From gert at space.net Wed Oct 17 17:28:54 2007 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:28:54 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 Message-ID: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> Hello Address Policy Working Group, IPv6 Working Group, as announced yesterday on the APWG list, here's the first draft of the "we are going to tell the world what the RIPE community recommends regarding the end of IPv4 / advent of IPv6". The text has been drafted by the RIPE NCC, but the actual recommendation needs to come from "the community", so change whatever you think needs changing. Face-to-face discussion will take place in the APWG and IPv6 WG meeting on Thursday, October 25th. (Short discussion in APWG early morning, time to think about it during the day, final decision in the IPv6 WG meeting on Thursday afternoon). ----------------------- snip ----------------------- DRAFT - RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 RIPE 55: 22 - 26 October 2007 The RIPE community resolves as follows: 1) At current allocation rates, the remaining pool of unallocated IPv4 address space is likely to be allocated within the next two to four years. Although the Internet will continue to function as normal after this point this event will have a significant influence on future network operations as well as IP address management and allocation policies. Therefore we recognise that the widespread deployment of IPv6 will be essential to sustain future growth of the Internet. 2) We urge network operators and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to deploy IPv6 across their networks as soon as possible. This deployment must include providing IPv6 access to End Users and ensuring services are accessible by IPv6. 3) We recognise that the responsibility for creating policies related to the management of critical Internet resources in the RIPE NCC service region rests with the RIPE community and the proven success of the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP). In recognition of this responsibility, we commit to continue development of effective policies for the responsible management of IPv4 and IPv6 address space. 4) We agree that this situation requires a committed effort from network operators, ISPs and the RIPE community. We urge that the widespread deployment of IPv6 be made a high priority. ----- End forwarded message ----- Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 122119 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Wed Oct 17 18:15:38 2007 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:15:38 -0600 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hi Gert, Some inputs below in-line. Regards, Jordi > De: Gert Doering > Responder a: > Fecha: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:28:54 +0200 > Para: , > Asunto: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion > and Deployment of IPv6 > > Hello Address Policy Working Group, IPv6 Working Group, > > as announced yesterday on the APWG list, here's the first draft of the > "we are going to tell the world what the RIPE community recommends > regarding the end of IPv4 / advent of IPv6". > > The text has been drafted by the RIPE NCC, but the actual recommendation > needs to come from "the community", so change whatever you think needs > changing. > > Face-to-face discussion will take place in the APWG and IPv6 WG meeting > on Thursday, October 25th. (Short discussion in APWG early morning, time > to think about it during the day, final decision in the IPv6 WG meeting on > Thursday afternoon). > > ----------------------- snip ----------------------- > > DRAFT - RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and > Deployment of IPv6 > RIPE 55: 22 - 26 October 2007 > > The RIPE community resolves as follows: > > 1) At current allocation rates, the remaining pool of unallocated > IPv4 address space is likely to be allocated within the next two > to four years. Although the Internet will continue to function as > normal after this point this event will have a significant ... as normal after this point, for those that already have been allocated/assigned IPv4 addresses, ... > influence on future network operations as well as IP address > management and allocation policies. Therefore we recognise that > the widespread deployment of IPv6 will be essential to sustain > future growth of the Internet. > > 2) We urge network operators and Internet Service Providers > (ISPs) to deploy IPv6 across their networks as soon as possible. ... possible, typically by means of incremental steps (depending on each network case, from the core to the access), ... > This deployment must include providing IPv6 access to End Users > and ensuring services are accessible by IPv6. > > 3) We recognise that the responsibility for creating policies > related to the management of critical Internet resources in the > RIPE NCC service region rests with the RIPE community and the > proven success of the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP). In > recognition of this responsibility, we commit to continue > development of effective policies for the responsible management > of IPv4 and IPv6 address space. > > 4) We agree that this situation requires a committed effort from > network operators, ISPs and the RIPE community. We urge that the > widespread deployment of IPv6 be made a high priority. > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 122119 > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org 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. From florian at frotzler.priv.at Wed Oct 17 17:39:40 2007 From: florian at frotzler.priv.at (Florian Frotzler) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:39:40 +0200 Subject: AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> Message-ID: <001f01c810d3$eee02530$cca06f90$@priv.at> Hi, what about also urging the vendors to fully support IPv6 (like forwarding in hardware, increase functionality, you name it...)? Cheers, Florian -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Gert Doering Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Oktober 2007 17:29 An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net; ipv6-wg at ripe.net Betreff: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 Hello Address Policy Working Group, IPv6 Working Group, as announced yesterday on the APWG list, here's the first draft of the "we are going to tell the world what the RIPE community recommends regarding the end of IPv4 / advent of IPv6". The text has been drafted by the RIPE NCC, but the actual recommendation needs to come from "the community", so change whatever you think needs changing. Face-to-face discussion will take place in the APWG and IPv6 WG meeting on Thursday, October 25th. (Short discussion in APWG early morning, time to think about it during the day, final decision in the IPv6 WG meeting on Thursday afternoon). ----------------------- snip ----------------------- DRAFT - RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 RIPE 55: 22 - 26 October 2007 The RIPE community resolves as follows: 1) At current allocation rates, the remaining pool of unallocated IPv4 address space is likely to be allocated within the next two to four years. Although the Internet will continue to function as normal after this point this event will have a significant influence on future network operations as well as IP address management and allocation policies. Therefore we recognise that the widespread deployment of IPv6 will be essential to sustain future growth of the Internet. 2) We urge network operators and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to deploy IPv6 across their networks as soon as possible. This deployment must include providing IPv6 access to End Users and ensuring services are accessible by IPv6. 3) We recognise that the responsibility for creating policies related to the management of critical Internet resources in the RIPE NCC service region rests with the RIPE community and the proven success of the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP). In recognition of this responsibility, we commit to continue development of effective policies for the responsible management of IPv4 and IPv6 address space. 4) We agree that this situation requires a committed effort from network operators, ISPs and the RIPE community. We urge that the widespread deployment of IPv6 be made a high priority. ----- End forwarded message ----- Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 122119 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From fw at deneb.enyo.de Thu Oct 18 10:57:34 2007 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:57:34 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> (Gert Doering's message of "Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:28:54 +0200") References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> Message-ID: <87r6jsu7ep.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> * Gert Doering: > 2) We urge network operators and Internet Service Providers > (ISPs) to deploy IPv6 across their networks as soon as possible. > This deployment must include providing IPv6 access to End Users > and ensuring services are accessible by IPv6. Shouldn't this paragraph target RIPE members specifically? Or, put differently, why are end users and software vendors excluded? From slz at baycix.de Thu Oct 18 11:49:05 2007 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:49:05 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <471726B1.6040003@vande-walle.eu> References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> <87r6jsu7ep.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <471726B1.6040003@vande-walle.eu> Message-ID: <47172C11.4070104@baycix.de> Hi, Patrick Vande Walle schrieb: > Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Gert Doering: >> >>> 2) We urge network operators and Internet Service Providers >>> (ISPs) to deploy IPv6 across their networks as soon as possible. >>> This deployment must include providing IPv6 access to End Users >>> and ensuring services are accessible by IPv6. >>> >> Shouldn't this paragraph target RIPE members specifically? Or, put >> differently, why are end users and software vendors excluded? >> > Speaking as an end user, which probably does not qualify me as being > part of the "RIPE Community": > > Agree with Florian's comments, and I would add hardware vendors to the > list. As long as there are no commodity CPEs supporting IPv6, there is > no incentive for ISPs to deploy IPv6 to their end users, especially > those targetting the home users. > even though the statement cannot be more than political "blah-blah" without any real outcome :-), i want to join in that the wording SHOULD include at least vendors end end-suer, since they are the biggest problem (point of view: a Consultant). Probably "network operators" is meant to include end-users, but that's not clear enough. And i also see vendors as part of "the community" here, but probably they don't think they are addressed without explicitely mentioning it :-) ISPs won't start deploying IPv6 more widely without end-users requiring it and vendors have a full (as in COMPLETE, WORKING) set of IPv6 capable devices, including SOHO CPEs. ...heck, i already have one upstream explicitely SHUTTING DOWN its IPv6 (testbed) service (Allocation returned) without any production replacement since noone wants to have IPv6 connectivity...yes, big german business/resale ISP ... scary. -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ======================================================================== BayCIX GmbH * 84034 Landshut * Wagnergasse 8 Tel: +49 871 925360 * Fax: +49 871 9253629 eMail: technik at baycix.de GF: Thomas Zajac * HR B 4878 (Landshut) From Joao_Damas at isc.org Thu Oct 18 12:49:58 2007 From: Joao_Damas at isc.org (Joao Damas) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:49:58 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <001f01c810d3$eee02530$cca06f90$@priv.at> References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> <001f01c810d3$eee02530$cca06f90$@priv.at> Message-ID: <8C0E42DF-7EBB-4E44-B619-B847A3E288B7@isc.org> I believe vendors will go where-ever their users show them the money. Create the demand, the offer will show up. Joao On 17 Oct 2007, at 17:39, Florian Frotzler wrote: > Hi, > > what about also urging the vendors to fully support IPv6 (like > forwarding in > hardware, increase functionality, you name it...)