From gabriella.paolini at garr.it Wed Oct 7 13:14:30 2009 From: gabriella.paolini at garr.it (Gabriella Paolini) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:14:30 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] A suggestion about IPv6 Training Message-ID: <4ACC7816.5060808@garr.it> Just a suggestion about IPv6 training and what we can do for IPv6. Under EU project Euchinagrid we (GARR) organized some tutorial to move grid programmers to a transparent network approach in their codes. http://www.euchinagrid.org/IPv6/IPv6_presentation/Introduction_to_IPv6_programming.pdf This item could seem to be marginal to the network "affairs", but network programming is a fundamental point of contact between network and applications. Now network programming is dramatically IPv4 oriented... we support an evolution to a "protocol free" programming that demands all is possible to stack. Another point that we are trying to support is to change the point of view about the IPv6 introduction in a user network. Usually the focus is on moving the users/customers/clients to access to IPv6 resources . In our last workshop, we said to our users: first point: move all the services to IPv6 (web, mail, and all the other that you have) and after plan the clients connection. The message is: when a large number of IPv6 only users will arrive (and it will happen), they will be able to see your contents. Gabriella -- Gabriella Paolini _________________ GARR Italian National Research and Education Network Via dei Tizii, 6 - 00185 Rome direct: +39 06 4962 2507 mobile: +39 334 6533 252 gabriella.paolini at garr.it - http://www.garr.it/ From aliako at grnet.gr Wed Oct 7 13:46:50 2009 From: aliako at grnet.gr (Athanassios Liakopoulos) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:46:50 +0300 Subject: [ipv6-wg] A suggestion about IPv6 Training In-Reply-To: <4ACC7816.5060808@garr.it> References: <4ACC7816.5060808@garr.it> Message-ID: <4ACC7FAA.8060803@grnet.gr> Hi Gabriella, I would also like to remind that 6DEPLOY has a large list of IPv6 tutorial modules. http://www.6deploy.org/index.php?page=tutorials Best regards, Thanassis Gabriella Paolini wrote: > Just a suggestion about IPv6 training and what we can do for IPv6. > Under EU project Euchinagrid we (GARR) organized some tutorial to move > grid programmers to a transparent network approach in their codes. > http://www.euchinagrid.org/IPv6/IPv6_presentation/Introduction_to_IPv6_programming.pdf > > This item could seem to be marginal to the network "affairs", but > network programming is a fundamental point of contact between network > and applications. > Now network programming is dramatically IPv4 oriented... we support an > evolution to a "protocol free" programming that demands all is possible > to stack. > Another point that we are trying to support is to change the point of > view about the IPv6 introduction in a user network. > Usually the focus is on moving the users/customers/clients to access to > IPv6 resources . In our last workshop, we said to our users: first > point: move all the services to IPv6 (web, mail, and all the other that > you have) and after plan the clients connection. > The message is: when a large number of IPv6 only users will arrive (and > it will happen), they will be able to see your contents. > Gabriella > > > -- Athanassios Liakopoulos, PhD Coordinator, Networking & Computing Infrastructure Greek Research & Technology Network S.A. Address: 56 Mesogion Ave., 11527, Athens Phone : +30 210 7474242, +30 210 7474274 Mobile : +30 6977 606167 Fax : +30 210 7474490 e-mail : aliako at grnet.gr skype : aliako WWW : http://www.grnet.gr/ WWW : http://www.ipv6-taskforce.gr/ - Change is the only constant (Heraclitus) - From GeertJan.deGroot at xs4all.nl Wed Oct 7 14:33:05 2009 From: GeertJan.deGroot at xs4all.nl (Geert Jan de Groot) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:33:05 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] On deploying IPv6 for consumers.. Message-ID: <20091007123305.9E74DFC4F@berserkly.xs4all.nl> Hi, By monitoring the stream from Lisbon, I can tell the RIPE meeting is going well and lots of resolution is made towards deployment of technologies like IPv6, DNSSEC and others. It's good to see many faces, even though it's been a few years since I attended a meeting myself. I hope people are enjoying the meeting. On the topic of IPv6 deployment, I'd like to ask the WG on the following issue: Turns out that, when browsing from www.ripe.net to find the URLs of the Lisbon streams, I seem to run into a PMTU blackhole issue, and, IPv6 doesn't deal with these too well. The only way around it, for me, was to switch IPv6 *OFF*. (for those curious, it looks like a PMTU blackhole to rosie.ripe.net, but I don't want to badmouth the RIPE NCC or the meeting crew - read on!) Before you think this is another consumer-enduser, I'd like to consider that a few weeks ago, a few volunteers diagnosed a similar problem with a large public FTP server in the Netherlands. I have tcpdump logs of the PMTU packets entering the FTP server box itself, and the TCP stack not noticing. Since it's not my box, there is still work-in-progress to fix this, but it definitely is not a local problem - the PMTU packets come from the XS4all IPv6 tunnel broker box! My question, to the WG-at-large, is this: I'm just using a