 1280 > bytes (the MTU specified in the PTB message). I can't specify a MTU > smaller than this because most hosts will ignore an MTU smaller than > 1280 bytes (the IPv6 Minimum Path MTU [5]). > > A test to a particular host will result in one of: > > RESULT_PMTUD_SUCCESS > The server successfully completed PMTUD. A smaller HTTP response > packet > was received from the server after sending it a PTB message. > > RESULT_PMTUD_FAIL > The server failed to complete PMTUD as we did not receive a smaller > response from it. The PTB messages are probably being filtered. > > RESULT_RX_TOOSMALL > The response packet was too small to be able to continue the test. It > must be at least 1281 bytes in size. > > RESULT_RX_NOACK > Did not receive an acknowledgement for the HTTP request. > > RESULT_RX_NODATA > The HTTP request was acknowledged, but no HTTP response was received. > > RESULT_TCP_RST > A TCP reset segment was received before the test could complete. > > RESULT_TCP_ERROR > Unexpected packet received in response to the HTTP request. > > RESULT_TCP_NOCONN > Failed to establish a TCP connection to the web server. > > Test Setup: > > I run the tests from a FreeBSD 7.2 box that sits in the lounge of my > flat. It has IPv6 connectivity using 6to4 and the tunnel interface on > our gateway box has an MTU of 1480 bytes. > > Test Parameters: > > An MSS of 1221 is advertised to avoid the effect of tunnels earlier in > the reverse path as much as possible. For reasons mentioned above, a > 1280 byte MTU is specified in the PTB message. > > Test Input: > > The list of IPv6 web servers was derived from the Alexa Top 1 Million > Websites list [6]. Of these 1 million domains, only 627 had globally > routable IPv6 addresses that could be connected to on port 80 (sad > eh?). > A script searched each of these for a URL to an object that was at > least > 1221 bytes in size. A request for such an object will hopefully result > in a large enough HTTP response packet. > > Test Results: > > Frequency of each result > > 371 PMTUD_SUCCESS > 214 RX_TOOSMALL > 22 RX_NODATA > 13 TCP_NOCONN > 9 PMTUD_FAIL > 5 TCP_RST > 2 RX_NOACK > 1 TCP_ERROR > > > In addition to the outright failures (PMTUD_FAILs), we believe that > the > results RX_NODATA and RX_NOACK also indicate PMTUD failure. They could > result when the server's HTTP response packets are discarded somewhere > along the path for being too big and the server never learns that this > is occurring (and neither do we). The server's response packets are > disappearing into a PMTU black hole. > > A large number of hosts send HTTP response packets that are too small > (RX_TOOSMALL). Some of these could actually indicate PMTUD success in > the presence of 1280 byte tunnels. I will look into this further. > > > Frequency of advertised MSS values > > 458 mss=1440 > 60 mss=1220 > 47 mss=1221 (the remote TCP echoing our advertised MSS) > 33 mss=1420 > 13 mss=1380 > 10 mss=0 (did not receive a SYN from the web server) > 2 mss=8940 > 2 mss=1410 > 2 mss=1300 > 1 mss=65455 > 1 mss=33160 > 1 mss=1460 > 1 mss=1436 > 1 mss=1432 > 1 mss=1416 > 1 mss=1412 > 1 mss=1374 > 1 mss=1370 > 1 mss=1340 > > > The vast majority of hosts advertised a 1440 byte MSS. We suspect that > the 1220 byte MSSs are from hosts that have been explicitly configured > with 1280 byte MTUs and had their PMTUD disabled so as to avoid the > ICMP > filtering problem. > > My current university project is almost complete, but in the Summer I > would like to continue my investigation into IPv6 PMTUD. Can any of > you > recommend another application layer protocol (preferably a simple one > like HTTP) that my PMTUD test could support in the future? Bittorrent > could be a good one (what do you think Nathan?). Is there anything > else > that you would be interested in me finding out? > > Questions and comments are most welcome. > > Cheers > Ben Stasiewicz > > [1] http://cidr-report.org/ispcol/2009-01/mtu6.html > > [2] > http://listserver.internetnz.net.nz/pipermail/ipv6-techsig/2009-February/00… > > [3] http://www.wand.net.nz/scamper/ > > [4] http://www.icir.org/mallman/papers/tcp-evo-ccr05.ps > > [5] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2460.txt > > [6] http://s3.amazonaws.com/alexa-static/top-1m.csv.zip > _______________________________________________ > IPv6-techsig mailing list > IPv6-techsig(a)listserver.internetnz.net.nz > http://listserver.internetnz.net.nz/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-techsig

