- ripe-list - mailman.ripe.net

plea for increase participation in v6ops/IETF
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 13 Jun '17

13 Jun '17

Hello all, At the last LACNIC event, I mentioned on a couple of occasions the need for ISPs in the region, especially small and medium-sized ones, to participate in the decisions taken in the IETF IPv6 Operations Working Group (v6ops). I’m sending this here as well, as I believe the situation also apply to this region. When I asked among the attendees how many participate in v6ops, only one person raised his hand. What does it mean to participate in the mailing list? Follow some emails (sometimes only 1-2 a week, sometimes they can be several in a day), and therefore learn about what is being discussed and give your opinion and, given that decisions are made by Consensus, influence them. What consequences has NOT participating? That decisions against your interests/opinions could be taken, and obviously do not consider your perspective in the standards. Generally large operators are involved, which implies that your interests are not sufficiently represented, and in general are contrary to yours. Your "vote/opinion" is not worth more than yours, but the big one is present and the small/medium NO! I give you a very concrete example. The serious problem that small and medium ISPs have, is to continue offering IPv6 and IPv4 services to their customers, when they already do not have IPv4 addresses. Only the biggest ISPs have a great purchasing power and can influence the manufacturers to do for them what they need. One possibility to solve it, extending the life of IPv4, but not necessarily deploying IPv6, is using CGN, which is also very expensive, and breaks many things. The solution is simple. Deploying IPv6-only services in the last mile, which involves using transition mechanisms, such as 464XLAT that has been deployed on millions of smartphones worldwide, so that applications continue to operate transparently as they "believe" they have IPv4. What is the problem, then? That manufacturers of CPEs are based on an old specification (RFC7084) that does not contemplate these transition mechanisms, so when a small/medium ISP asks a manufacturer for a firmware upgrade or a new CPE, they do not include that solution and perhaps they offer it with an extra cost. In my view, this should change, and that is why I am working on a number of documents, including RFC7084-bis (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis/), To update this situation, but there is opposition from large ISPs and virtually no small/medium "talks" about it, and in fact these large ISPs deny the situation. In addition, the document also specifies the "automated" support of those cases in which the user installs other routers (which is very common as we all know, and will be more and more in IPv6, IoT, etc.), behind the router installed by the ISP, through homenet (HNCP). I am not asking for your support for my documents, but for understanding the problem and the solution that is being proposed and/or possible new ones, and for the opinion of not only those very few “big ones”, but also of many small and medium, who are most affected. If you want to subscribe to this list, search for "subscribing" at: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops You can see the files of the discussion in: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=v6ops I remind you that participating in the IETF does not require a presence in the meetings, as consensus is agreed in the list. Regards, Jordi ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

1 0

Survey on Internet agreement ecosystem
by Pedro de Botelho Marcos 13 Jun '17

13 Jun '17

Dear RIPE community, We are conducting a survey about Internet agreements, with a focus on dynamism, economics, and service level agreements aspects. Can you please help us by answering a set of objective questions reflecting your views (<10min)? Feel free to drop any comment on how to improve the survey in the future. Survey URL: http://bit.ly/2rfoQ3E Thank you very much, Cheers, -- Pedro de Botelho Marcos PhD Student Computer Networks Research Group Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul - UFRGS

1 1

Happy 5th World IPv6 Launch Anniversary
by Nick Hyrka 06 Jun '17

06 Jun '17

This message is forwarded on behalf of the Number Resource Organization. The Number Resource Organization (NRO) would like to wish the global Internet community a very happy 5th World IPv6 Launch Anniversary on the behalf of the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). We hope you enjoy our short video recounting IPv6 deployment progress around the world, and invite you to join us in the continuing efforts to make IPv6 the new normal: https://youtu.be/vYSRAcQAxrE Thanks also to the Internet Society (ISOC) for launching this initiative. We encourage you to take a look at their report on the current state of IPv6 deployment at: https://www.internetsociety.org/ipv6

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Diversity Discussion at RIPE 74
by Mirjam Kuehne 29 May '17

29 May '17

Dear colleagues, Please find this new article on RIPE Labs describing efforts to increase diversity and inclusivity in the RIPE community. The focus of this article is to report on activities before and during the RIPE 74 Meeting in Budapest in May 2017. We also invite you to join the mailing list, and help shape the newly formed RIPE Diversity Task Force: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/agowland/diversity-discussions-at-ripe-74 Kind regards, Mirjam Kuhne RIPE NCC

1 0

NRO EC and ASO AC statement on the ASO review
by Nick Hyrka 26 May '17

26 May '17

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization: Statement of the Number Resource Organization Executive Council (NRO EC) and Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) regarding the 2017 ASO Review https://www.nro.net/statement-of-the-nro-ec-and-aso-ac-regarding-the-2017-a… Regards, German Valdez NRO

1 0

Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic
by Pedro de Botelho Marcos 23 May '17