? > > Cheers, > Florian > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] Im > Auftrag von > Gert Doering > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Oktober 2007 17:29 > An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net; ipv6-wg at ripe.net > Betreff: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 > Depletion and > Deployment of IPv6 > > Hello Address Policy Working Group, IPv6 Working Group, > > as announced yesterday on the APWG list, here's the first draft of the > "we are going to tell the world what the RIPE community recommends > regarding the end of IPv4 / advent of IPv6". > > The text has been drafted by the RIPE NCC, but the actual > recommendation > needs to come from "the community", so change whatever you think needs > changing. > > Face-to-face discussion will take place in the APWG and IPv6 WG > meeting > on Thursday, October 25th. (Short discussion in APWG early > morning, time > to think about it during the day, final decision in the IPv6 WG > meeting on > Thursday afternoon). > > ----------------------- snip ----------------------- > > DRAFT - RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and > Deployment of IPv6 > RIPE 55: 22 - 26 October 2007 > > The RIPE community resolves as follows: > > 1) At current allocation rates, the remaining pool of unallocated > IPv4 address space is likely to be allocated within the next two > to four years. Although the Internet will continue to function as > normal after this point this event will have a significant > influence on future network operations as well as IP address > management and allocation policies. Therefore we recognise that > the widespread deployment of IPv6 will be essential to sustain > future growth of the Internet. > > 2) We urge network operators and Internet Service Providers > (ISPs) to deploy IPv6 across their networks as soon as possible. > This deployment must include providing IPv6 access to End Users > and ensuring services are accessible by IPv6. > > 3) We recognise that the responsibility for creating policies > related to the management of critical Internet resources in the > RIPE NCC service region rests with the RIPE community and the > proven success of the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP). In > recognition of this responsibility, we commit to continue > development of effective policies for the responsible management > of IPv4 and IPv6 address space. > > 4) We agree that this situation requires a committed effort from > network operators, ISPs and the RIPE community. We urge that the > widespread deployment of IPv6 be made a high priority. > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 122119 > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner- > Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > From iljitsch at muada.com Thu Oct 18 13:11:10 2007 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:11:10 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <8C0E42DF-7EBB-4E44-B619-B847A3E288B7@isc.org> References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> <001f01c810d3$eee02530$cca06f90$@priv.at> <8C0E42DF-7EBB-4E44-B619-B847A3E288B7@isc.org> Message-ID: On 18-okt-2007, at 12:49, Joao Damas wrote: > I believe vendors will go where-ever their users show them the money. > Create the demand, the offer will show up. Same thing for the ISPs. And the content networks. All three of those are in the end paid by the end-user. But the end-user has no idea what IPv6 is and is certainly not going to spend extra money to get it. There is plenty of work to do elsewhere too, but the CPE issue is quickly becoming a significant hurdle. The reason for that is that those tend to run IPv4 NAT which makes easy IPv6 tunneling hard. We really need those boxes to support IPv6 in the near future. However, in order for that to work there must be a clear provisioning model between ISPs and end-users. A good way to do this with IPv6 is with DHCPv6 prefix delegation, but until pretty much everyone agrees it's hard to build a CPE that will do something reasonable with IPv6 out of the box. From Joao_Damas at isc.org Thu Oct 18 14:13:37 2007 From: Joao_Damas at isc.org (Joao Damas) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:13:37 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> <001f01c810d3$eee02530$cca06f90$@priv.at> <8C0E42DF-7EBB-4E44-B619-B847A3E288B7@isc.org> Message-ID: On 18 Oct 2007, at 13:11, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 18-okt-2007, at 12:49, Joao Damas wrote: > >> I believe vendors will go where-ever their users show them the money. >> Create the demand, the offer will show up. > > Same thing for the ISPs. Nope. If ISPs want to continue getting new customers and there are no new IPv4 addresses available then either trade them with some other party who has them, or they use IPv6. The last option might be more expensive at first but it will go down in price, whereas the cost of the first option is only likely to increase. This will create demand from the ISPs for IPv6 enabled products, though perhaps more in the area of application level gateways than in others. Customers won't care if their ISP gives them v6 or v4 as long as they get the service. > And the content networks. All three of those are in the end paid by > the end-user. But the end-user has no idea what IPv6 is and is > certainly not going to spend extra money to get it. > > There is plenty of work to do elsewhere too, but the CPE issue is > quickly becoming a significant hurdle. The reason for that is that > those tend to run IPv4 NAT which makes easy IPv6 tunneling hard. We > really need those boxes to support IPv6 in the near future. > > However, in order for that to work there must be a clear > provisioning model between ISPs and end-users. A good way to do > this with IPv6 is with DHCPv6 prefix delegation, but until pretty > much everyone agrees it's hard to build a CPE that will do > something reasonable with IPv6 out of the box. > From fw at deneb.enyo.de Thu Oct 18 15:39:16 2007 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:39:16 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: (Tim Streater's message of "Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:31:10 +0100") References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> <87r6jsu7ep.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <471726B1.6040003@vande-walle.eu> <47172C11.4070104@baycix.de> Message-ID: <87ve94mtiz.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> * Tim Streater: > End users won't require it; they know little about v4 and v6 and only > care about their applications working and being able to reach the > hosts/sites they want to reach. Does this reflect your experience with the academic community? (Just curious.) > When some parts of the Internet are only reachable via v6 *that* is > when users will want to know why and will kick their ISPs, who will > hasten to get their act together and will then kick their upstreams. Uh-oh, this reminds me of the Internet2 Detective. 8-/ From patrick at vande-walle.eu Thu Oct 18 11:26:09 2007 From: patrick at vande-walle.eu (Patrick Vande Walle) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:26:09 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <87r6jsu7ep.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> <87r6jsu7ep.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Message-ID: <471726B1.6040003@vande-walle.eu> Florian Weimer wrote: > * Gert Doering: > >> 2) We urge network operators and Internet Service Providers >> (ISPs) to deploy IPv6 across their networks as soon as possible. >> This deployment must include providing IPv6 access to End Users >> and ensuring services are accessible by IPv6. >> > > Shouldn't this paragraph target RIPE members specifically? Or, put > differently, why are end users and software vendors excluded? > Speaking as an end user, which probably does not qualify me as being part of the "RIPE Community": Agree with Florian's comments, and I would add hardware vendors to the list. As long as there are no commodity CPEs supporting IPv6, there is no incentive for ISPs to deploy IPv6 to their end users, especially those targetting the home users. -- Patrick Vande Walle From tim.streater at dante.org.uk Thu Oct 18 12:31:10 2007 From: tim.streater at dante.org.uk (Tim Streater) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:31:10 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <47172C11.4070104@baycix.de> References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> <87r6jsu7ep.