1 0

Re: [ipv6-wg] On deploying IPv6 for consumers..
by Nuno Vieira - nfsi 07 Oct '09

07 Oct '09

Hi Geert, These PMTU issues are a bit strange, as, our entire backbone is based on IPv6 native transits and peers, and we are also delivering two dual-stacked uplinks to the RIPE Meeting, with native IPv6 connectivity. I am available to investigate this further, also with RIPE OPS. Feel free to "ping" me at anytime. regards, --- Nuno Vieira nfsi telecom, lda. [Email] nuno.vieira(a)nfsi.pt [Phone] +351 21 114 2315 [Phone] +351 21 142 2300 [Mobile] +351 91 925 5561 [Fax] +351 21 114 2301 [Web] http://www.nfsi.pt/ ----- "Geert Jan de Groot" <GeertJan.deGroot(a)xs4all.nl> wrote: > Hi, > > By monitoring the stream from Lisbon, I can tell the RIPE meeting is > going well and lots of resolution is made towards deployment of > technologies like IPv6, DNSSEC and others. > It's good to see many faces, even though it's been a few years > since I attended a meeting myself. > I hope people are enjoying the meeting. > > On the topic of IPv6 deployment, I'd like to ask the WG on the > following > issue: > Turns out that, when browsing from www.ripe.net to find the URLs > of the Lisbon streams, I seem to run into a PMTU blackhole issue, > and, > IPv6 doesn't deal with these too well. > The only way around it, for me, was to switch IPv6 *OFF*. > (for those curious, it looks like a PMTU blackhole to rosie.ripe.net, > but I don't want to badmouth the RIPE NCC or the meeting crew - read > on!) > > Before you think this is another consumer-enduser, I'd like to > consider > that a few weeks ago, a few volunteers diagnosed a similar problem > with a large public FTP server in the Netherlands. I have tcpdump > logs > of the PMTU packets entering the FTP server box itself, and the TCP > stack > not noticing. Since it's not my box, there is still work-in-progress > to fix this, but it definitely is not a local problem - the PMTU > packets > come from the XS4all IPv6 tunnel broker box! > > My question, to the WG-at-large, is this: I'm just using a > consumer-grade > ADSL connection, with consumer-grade helpdesk access, who is unable > to deal with these issues. When IPv6 is deployed on a larger scale, > problems like these are bound to happen, and, I fear, these problems > happen with Joe Common who cannot diagnose these problems. > > My only recourse, and certainly Joe Common's only recourse, is to > switch IPv6 *OFF*. > That is, umm, incompatible with the IPv6 outreach the RIPE community > is currently doing. > > My questions therefore: > - Should these problems be discovered before large-scale deployment? > - Would it be a good idea to do efforts to pro-actively detect > (and correct) these problems on the infrastructure we have now, > and the infrastructure we're soon deploying? > - What mechanisms do we need to report these issues, so they can be > addressed by people who have both clue and enable/root access to > fix them? > (taking into account the very nasty scaling properties of > "consumer-grade helpdesk support lines" and the quality of the > reports > one gets from Joe Common-style users) > > Again, this message is not to badmouth RIPE NCC, the Lisbon LOC, > XS4all, or anybody else, but just a question on how to deal with > these > issues, as the current mechanisms ("consumer helpdesk") can't cope, > and the recourse ("switch IPv6 off") is probably not what we want. > > Comments? > > Geert Jan

1 0