23 May '17

Hello, We are a group of networking researchers from UFRGS, UCLouvain and KAUST. We are working towards an approach to make interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic. The current approach for establishing agreements is cumbersome, typically requiring lengthy discussions. To accommodate the expected growth of traffic demands, network operators need to over-provision. Even so, operators miss the ability to quickly respond when facing unforeseen traffic demands, because agreements have static characteristics and changes could take days or weeks to be implemented. Dynamic agreements offer many opportunities. For example, consider acquiring extra "bandwidth as a service" that is available on demand just when one needs it, similarly to how one might spin up extra VMs in the cloud to handle high loads. We are interested in collecting some anecdotal evidence that dynamic agreements could solve real-world problems. Has any member of the forum faced any scenario where the kind of dynamism described above could be helpful? Many thanks for your inputs, -- Pedro de Botelho Marcos PhD Student Computer Networks Research Group Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul - UFRGS

1 0

External organisations - MoUs and membership by NCC
by Gordon Lennox 19 May '17

19 May '17

In Budapest I was approached by somebody who wanted to talk about the recent Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that NCC had signed with Russia, the Russian Ministry of Mass Communications. I was also aware that NCC had become a member of AIOTI (the Alliance for IoT Innovation). Now of course I think it is a good thing that NCC is committing staff and funding to outreach and liaison activities. Indeed I was instrumental in getting NCC involved with CEPT as part of their preparations for the ITU plenipotentiary in Korea. There seem to be though an increasing number of agreements and memberships and they differ in style and intent. Some appear to be almost housekeeping agreements as the respective communities already overlap enough. Some seem there to provide a sort of framework to allow NCC to work more closely with particular organisations and indeed make a financial contribution. Others are perhaps a bit more political. https://www.ripe.net/about-us/what-we-do/engagement-external-organisations All good stuff. And Paul and others - Chris? Marco? Nurani? - have done an excellent job in reporting what has been going on.But I think that given the increasing number and diversity of such activities it would be good if we could more clearly anchor them within the community. Reporting in a plenary is obviously good. But discussion in a WG is maybe good too. Some of this has been implicit to an extent. The Cooperation WG has been the sort of default. When Richard forwarded the Wannacrypt email from EuroPol though he also sent it to Anti-Abuse. And if we have an IOT WG then perhaps what NCC is doing with AIOTI could be reported there. I had seen Cooperation as being home for the EIF, the Round-Table, CEPT and general ITU matters. I had thought the Russian MoU would be there too but I was told Database would be better. Cool! I don’t think this has to be a big deal. We just have to be clearer - which WG mailing lists? which WG sessions? - where NCC will report on activities which are part of any agreement. Can NCC make an initial proposal? In cooperation with the appropriate WG chairs? This is about increasing the sense of participation by the community, through discussions in WGs, in what NCC is doing on their behalf. Gordon PS I think it would be good if NCC gave us a heads up on this list when they were considering concluding an agreement and then when they actually had an agreement.

1 0

After Budapest - Particle-free quantum communication is achieved in the lab
by Gordon Lennox 19 May '17

19 May '17

Particle-free quantum communication is achieved in the lab Four years ago, theoretical physicists proposed a new quantum-communication scheme with a striking feature: it did not require the transmission of any physical particles. The research raised eyebrows, but now a team of physicists in China claims it has demonstrated that the "counterfactual" scheme works. The group built an optical apparatus that it says can transfer a simple image while sending (almost) no photons in the process. ... http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2017/may/18/particle-free-quantum-…

1 0

Stepping down
by Filiz Yilmaz 19 May '17

19 May '17

Dear all, Following the inception of Accountability Task Force at RIPE73, I have accepted to be part of it as well as to contribute to the work in the Co-Chair position alongside William Sylvester. Unfortunately seeing the tone of the recent discussions around the Task Force in various mailing lists, I’ve lost my motivation to pursue a role within the Task Force. Words like “amateur lawyers” are being thrown into discussions in relation to the Task Force. I don’t know what is meant with this or who is intended to be addressed with that actually but I personally find this neither helpful nor constructive in the context of the discussions taking place. It is not only NOT inline, in my belief, with our expected standard behaviours but it also distracts from the actual work that TF members should be focusing on. I also observed that after 6 months of its inception there is still questioning around the Task Force’s remit and its scope. This made me question as well whether or not this is a topic that has general support of the larger community. I am very time challenged in my day job and considering the points above, it would just not be wise for me to stay in the TF under these current circumstances. Accordingly I have decided to step down from both member status as well as the Co-Chair position of the Task Force. I personally believe the areas and topics Accountability TF has planned to look into are important for the future of an healthy RIPE Community and so I will be continuing my participation as a community member when they publish their work. Kind regards Filiz Yilmaz

2 1

RIPE 74: Day 4 Report and Day 5 Remote Participation
by Martina De Mas 12 May '17

12 May '17

Dear colleagues, Thursday was another busy day at RIPE 74, with 628 attendees checked in and a second day of working group sessions. The daily meeting report is available at: https://ripe74.ripe.net/programme/report/thursday/ You can follow today's sessions live at: https://ripe74.ripe.net/live/main/ Kind regards Martina de Mas Conference Coordinator RIPE NCC

1 0