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <471726B1.6040003@vande-walle.eu> <47172C11.4070104@baycix.de> Message-ID: At 10:49 18/10/2007, Sascha Lenz wrote: >Hi, > >Patrick Vande Walle schrieb: >>Florian Weimer wrote: >>>* Gert Doering: >>> >>>>2) We urge network operators and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to deploy IPv6 across their networks as soon as possible. This deployment must include providing IPv6 access to End Users and ensuring services are accessible by IPv6. >>>> >>>Shouldn't this paragraph target RIPE members specifically? Or, put >>>differently, why are end users and software vendors excluded? >>> >>Speaking as an end user, which probably does not qualify me as being >>part of the "RIPE Community": >>Agree with Florian's comments, and I would add hardware vendors to the >>list. As long as there are no commodity CPEs supporting IPv6, there is >>no incentive for ISPs to deploy IPv6 to their end users, especially >>those targetting the home users. > >even though the statement cannot be more than political "blah-blah" without any real outcome :-), i want to join in that the wording SHOULD include at least vendors end end-suer, since they are the biggest problem (point of view: a Consultant). >Probably "network operators" is meant to include end-users, but that's not clear enough. >And i also see vendors as part of "the community" here, but probably they don't think they are addressed without explicitely mentioning it :-) > >ISPs won't start deploying IPv6 more widely without end-users requiring it and vendors have a full (as in COMPLETE, WORKING) set of IPv6 capable devices, including SOHO CPEs. End users won't require it; they know little about v4 and v6 and only care about their applications working and being able to reach the hosts/sites they want to reach. When some parts of the Internet are only reachable via v6 *that* is when users will want to know why and will kick their ISPs, who will hasten to get their act together and will then kick their upstreams. We have a fully v6-compliant network already - and little traffic. >...heck, i already have one upstream explicitely SHUTTING DOWN its IPv6 (testbed) service (Allocation returned) without any production replacement since noone wants to have IPv6 connectivity...yes, big german business/resale ISP ... scary. -- Tim From nick at inex.ie Thu Oct 18 13:33:39 2007 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:33:39 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> <001f01c810d3$eee02530$cca06f90$@priv.at> <8C0E42DF-7EBB-4E44-B619-B847A3E288B7@isc.org> Message-ID: <47174493.90506@inex.ie> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > There is plenty of work to do elsewhere too, but the CPE issue is > quickly becoming a significant hurdle. On the contrary, the CPE issue has been a major problem for many years. It's simply one which has been ignored for far too long. > The reason for that is that those > tend to run IPv4 NAT which makes easy IPv6 tunneling hard. We really > need those boxes to support IPv6 in the near future. This all comes down to economics. Adding IPv6 capabilities to CPE access devices costs money, and CPE devices are often chosen purely on the basis of cost alone. Ergo, IPv6 capability is bad for business, if you manufacture CPE boxen. The real problem here is the lifetime of CPE devices. I'm going to estimate a rough half-life of 3 years. This is going to mean an awful lot of CPE access device swapouts to move to teh ipv6 intarweb. Which brings things back to the access ISPs: all access ISPs should be encouraged in the strongest possible terms to deploy devices now which are ipv6 capable, or which can be upgraded to be ipv6 capable. This will put pressure on the manufacturers to introduce v6 boxes to the marketplace because there are almost no low-end units which will do ipv6 out of the box right now. For a laugh, or maybe a cry, check out: http://www.google.com/search?q=ipv6+%2Bsite%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.netopia.com http://www.google.com/search?q=ipv6+%2Bsite%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.belkin.com http://www.google.com/search?q=ipv6+%2Bsite%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.netgear.com http://www.google.com/search?q=ipv6+%2Bsite%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.2wire.com http://www.google.com/search?q=ipv6+%2Bsite%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.draytek.com http://www.google.com/search?q=ipv6+%2Bsite%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.linksys.com http://www.google.com/search?q=ipv6+%2Bsite%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.zyxel.com read: "heuston, we have a problem" Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick at inex.ie From patrick at vande-walle.eu Thu Oct 18 15:00:56 2007 From: patrick at vande-walle.eu (Patrick Vande Walle) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:00:56 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> <001f01c810d3$eee02530$cca06f90$@priv.at> <8C0E42DF-7EBB-4E44-B619-B847A3E288B7@isc.org> Message-ID: <47175908.30009@vande-walle.eu> Joao Damas wrote: > Nope. If ISPs want to continue getting new customers and there are no > new IPv4 addresses available then either trade them with some other > party who has them, or they use IPv6. ... or use RFC1918 space and NAT their entire SOHO customer base. I am told some ISPs do it already. -- Patrick Vande Walle From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Thu Oct 18 17:33:40 2007 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:33:40 -0600 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <87r6jsu7ep.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Message-ID: I think it may be better one additional paragraph asking the end users to *request* IPv6 transition or native services to their ISPs and look for an alternative ISP when their actual one is not willing to offer the service. Which this, I'm not asking the ISPs to do native overnight, I know this is not reasonable, but deploying 6to4 and Teredo relays for their users is simple and inexpensive solution and a very good think for both reducing the unnecessary upstream traffic and lowering the RTT when using those transition mechanisms. There is no excuse for an ISP not doing so already and I'm happy to offer my time if somebody don't have the knowledge about how to do so. Regards, Jordi > De: Florian Weimer > Responder a: > Fecha: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:57:34 +0200 > Para: Gert Doering > CC: , > Asunto: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on > IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 > > * Gert Doering: > >> 2) We urge network operators and Internet Service Providers >> (ISPs) to deploy IPv6 across their networks as soon as possible. >> This deployment must include providing IPv6 access to End Users >> and ensuring services are accessible by IPv6. > > Shouldn't this paragraph target RIPE members specifically? Or, put > differently, why are end users and software vendors excluded? > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org 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. From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Thu Oct 18 17:56:22 2007 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:56:22 -0600 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <471726B1.6040003@vande-walle.eu> Message-ID: Well, I don't agree you're not part of the community. Being subscriber and poster to the mailing is a qualifier for being a member :-) Agree with Florian and you. It is needed to say something to remind vendors that market is already asking for IPv6 support. I don't think they should just wait for the demand to come, because then it will be late. So a warning to them is a good thing. Same for software developers, they should realize that they can take advantage of IPv6 NOW, because even if there are no native access providers yet, transition is available in end-hosts. There is no immediate need for low costs CPEs, of course is good to have, but transition tools in end-hosts already deliver the same, until access providers provide dual stack, then of course, CPEs with allow dual stack on the WAN link are needed. Regards, Jordi > De: Patrick Vande Walle > Responder a: > Fecha: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:26:09 +0200 > Para: > CC: > Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 > Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 > > Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Gert Doering: >> >>> 2) We urge network operators and Internet Service Providers >>> (ISPs) to deploy IPv6 across their networks as soon as possible. >>> This deployment must include providing IPv6 access to End Users >>> and ensuring services are accessible by IPv6. >>> >> >> Shouldn't this paragraph target RIPE members specifically? Or, put >> differently, why are end users and software vendors excluded? >> > Speaking as an end user, which probably does not qualify me as being > part of the "RIPE Community": > > Agree with Florian's comments, and I would add hardware vendors to the > list. As long as there are no commodity CPEs supporting IPv6, there is > no incentive for ISPs to deploy IPv6 to their end users, especially > those targetting the home users. > > -- > Patrick Vande Walle > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org 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. From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Thu Oct 18 18:03:08 2007 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:03:08 -0600 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: End users are every day smarter. They realize that some peer to peer applications, on-lime-gaming, etc., works better some times or in some ISPs, and they end-up guessing that it is because they are able to use IPv6 end-to-end, doing *real* peer-to-peer. And it happens that some ISPs offer transition services that improve that, others not, so end-users end up replacing their ISPs and this is going to be more and more frequent, because this is already happening as more and more people uses Vista. Regarding the comment on the IPv6 traffic. There is a big misconception here, and I can prove it. We developed a tool to measure *REAL* IPv6 traffic, not just *NATIVE*. Because today, it is clear that a very very very low % is native, because almost none of the ISPs offer native IPv6 to the last mile, it is quite obvious. However, the increase on transition (encapsulated) IPv6 traffic is something happening in *ALL* the networks, despite those networks don't have *ANY* IPv6 support. GEANT may offer dual stack, but if the universities don't offer IPv6 to the desktop, then the OSs are using transition mechanisms, without users noticing it ! Regards, Jordi > De: Tim Streater > Responder a: > Fecha: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:31:10 +0100 > Para: Sascha Lenz , Address Policy WG > > CC: > Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 > Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 > > At 10:49 18/10/2007, Sascha Lenz wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Patrick Vande Walle schrieb: >>> Florian Weimer wrote: >>>> * Gert Doering: >>>> >>>>> 2) We urge network operators and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to >>>>> deploy IPv6 across their networks as soon as possible. This deployment >>>>> must include providing IPv6 access to End Users and ensuring services are >>>>> accessible by IPv6. >>>>> >>>> Shouldn't this paragraph target RIPE members specifically? Or, put >>>> differently, why are end users and software vendors excluded? >>>> >>> Speaking as an end user, which probably does not qualify me as being >>> part of the "RIPE Community": >>> Agree with Florian's comments, and I would add hardware vendors to the >>> list. As long as there are no commodity CPEs supporting IPv6, there is >>> no incentive for ISPs to deploy IPv6 to their end users, especially >>> those targetting the home users. >> >> even though the statement cannot be more than political "blah-blah" without >> any real outcome :-), i want to join in that the wording SHOULD include at >> least vendors end end-suer, since they are the biggest problem (point of >> view: a Consultant). >> Probably "network operators" is meant to include end-users, but that's not >> clear enough. >> And i also see vendors as part of "the community" here, but probably they >> don't think they are addressed without explicitely mentioning it :-) >> >> ISPs won't start deploying IPv6 more widely without end-users requiring it >> and vendors have a full (as in COMPLETE, WORKING) set of IPv6 capable >> devices, including SOHO CPEs. > > End users won't require it; they know little about v4 and v6 and only care > about their applications working and being able to reach the hosts/sites they > want to reach. When some parts of the Internet are only reachable via v6 > *that* is when users will > want to know why and will kick their ISPs, who will hasten to get their act > together and will then kick their upstreams. > > We have a fully v6-compliant network already - and little traffic. > >> ...heck, i already have one upstream explicitely SHUTTING DOWN its IPv6 >> (testbed) service (Allocation returned) without any production replacement >> since noone wants to have IPv6 connectivity...yes, big german business/resale >> ISP ... scary. > > > -- Tim > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org 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. From fw at deneb.enyo.de Thu Oct 18 21:26:19 2007 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:26:19 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: (michael dillon's message of "Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:25:08 +0100") References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> <001f01c810d3$eee02530$cca06f90$@priv.at> <8C0E42DF-7EBB-4E44-B619-B847A3E288B7@isc.org> <47174493.90506@inex.ie> Message-ID: <87fy08cjhg.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> * michael dillon: >> This all comes down to economics. Adding IPv6 capabilities >> to CPE access devices costs money, and CPE devices are often >> chosen purely on the basis of cost alone. Ergo, IPv6 >> capability is bad for business, if you manufacture CPE boxen. > > IPv6 is a software upgrade. Including IPsec? Doubt it, some of the CPUs barely manage to run PPPoE. From david.kessens at nsn.com Fri Oct 19 08:00:08 2007 From: david.kessens at nsn.com (David Kessens) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:00:08 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Agenda for ipv6 wg RIPE55 Message-ID: <20071019060008.GF6095@nsn.com> During next RIPE meeting, our working group is scheduled to meet: Thu, Oct 25, 16:00 - 17:30 in Grand Ballroom, Hotel Krasnapolsky, Amsterdam The agenda became quite packed due to the last minute agenda item of a proposed community statement regarding the depletion of ipv4 and the deployment of ipv6. Note that this proposal will be discussed first in the APWG session in the early thursday morning session. I have included a link to the actual proposal in the agenda and you might want to take a look at it and the discussion that followed on the list after the first posting of the draft. Rather than cutting the discussion short, we might let the meeting run past the normal closing time of 17:30 but to no later than 18:00 (I usually ask for the afternoon slot so that we have a bit more flexibility with our time). See you all in Amsterdam, David Kessens --- Agenda for the IPv6 Working Group Meeting RIPE55 When: Thu, Oct 25, 16:00 - 17:30 Where: Grand Ballroom, Hotel Krasnapolsky, Amsterdam A. Administrative stuff - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing (David Kessens) B. Experience with ipv6 in the RIPE NCC network (Mark Guz, RIPE NCC) C. Two jokes, one and half proposal (IPv4->IPv6 transition in DSL environment) (Geza Turchanyi) D. Report(s) about *actual* v6 traffic volume as compared to v4? *what's real* out there, not what's on powerpoint? AMS-IX (Henk Steenman) & (input from the audience) E. Follow-up: Global IPv6 routing table status (discussion) (Gert Doering) F. RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/ipv6-wg/2007/msg00047.html and follow-up mails on ipv6 and apwg mailing list (Gert Doering, David Kessens) G. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond (input from the audience) ... Y. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan (input from the audience) Z. AOB --- From cfriacas at fccn.pt Fri Oct 19 10:22:44 2007 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:22:44 +0100 (WEST) Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Well, I don't agree you're not part of the community. Being subscriber and > poster to the mailing is a qualifier for being a member :-) > > Agree with Florian and you. It is needed to say something to remind vendors > that market is already asking for IPv6 support. I don't think they should > just wait for the demand to come, because then it will be late. So a warning > to them is a good thing. Same for software developers, they should realize > that they can take advantage of IPv6 NOW, because even if there are no > native access providers yet, transition is available in end-hosts. there are NOT ENOUGH native (commercial) access providers ...but we should make a small note that some already exist. :-) > There is no immediate need for low costs CPEs, of course is good to have, > but transition tools in end-hosts already deliver the same, until access //transition tools in end-hosts// ...and what happens to performance??? imho, low-cost CPEs are key if one wants to seriously see IPv6 deployed significantly. it would be a significant contribution to break chicken/egg-type problems... > providers provide dual stack, then of course, CPEs with allow dual stack on > the WAN link are needed. > > Regards, > Jordi Best Regards, ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Friac,as See: Wide Area Network Working Group (WAN) www.gigapix.pt FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional www.ipv6.eu Av. do Brasil, n.101 www.6diss.org 1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal, Europe www.geant2.net Tel: +351 218440100 Fax: +351 218472167 www.fccn.pt ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The end is near........ see http://ipv4.potaroo.net "Internet is just routes (217118/774), naming (billions) and... people!" Aviso de Confidencialidade Esta mensagem e' exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatario, podendo conter informacao CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgacao esta' expressamente vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta via ou para o telefone +351 218440100 devendo apagar o seu conteudo de imediato. Warning This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. It may contain CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this message has been received by error, please notify us via e-mail or by telephone +351 218440100 and delete it immediately. From tim.streater at dante.org.uk Thu Oct 18 17:34:13 2007 From: tim.streater at dante.org.uk (Tim Streater) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:34:13 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <87ve94mtiz.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> <87r6jsu7ep.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <471726B1.6040003@vande-walle.eu> <47172C11.4070104@baycix.de> <87ve94mtiz.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Message-ID: At 14:39 18/10/2007, Florian Weimer wrote: >* Tim Streater: > > > End users won't require it; they know little about v4 and v6 and only > > care about their applications working and being able to reach the > > hosts/sites they want to reach. > >Does this reflect your experience with the academic community? (Just >curious.) End users doing v6 testing or testing apps for v6, will obviously know. We must have a number of those in some NRENs that we serve. We have several NREN customers who consistently generate orders of magnitude more v6 traffic than others. Then you have the generality of network engineers, who should know :-) But end-users in general (academic or not) are unlikely to know, seems to me. -- Tim From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Oct 18 18:25:08 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:25:08 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <47174493.90506@inex.ie> References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> <001f01c810d3$eee02530$cca06f90$@priv.at> <8C0E42DF-7EBB-4E44-B619-B847A3E288B7@isc.org> <47174493.90506@inex.ie> Message-ID: > This all comes down to economics. Adding IPv6 capabilities > to CPE access devices costs money, and CPE devices are often > chosen purely on the basis of cost alone. Ergo, IPv6 > capability is bad for business, if you manufacture CPE boxen. IPv6 is a software upgrade. Most of these boxes can be flashed in the field and many of them are based on Linux or BSD, so in most cases it is only a matter of including and testing the IPv6 code that already exists. > The real problem here is the lifetime of CPE devices. I'm > going to estimate a rough half-life of 3 years. This is > going to mean an awful lot of CPE access device swapouts to > move to teh ipv6 intarweb. This means that if we can get manufacturers to include IPv6 during the next 12 months, then in 4 years, half the CPE will support IPv6 through pure attrition. That's not too bad. Once the kit is on the market, this schedule can be speeded up if required. Also, remember that IPv4 doesn't suddenly stop working. You could reasonably expect to leave most existing customers alone and only deal with CPE upgrades for the few that want to upgrade. The CPE manufacturers can move pretty quickly if they see a demand for IPv6. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Oct 18 23:33:45 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:33:45 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <4717A3BE.7060506@inex.ie> References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> <001f01c810d3$eee02530$cca06f90$@priv.at> <8C0E42DF-7EBB-4E44-B619-B847A3E288B7@isc.org> <47174493.90506@inex.ie> <4717A3BE.7060506@inex.ie> Message-ID: > It is true that if: > > - you have an CPE device which is designed to be upgraded > (lots of early CPE devices weren't) > - the CPE device has enough flash and RAM to run ipv6 > - there is actually an ipv6 capable image for your CPE > device, which assumes that your CPE device is still supported > by its manufacturer > - this ipv6 upgrade image is stable enough for production use > - you are clued in enough to be able to upgrade your CPE device > - your ISP can afford the time to support the reconfiguration > of your device via its support mechanism, > > ... then IPv6 is a software upgrade. > > If any of these is not true, you're way off into uncharted territory. Uncharted territory? How does "you continue to use IPv4 as before" become uncharted territory. If a customer's network does not support IPv6 for any reason, including CPE, then they just keep on using IPv4 as they always have done. They can still get to IPv6 resources that have installed appropriate adapters such as 6to4 relays or ALGs on the content providers network. When the IPv6 Internet is required to sustain business growth because there are no unused IPv4 addresses available, all the IPv4 network infrastructure will continue to work as it had before. > how are you going to explain > this to Joe and Jane Knucklehead ... what ipv6 is and how > it could make their life any better, and that now they have > to fork out EUR60 for another ADSL modem when their current one > works just fine, thank you very much. It's easier than most engineers think. Ordinary people spend EUR60 every day for things that they find useful, such as a meal in a restaurant, new clothes. Experience has shown that they are not unhappy to pay that much money to replace an Internet gateway as long as it is old and there is some perceived benefit in the new one. Since a new one will support IPv6, is likely to have field-upgradeable software, and probably includes a better firewall and management interface, it will be easy to get them to pay for it. --Michael Dillon From nick at inex.ie Thu Oct 18 20:19:42 2007 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:19:42 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> <001f01c810d3$eee02530$cca06f90$@priv.at> <8C0E42DF-7EBB-4E44-B619-B847A3E288B7@isc.org> <47174493.90506@inex.ie> Message-ID: <4717A3BE.7060506@inex.ie> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > IPv6 is a software upgrade. Michael, you've got quite the talent for coming up with vacuous sound-bites like this. It is true that if: - you have an CPE device which is designed to be upgraded (lots of early CPE devices weren't) - the CPE device has enough flash and RAM to run ipv6 - there is actually an ipv6 capable image for your CPE device, which assumes that your CPE device is still supported by its manufacturer - this ipv6 upgrade image is stable enough for production use - you are clued in enough to be able to upgrade your CPE device - your ISP can afford the time to support the reconfiguration of your device via its support mechanism, ... then IPv6 is a software upgrade. If any of these is not true, you're way off into uncharted territory. Obviously, it's always going to be possible to buy your way out of this sort of problem, but how are you going to explain this to Joe and Jane Knucklehead who want teh intarweb for their kids' school projects, Jane's IM with her sister in OZ and Joe's late night pr0n sessions, and who have no knowledge whatever in any meaningful sense about what ipv6 is and how it could make their life any better, and that now they have to fork out ?60 for another ADSL modem when their current one works just fine, thank you very much. Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick at inex.ie From iljitsch at muada.com Fri Oct 19 10:51:32 2007 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:51:32 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <87fy08cjhg.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> <001f01c810d3$eee02530$cca06f90$@priv.at> <8C0E42DF-7EBB-4E44-B619-B847A3E288B7@isc.org> <47174493.90506@inex.ie> <87fy08cjhg.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Message-ID: <1C87EF13-F074-4CC6-A520-531F5015A6B6@muada.com> On 18-okt-2007, at 21:26, Florian Weimer wrote: >> IPv6 is a software upgrade. > Including IPsec? Doubt it, some of the CPUs barely manage to run > PPPoE. Since when are IPv6 routers required to do IPsec processing? From Shane_Kerr at isc.org Fri Oct 19 09:59:41 2007 From: Shane_Kerr at isc.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:59:41 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <87fy08cjhg.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> <001f01c810d3$eee02530$cca06f90$@priv.at> <8C0E42DF-7EBB-4E44-B619-B847A3E288B7@isc.org> <47174493.90506@inex.ie> <87fy08cjhg.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Message-ID: <471863ED.4040206@isc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Florian Weimer wrote: > * michael dillon: > >>> This all comes down to economics. Adding IPv6 capabilities >>> to CPE access devices costs money, and CPE devices are often >>> chosen purely on the basis of cost alone. Ergo, IPv6 >>> capability is bad for business, if you manufacture CPE boxen. >> IPv6 is a software upgrade. > > Including IPsec? Doubt it, some of the CPUs barely manage to run PPPoE. IPv6 can use without IPsec. Also, you can use IPsec without IPv6. I blame IPv6-advocates for adding "security" to the "feature list" for IPv6, in an attempt to make it more attractive. The only real feature IPv6 adds is more addresses. There are a few simplifications that you can make when you don't have to worry about running out of addresses, and these are part of IPv6. But security (and quality of service) is just as easy in IPv4 as in IPv6. - -- Shane -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHGGPtMsfZxBO4kbQRAp0UAKClQGfgNnZgRm3gCkeicErb9idnRwCgkI62 PXBXY5BC8BXBT8mGY/KCT2g= =QUMA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nick at inex.ie Fri Oct 19 11:04:47 2007 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:04:47 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <1C87EF13-F074-4CC6-A520-531F5015A6B6@muada.com> References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> <001f01c810d3$eee02530$cca06f90$@priv.at> <8C0E42DF-7EBB-4E44-B619-B847A3E288B7@isc.org> <47174493.90506@inex.ie> <87fy08cjhg.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <1C87EF13-F074-4CC6-A520-531F5015A6B6@muada.com> Message-ID: <4718732F.3000907@inex.ie> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > Since when are IPv6 routers required to do IPsec processing? December 1995 - please see rfc1883 and rfc2640, section 4: > A full implementation of IPv6 includes implementation of the > following extension headers: > [...] > Authentication > Encapsulating Security Payload > > The first four are specified in this document; the last two are > specified in [RFC-2402] and [RFC-2406], respectively. Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick at inex.ie From fw at deneb.enyo.de Fri Oct 19 11:24:50 2007 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:24:50 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <1C87EF13-F074-4CC6-A520-531F5015A6B6@muada.com> (Iljitsch van Beijnum's message of "Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:51:32 +0200") References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> <001f01c810d3$eee02530$cca06f90$@priv.at> <8C0E42DF-7EBB-4E44-B619-B847A3E288B7@isc.org> <47174493.90506@inex.ie> <87fy08cjhg.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <1C87EF13-F074-4CC6-A520-531F5015A6B6@muada.com> Message-ID: <87d4vbjw2l.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> * Iljitsch van Beijnum: > On 18-okt-2007, at 21:26, Florian Weimer wrote: > >>> IPv6 is a software upgrade. > >> Including IPsec? Doubt it, some of the CPUs barely manage to run >> PPPoE. > > Since when are IPv6 routers required to do IPsec processing? RFC 4294, Section 8.1. From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Fri Oct 19 15:24:57 2007 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:24:57 -0600 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Performance is not an issue when doing peer to peer with the same transition mechanism (example Teredo to Teredo or 6to4 to 6to4), actually the performance is better than doing it with IPv4 and using intermediate hosts, such as MSN or Skype do. Performance impacts when both hosts doing peer-to-peer (or client-to-server) are using different types of IPv6 connectivity (example, native vs. 6to4 or Teredo, or Teredo vs. 6to4). This is solved by deploying 6to4 and Teredo relays in the ISPs, and is actually something inexpensive that ISPs should do while they can't provide native access. Regards, Jordi > De: Carlos Friacas > Responder a: > Fecha: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:22:44 +0100 (WEST) > Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > CC: > Asunto: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on > IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 > > On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > >> Well, I don't agree you're not part of the community. Being subscriber and >> poster to the mailing is a qualifier for being a member :-) >> >> Agree with Florian and you. It is needed to say something to remind vendors >> that market is already asking for IPv6 support. I don't think they should >> just wait for the demand to come, because then it will be late. So a warning >> to them is a good thing. Same for software developers, they should realize >> that they can take advantage of IPv6 NOW, because even if there are no >> native access providers yet, transition is available in end-hosts. > > there are NOT ENOUGH native (commercial) access providers > ...but we should make a small note that some already exist. :-) > > >> There is no immediate need for low costs CPEs, of course is good to have, >> but transition tools in end-hosts already deliver the same, until access > > //transition tools in end-hosts// > > ...and what happens to performance??? > > imho, low-cost CPEs are key if one wants to seriously see IPv6 deployed > significantly. it would be a significant contribution to break > chicken/egg-type problems... > > >> providers provide dual stack, then of course, CPEs with allow dual stack on >> the WAN link are needed. >> >> Regards, >> Jordi > > > Best Regards, > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Carlos Friac,as See: > Wide Area Network Working Group (WAN) www.gigapix.pt > FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional www.ipv6.eu > Av. do Brasil, n.101 www.6diss.org > 1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal, Europe www.geant2.net > Tel: +351 218440100 Fax: +351 218472167 > www.fccn.pt > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The end is near........ see http://ipv4.potaroo.net > "Internet is just routes (217118/774), naming (billions) and... people!" > > > Aviso de Confidencialidade > Esta mensagem e' exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatario, podendo > conter informacao CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgacao esta' expressamente > vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta > mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta > via ou para o telefone +351 218440100 devendo apagar o seu conteudo > de imediato. > > Warning > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. > It may contain CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this > message has been received by error, please notify us via e-mail or by > telephone +351 218440100 and delete it immediately. > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org 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. From iljitsch at muada.com Fri Oct 19 15:30:38 2007 From: iljitsch at muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:30:38 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <4718732F.3000907@inex.ie> References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> <001f01c810d3$eee02530$cca06f90$@priv.at> <8C0E42DF-7EBB-4E44-B619-B847A3E288B7@isc.org> <47174493.90506@inex.ie> <87fy08cjhg.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <1C87EF13-F074-4CC6-A520-531F5015A6B6@muada.com> <4718732F.3000907@inex.ie> Message-ID: On 19-okt-2007, at 11:04, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> Since when are IPv6 routers required to do IPsec processing? > December 1995 - please see rfc1883 and rfc2640, section 4: > >> A full implementation of IPv6 includes implementation of the >> following extension headers: Two can play the RFC quoting game (2460): With one exception, extension headers are not examined or processed by any node along a packet's delivery path, until the packet reaches the node (or each of the set of nodes, in the case of multicast) identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header. From gert at space.net Fri Oct 19 18:42:12 2007 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:42:12 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> <001f01c810d3$eee02530$cca06f90$@priv.at> <8C0E42DF-7EBB-4E44-B619-B847A3E288B7@isc.org> <47174493.90506@inex.ie> <87fy08cjhg.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <1C87EF13-F074-4CC6-A520-531F5015A6B6@muada.com> <4718732F.3000907@inex.ie> Message-ID: <20071019164212.GV69215@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 03:30:38PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > Two can play the RFC quoting game (2460): There's a certain fun value to watch your "I can quote more interesting things from the RFC" game - but: ** can we please try to focus on "do we want to issue this resolution, ** and if yes, which words need changing"? Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 122119 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From slz at baycix.de Fri Oct 19 20:14:18 2007 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:14:18 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <20071019164212.GV69215@Space.Net> References: <20071017152854.GY69215@Space.Net> <001f01c810d3$eee02530$cca06f90$@priv.at> <8C0E42DF-7EBB-4E44-B619-B847A3E288B7@isc.org> <47174493.90506@inex.ie> <87fy08cjhg.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <1C87EF13-F074-4CC6-A520-531F5015A6B6@muada.com> <4718732F.3000907@inex.ie> <20071019164212.GV69215@Space.Net> Message-ID: <4718F3FA.4040705@baycix.de> Hi, Gert Doering schrieb: > Hi, > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 03:30:38PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >> Two can play the RFC quoting game (2460): > > There's a certain fun value to watch your "I can quote more interesting > things from the RFC" game - but: > > ** can we please try to focus on "do we want to issue this resolution, > ** and if yes, which words need changing"? a) seconded, or this tends to get a "ignored by the sane people" thread like this 240/4 thingy on the NANOG-list... Please discuss that stuff in private or ask RIPE to open an "Advocacy WG" + list.. thanks. b) there aren't that many change-requeensts (nono, no ITIL...) for the wording, are they? Did i miss something in the mess? -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ======================================================================== From michael.dillon at bt.com Sat Oct 20 07:29:04 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 06:29:04 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Performance impacts when both hosts doing peer-to-peer (or > client-to-server) are using different types of IPv6 > connectivity (example, native vs. 6to4 or Teredo, or Teredo > vs. 6to4). This is solved by deploying 6to4 and Teredo relays > in the ISPs, and is actually something inexpensive that ISPs > should do while they can't provide native access. This is something that is described in more detail on ARIN's IPv6 wiki targetted at ISPs: http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/First_Steps_for_ISPs --Michael Dillon From gert at space.net Sat Oct 20 14:48:19 2007 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:48:19 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <4718F3FA.4040705@baycix.de> References: <8C0E42DF-7EBB-4E44-B619-B847A3E288B7@isc.org> <47174493.90506@inex.ie> <87fy08cjhg.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <1C87EF13-F074-4CC6-A520-531F5015A6B6@muada.com> <4718732F.3000907@inex.ie> <20071019164212.GV69215@Space.Net> <4718F3FA.4040705@baycix.de> Message-ID: <20071020124819.GA69215@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 08:14:18PM +0200, Sascha Lenz wrote: > b) there aren't that many change-requeensts (nono, no ITIL...) for the > wording, are they? Did i miss something in the mess? As far as I can see, so far, the main point was: - address the vendors anything major I have missed? Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 122119 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From fw at deneb.enyo.de Sun Oct 21 22:29:21 2007 From: fw at deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:29:21 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] AW: [ipv6-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <20071020124819.GA69215@Space.Net> (Gert Doering's message of "Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:48:19 +0200") References: <8C0E42DF-7EBB-4E44-B619-B847A3E288B7@isc.org> <47174493.90506@inex.ie> <87fy08cjhg.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <1C87EF13-F074-4CC6-A520-531F5015A6B6@muada.com> <4718732F.3000907@inex.ie> <20071019164212.GV69215@Space.Net> <4718F3FA.4040705@baycix.de> <20071020124819.GA69215@Space.Net> Message-ID: <878x5wciu6.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> * Gert Doering: > Hi, > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 08:14:18PM +0200, Sascha Lenz wrote: >> b) there aren't that many change-requeensts (nono, no ITIL...) for the >> wording, are they? Did i miss something in the mess? > > As far as I can see, so far, the main point was: > > - address the vendors Or only address RIPE members, which would make more sense IMHO. From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Wed Oct 24 14:34:06 2007 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:34:06 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think the information that we host for long time ago in The IPv6 Portal is much more complete: http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=using/connectivity/6to4 Same for Teredo: http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=using/connectivity/teredo I'm going to post those links in the Wiki also. Regards, Jordi > De: > Responder a: > Fecha: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 06:29:04 +0100 > Para: > Conversaci?n: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community > Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 > Asunto: RE: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution > on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 > > >> Performance impacts when both hosts doing peer-to-peer (or >> client-to-server) are using different types of IPv6 >> connectivity (example, native vs. 6to4 or Teredo, or Teredo >> vs. 6to4). This is solved by deploying 6to4 and Teredo relays >> in the ISPs, and is actually something inexpensive that ISPs >> should do while they can't provide native access. > > This is something that is described in more detail on ARIN's IPv6 wiki > targetted at ISPs: > http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/First_Steps_for_ISPs > > --Michael Dillon > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org 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. From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Oct 24 14:45:13 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:45:13 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > I think the information that we host for long time ago in The > IPv6 Portal is much more complete: > > http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=using/connectivity/6to4 We!? If you have any influence over the design of those pages, please get them to fix the silly scrolling system. The scrollbar is too small, and it doesn't behave like a normal scrollbar does (clicking in the scrollbar makes a big jump. PgUp/PgDn don't work). It is simply an inappropriate design for delivering technical information. Alternatively, provide PDF versions of those pages so people can download them and read them without suffering from that silly page design. --Michael Dillon From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Wed Oct 24 15:03:58 2007 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:03:58 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I will check with the web designer and fix it immediately, but it is working for me ... What platform/OS/browser you have the problem to check if is only that one ? Regards, Jordi > De: > Responder a: > Fecha: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:45:13 +0100 > Para: > Conversaci?n: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community > Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 > Asunto: RE: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution > on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 > >> I think the information that we host for long time ago in The >> IPv6 Portal is much more complete: >> >> http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=using/connectivity/6to4 > > We!? > > If you have any influence over the design of those pages, please get > them to fix the silly scrolling system. The scrollbar is too small, and > it doesn't behave like a normal scrollbar does (clicking in the > scrollbar makes a big jump. PgUp/PgDn don't work). It is simply an > inappropriate design for delivering technical information. > > Alternatively, provide PDF versions of those pages so people can > download them and read them without suffering from that silly page > design. > > --Michael Dillon > > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org 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. From david.kessens at nsn.com Wed Oct 24 15:06:58 2007 From: david.kessens at nsn.com (David Kessens) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 06:06:58 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071024130658.GB20307@nsn.com> Jordi, Michael, I would like to remind you that this list is not intended to get into contests on who has a better website (unless of course it is not reachable over ipv6 ;-)). David Kessens --- On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 01:45:13PM +0100, ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net wrote: > > I think the information that we host for long time ago in The > > IPv6 Portal is much more complete: > > > > http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=using/connectivity/6to4 > > We!? > > If you have any influence over the design of those pages, please get > them to fix the silly scrolling system. The scrollbar is too small, and > it doesn't behave like a normal scrollbar does (clicking in the > scrollbar makes a big jump. PgUp/PgDn don't work). It is simply an > inappropriate design for delivering technical information. > > Alternatively, provide PDF versions of those pages so people can > download them and read them without suffering from that silly page > design. > > --Michael Dillon > > David Kessens --- From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Oct 24 15:30:40 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:30:40 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <20071024130658.GB20307@nsn.com> References: <20071024130658.GB20307@nsn.com> Message-ID: > I would like to remind you that this list is not intended to > get into contests on who has a better website (unless of > course it is not reachable over ipv6 ;-)). This is not a contest. This is about improving the availability of educational resources to help ISPs implement IPv6. There is far too much information about IPv6 scattered over too many sites and books. A lot of that information is old and out of date, or it is of dubious quality because somebody has an axe to grind such as the people who want to assign their customers /120 blocks to "conserve addresses". We need some editorial review of the existing material so that people know what sites/books/people they can trust. Jordi and I are communicating privately to get the IPv6 Task Force website fixed so that people can actually access the information on that site. And we will include links to some of that material on the ARIN IPv6 educational wiki http://www.getipv6.info I believe that this is all worthy of discussion on this list since it helps prepare for the coming IPv6 implementation crunch. --Michael Dillon P.S. IPv6 is *NOT* IPv4 with more bits. It is a different protocol from IPv4 with a different addressing architecture and numerous different approaches to networking problems. You have to make some serious effort to learn and understand it. From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Thu Oct 25 11:55:18 2007 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:55:18 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 Message-ID: I don't think my comment was well understood today in the session, so I drafted how I think the community resolution should look. See below. English nits should be reviewed, but the main idea is that we start with a short kind of intro of the situation (those points from the original 5 that are generic), staying focus, keeping it short, but at the same time help each "kind of reader" to identify what is the paragraph that is *more* relevant to him. I also added a specific action for policy makers/regulators and one for users. I hope that, as very few people (in the list and session) has provided input on this, we are allowed to participate in the final drafting of the document. Not being a big group is possible to do it, as otherwise, will not really be a community resolution. Regards, Jordi At current allocation rates, the remaining pool of unallocated IPv4 address space is likely to be allocated within the next two to four years. Although the Internet will continue to function as normal after this point, this event will have a significant influence on future network operations as well as IP address management and allocation policies. Therefore we recognise that the widespread deployment of IPv6 will be essential to sustain future growth of the Internet. We recognise that the responsibility for creating policies related to the management of critical Internet resources in the RIPE NCC service region rests with the RIPE community and the proven success of the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP). In recognition of this responsibility, we commit to continue development of effective policies for the responsible management of IPv4 and IPv6 address space. We agree that this situation requires a committed effort from network operators, ISPs and the RIPE community. We urge that the widespread deployment of IPv6 be made a high priority. In addition to that, other sectors must take their own measures in order to success on this mission: 1) Network operators and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are called to the urgent deployment of IPv6 across their networks as soon as possible. This deployment must include providing IPv6 access to End Users and ensuring services are accessible by IPv6. 2) Vendors (hardware and software) are called to the urgent support of IPv6 support in their products, to make it possible for network operators and Internet Service Providers to provide these services. 3) Regulators and policy makers are called to make sure the relevance of the IPv6 support is considered in all their decisions, including as an immediate condition for public procurements. 4) Users must ensure, when acquiring new services, hardware or software, that it supports IPv6 (natively or by means of transition mechanisms). ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org 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. From michael.dillon at bt.com Thu Oct 25 12:07:40 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:07:40 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > 1) Network operators and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) > are called to the urgent deployment of IPv6 across their > networks as soon as possible. This deployment must include > providing IPv6 access to End Users and ensuring services are > accessible by IPv6. I would like to see this text explicitly mention both "deployment of IPv6 network access" and "deployment of IPv6 transitional measures". Otherwise, decisionmakers will think that it is sufficient to offer an IPv6 version of their IPv4 access product. That is not too hard to do, but it doesn't deliver what most customers want, which is access to the whole Internet, IPv4 and IPv6. That is where deployment of transitional measures become important, and I would argue, that they are more important right now than deploying IPv6 access services because the transitional measures solve problems that are happening right now with native IPv6 in OS/X and Vista. --Michael Dillon From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Thu Oct 25 12:15:41 2007 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:15:41 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fully agree, I actually said it last week in one of my previous emails on this ... So probably something like: 1) Network operators and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are called to the urgent deployment of IPv6 and transitional measures across their networks as soon as possible. This deployment must include providing IPv6 access to End Users and ensuring services are accessible by IPv6. Regards, Jordi > De: > Responder a: > Fecha: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:07:40 +0100 > Para: , > Conversaci?n: [ipv6-wg] RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and > Deployment of IPv6 > Asunto: [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 > Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 > > >> 1) Network operators and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) >> are called to the urgent deployment of IPv6 across their >> networks as soon as possible. This deployment must include >> providing IPv6 access to End Users and ensuring services are >> accessible by IPv6. > > I would like to see this text explicitly mention both "deployment of > IPv6 network access" and "deployment of IPv6 transitional measures". > Otherwise, decisionmakers will think that it is sufficient to offer an > IPv6 version of their IPv4 access product. That is not too hard to do, > but it doesn't deliver what most customers want, which is access to the > whole Internet, IPv4 and IPv6. That is where deployment of transitional > measures become important, and I would argue, that they are more > important right now than deploying IPv6 access services because the > transitional measures solve problems that are happening right now with > native IPv6 in OS/X and Vista. > > --Michael Dillon > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org 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. From s.steffann at computel.nl Thu Oct 25 15:30:11 2007 From: s.steffann at computel.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:30:11 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51289DFA-A92F-4183-ABA7-A823780CBBAE@computel.nl> Hi Michael, Op 25-okt-2007, om 12:07 heeft het volgende geschreven: > >> 1) Network operators and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) >> are called to the urgent deployment of IPv6 across their >> networks as soon as possible. This deployment must include >> providing IPv6 access to End Users and ensuring services are >> accessible by IPv6. > > I would like to see this text explicitly mention both "deployment of > IPv6 network access" and "deployment of IPv6 transitional measures". > Otherwise, decisionmakers will think that it is sufficient to offer an > IPv6 version of their IPv4 access product. That is not too hard to do, > but it doesn't deliver what most customers want, which is access to > the > whole Internet, IPv4 and IPv6. That is where deployment of > transitional > measures become important, and I would argue, that they are more > important right now than deploying IPv6 access services because the > transitional measures solve problems that are happening right now with > native IPv6 in OS/X and Vista. > > --Michael Dillon Thank you for your suggestion. I will include it in the discussion later in the iPv6 working group session. It might be too detailed for the intended audience though. We are targeting decision makers with this text. Thanks for your input! Sander From andy at nosignal.org Fri Oct 26 09:41:34 2007 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:41:34 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 Message-ID: <72C4AFAA-426F-4774-B2AF-257CF101E343@nosignal.org> On 25 Oct 2007, at 10:55, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > 1) Network operators and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are > called to the urgent deployment of IPv6 across their networks as > soon as possible. This deployment must include providing IPv6 > access to End Users and ensuring services are accessible by IPv6. I thought that yesterday's session was useful (I watched via the webcast), and that the publication of this resolution will send the right signals to decision makers - well done everyone. We have to remember that a lot of networks use only v4 PI, as this is the model typically deployed by end sites who rely on multihoming for performance or reliability reasons. Unless and until 2006-01 becomes approved, there is no migration path to v6 for these networks. We must ratify 2006-01 in order to strengthen the impact of the publication of this resolution. Best wishes, Andy Davidson -- :: http://www.localphone.com/ - Call Global, Pay Local :: /* opinions and thoughts expressed here are my own */ From michael.dillon at bt.com Fri Oct 26 23:05:56 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:05:56 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Commercial IPv6 firewall support Message-ID: Some people have claimed that they cannot yet sell IPv6 Internet access because there is no IPv6 firewall support. According to this ICANN study: http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac021.pdf this is not quite true. At least 30% of the 42 vendors surveyed, had IPv6 support. According to this talk many open-source and commercial firewalls supporting IPv6 are available. IPCop is based on Linux m0n0wall is based on FreeBSD pfSense is also based on FreeBSD FWBuilder is a management tool that builds filter setups for several different firewalls. Checkpoint FW1 NGX R65 on SecurePlatform supports IPv6 FortiGate supports IPv6 in FortiOS 3.0 and up. Juniper SSG (formerly Netscreen) supports IPv6 in ScreenOS 6.0 and up. Cisco ASA (formerly PIX) supports IPv6 in version 7.0 and up. I suspect that the people complaining about IPv6 support are partially complaining because they have older hardware that the vendor does not plan to upgrade to IPv6 support until they have all features implemented in their newer products, and partially complaining because their vendor has not implemented some feature which they happen to use. Commercial firewall support may be lagging behind OS and router support, but not by much. And if commercial vendors are not responsive, maybe you should try pricing out an open source solution with a consultant. I believe there is a gap here that startup firewall companies could fill if they understand the enterprise market. --Michael Dillon From gert at space.net Sat Oct 27 05:45:08 2007 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:45:08 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] RIPE Community Resolution on IPv4 Depletion and Deployment of IPv6 In-Reply-To: <72C4AFAA-426F-4774-B2AF-257CF101E343@nosignal.org> References: <72C4AFAA-426F-4774-B2AF-257CF101E343@nosignal.org> Message-ID: <20071027034508.GY34650@Space.Net> Hi, On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 08:41:34AM +0100, Andy Davidson wrote: > We have to remember that a lot of networks use only v4 PI, as this is > the model typically deployed by end sites who rely on multihoming for > performance or reliability reasons. Unless and until 2006-01 becomes > approved, there is no migration path to v6 for these networks. We > must ratify 2006-01 in order to strengthen the impact of the > publication of this resolution. Even if these networks might not be able to deploy IPv6 today in the way they are used to doing IPv4, they already can make a difference - by making sure that all gear and software they buy is ready for IPv6. Which will make the transition much easier later on... (But your point is taken. We're working on the generic PI framework, and as soon as that is in place, 2006-01 will be adapted accordingly and re-circulated) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 122119 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From michael.dillon at bt.com Sun Oct 28 20:35:59 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:35:59 -0000 Subject: [ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] Commercial IPv6 firewall support In-Reply-To: <20071027142541.GA18426@muffin.acquirer.com> References: <20071027142541.GA18426@muffin.acquirer.com> Message-ID: > There is, of course, "support" and support when talking about > any feature, whether ipv6 related or not. Indeed. By that standard, there just is not the required support to run an IPv4 network using Cisco or Juniper equipment so we might as well all go home now. > There > are piles more features which just aren't there if you use > v6. All the more reason to start using v6 seriously, in testing labs limited release testing with volunteer guinea pigs. IPv6 will not magically grow all the bells and whistles that 15 years of commercial Internet use has given to IPv4. We need to use it, find the problems and escalate them. And we need to do this *BEFORE* IPv4 runs out in two to three years or else a lot of heads will roll. > I seriously doubt > that they would achieve feature parity, not to mind stability > parity for these features. Fortunately, we don't have to run faster than the bear, just faster than the other guy. And we don't have to solve all problems with IPv6, just the ones that we can because IPv4 will still be around. Ideally, we will all be able to adjust things so that we can continue growing the network using IPv6 while all the hardest stuff keeps running on IPv4. > I have talked to them about this, and their opinion is that > there is no commercial demand for ipv6, and therefore ipv6 > feature parity is on the feature roadmap. I believe I said something about a gap in the market that some smart startup companies will fill. It's not just network operators who take a risk by burying their heads in the sand. > Open source solutions tend to fare better in this regard. > Lots of people may end up using them in a future ipv6 world, > but you're not going to end up seeing F500 companies > stampeding to replace their current high-end solutions with > m0n0wall installations, just because they have more-or-less > parity support for ipv4 and ipv6. No, but you will see startups leveraging the advanced state of open source software to create supported products that an F500 company would purchase. --Michael Dillon From nick at inex.ie Sat Oct 27 16:25:41 2007 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:25:41 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Commercial IPv6 firewall support In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071027142541.GA18426@muffin.acquirer.com> > Some people have claimed that they cannot yet sell > IPv6 Internet access because there is no IPv6 firewall > support. According to this ICANN study: > http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac021.pdf > this is not quite true. At least 30% of the 42 vendors > surveyed, had IPv6 support. There is, of course, "support" and support when talking about any feature, whether ipv6 related or not. As a useful example of what "support" implies, the "support" from one of my firewall vendors includes basic support for ipv6 packet forwarding and filtering, but no support for configuring this from the GUI. And no support for failover / failback on ipv6. And no support for ospfv3. Or DHCPv6. Or v6 support for VPNs. And so on - you get the idea. There are piles more features which just aren't there if you use v6. In fact, I would suggest that there is such a large functionality gap between their ipv4 and ipv6 support right now, that even if they invested heavily between now and the current expected dates for ipv4 exhaustion, I seriously doubt that they would achieve feature parity, not to mind stability parity for these features. I have talked to them about this, and their opinion is that there is no commercial demand for ipv6, and therefore ipv6 feature parity is on the feature roadmap. And indeed, it is difficult for the organisation I work for to demand ipv6 support, when other companies can talk to their vendors with a EUR100m firewall / networking contract going a-begging. I have little doubt that this is the reason that MOP got re-enabled by default on a certain router vendor's products. Them: "We have EUR200m to spend and we want MOP enabled by default". Vendor: "Three bags full, sir". Me: "I want to you spend $50m in development costs to support ipv6, and then i'll buy some low end kit from you" Vendor: Open source solutions tend to fare better in this regard. Lots of people may end up using them in a future ipv6 world, but you're not going to end up seeing F500 companies stampeding to replace their current high-end solutions with m0n0wall installations, just because they have more-or-less parity support for ipv4 and ipv6. There's a more interesting discussion of this of this linked from: http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XX/ppm.html See the talk entitled "IPv6 Support Among Commercial Firewalls", by Dave Piscitello. Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Technical Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick at inex.ie From jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Mon Oct 29 07:59:48 2007 From: jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com (jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 01:59:48 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Commercial IPv6 firewall support Message-ID: <28319819.1193641188654.JavaMail.root@elwamui-sweet.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Nick and all, Chiming in here as a kinda unusual occurance. I agree with Nicks assessment here unfortunately. Seems across a broad business spectrum a disinterest in IPv6 remains or presists. Given, what I believe to be an accurate essesment by Nick below, it would seem that a more concerted effort to make IPv6 more palatable in very short order is advisable. As to how to accomplish that, I do not know. -----Original Message----- >From: Nick Hilliard >Sent: Oct 27, 2007 9:25 AM >To: michael.dillon at bt.com >Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net, ipv6-wg at ripe.net >Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Commercial IPv6 firewall support > >> Some people have claimed that they cannot yet sell >> IPv6 Internet access because there is no IPv6 firewall >> support. According to this ICANN study: >> http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac021.pdf >> this is not quite true. At least 30% of the 42 vendors >> surveyed, had IPv6 support. > >There is, of course, "support" and support when talking about any feature, >whether ipv6 related or not. > >As a useful example of what "support" implies, the "support" from one of my >firewall vendors includes basic support for ipv6 packet forwarding and >filtering, but no support for configuring this from the GUI. And no support >for failover / failback on ipv6. And no support for ospfv3. Or DHCPv6. Or >v6 support for VPNs. And so on - you get the idea. There are piles more >features which just aren't there if you use v6. In fact, I would suggest >that there is such a large functionality gap between their ipv4 and ipv6 >support right now, that even if they invested heavily between now and the >current expected dates for ipv4 exhaustion, I seriously doubt that they >would achieve feature parity, not to mind stability parity for these >features. > >I have talked to them about this, and their opinion is that there is no >commercial demand for ipv6, and therefore ipv6 feature parity is on the >feature roadmap. And indeed, it is difficult for the organisation I work >for to demand ipv6 support, when other companies can talk to their vendors >with a EUR100m firewall / networking contract going a-begging. I have >little doubt that this is the reason that MOP got re-enabled by default on a >certain router vendor's products. > > >Them: "We have EUR200m to spend and we want MOP enabled by default". >Vendor: "Three bags full, sir". > >Me: "I want to you spend $50m in development costs to support ipv6, and > then i'll buy some low end kit from you" >Vendor: > >Open source solutions tend to fare better in this regard. Lots of people >may end up using them in a future ipv6 world, but you're not going to end up >seeing F500 companies stampeding to replace their current high-end solutions >with m0n0wall installations, just because they have more-or-less parity >support for ipv4 and ipv6. > >There's a more interesting discussion of this of this linked from: > >http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XX/ppm.html > >See the talk entitled "IPv6 Support Among Commercial Firewalls", by Dave >Piscitello. > >Nick > >-- >Network Ability Ltd. | Technical Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 >3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 >Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick at inex.ie > 'Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com