consumer-grade ADSL connection, with consumer-grade helpdesk access, who is unable to deal with these issues. When IPv6 is deployed on a larger scale, problems like these are bound to happen, and, I fear, these problems happen with Joe Common who cannot diagnose these problems. My only recourse, and certainly Joe Common's only recourse, is to switch IPv6 *OFF*. That is, umm, incompatible with the IPv6 outreach the RIPE community is currently doing. My questions therefore: - Should these problems be discovered before large-scale deployment? - Would it be a good idea to do efforts to pro-actively detect (and correct) these problems on the infrastructure we have now, and the infrastructure we're soon deploying? - What mechanisms do we need to report these issues, so they can be addressed by people who have both clue and enable/root access to fix them? (taking into account the very nasty scaling properties of "consumer-grade helpdesk support lines" and the quality of the reports one gets from Joe Common-style users) Again, this message is not to badmouth RIPE NCC, the Lisbon LOC, XS4all, or anybody else, but just a question on how to deal with these issues, as the current mechanisms ("consumer helpdesk") can't cope, and the recourse ("switch IPv6 off") is probably not what we want. Comments? Geert Jan From nuno.vieira at nfsi.pt Wed Oct 7 15:26:17 2009 From: nuno.vieira at nfsi.pt (Nuno Vieira - nfsi) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 14:26:17 +0100 (WEST) Subject: [ipv6-wg] On deploying IPv6 for consumers.. In-Reply-To: <1085145566.84741254921663064.JavaMail.root@zimbra.nfsi.pt> Message-ID: <165457588.84761254921977794.JavaMail.root@zimbra.nfsi.pt> Hi Geert, These PMTU issues are a bit strange, as, our entire backbone is based on IPv6 native transits and peers, and we are also delivering two dual-stacked uplinks to the RIPE Meeting, with native IPv6 connectivity. I am available to investigate this further, also with RIPE OPS. Feel free to "ping" me at anytime. regards, --- Nuno Vieira nfsi telecom, lda. [Email] nuno.vieira at nfsi.pt [Phone] +351 21 114 2315 [Phone] +351 21 142 2300 [Mobile] +351 91 925 5561 [Fax] +351 21 114 2301 [Web] http://www.nfsi.pt/ ----- "Geert Jan de Groot" wrote: > Hi, > > By monitoring the stream from Lisbon, I can tell the RIPE meeting is > going well and lots of resolution is made towards deployment of > technologies like IPv6, DNSSEC and others. > It's good to see many faces, even though it's been a few years > since I attended a meeting myself. > I hope people are enjoying the meeting. > > On the topic of IPv6 deployment, I'd like to ask the WG on the > following > issue: > Turns out that, when browsing from www.ripe.net to find the URLs > of the Lisbon streams, I seem to run into a PMTU blackhole issue, > and, > IPv6 doesn't deal with these too well. > The only way around it, for me, was to switch IPv6 *OFF*. > (for those curious, it looks like a PMTU blackhole to rosie.ripe.net, > but I don't want to badmouth the RIPE NCC or the meeting crew - read > on!) > > Before you think this is another consumer-enduser, I'd like to > consider > that a few weeks ago, a few volunteers diagnosed a similar problem > with a large public FTP server in the Netherlands. I have tcpdump > logs > of the PMTU packets entering the FTP server box itself, and the TCP > stack > not noticing. Since it's not my box, there is still work-in-progress > to fix this, but it definitely is not a local problem - the PMTU > packets > come from the XS4all IPv6 tunnel broker box! > > My question, to the WG-at-large, is this: I'm just using a > consumer-grade > ADSL connection, with consumer-grade helpdesk access, who is unable > to deal with these issues. When IPv6 is deployed on a larger scale, > problems like these are bound to happen, and, I fear, these problems > happen with Joe Common who cannot diagnose these problems. > > My only recourse, and certainly Joe Common's only recourse, is to > switch IPv6 *OFF*. > That is, umm, incompatible with the IPv6 outreach the RIPE community > is currently doing. > > My questions therefore: > - Should these problems be discovered before large-scale deployment? > - Would it be a good idea to do efforts to pro-actively detect > (and correct) these problems on the infrastructure we have now, > and the infrastructure we're soon deploying? > - What mechanisms do we need to report these issues, so they can be > addressed by people who have both clue and enable/root access to > fix them? > (taking into account the very nasty scaling properties of > "consumer-grade helpdesk support lines" and the quality of the > reports > one gets from Joe Common-style users) > > Again, this message is not to badmouth RIPE NCC, the Lisbon LOC, > XS4all, or anybody else, but just a question on how to deal with > these > issues, as the current mechanisms ("consumer helpdesk") can't cope, > and the recourse ("switch IPv6 off") is probably not what we want. > > Comments? > > Geert Jan From asjl at lpnz.org Thu Oct 8 04:50:17 2009 From: asjl at lpnz.org (Andy Linton) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:50:17 +1300 Subject: [ipv6-wg] On deploying IPv6 for consumers.. References: <4ACAC68B.3020707@wand.net.nz> Message-ID: <9DA7BE7D-D209-4CF4-96A2-7EC1A4DE8B8C@lpnz.org> I noted Geert Jan de Groot's message on the list about PMTU problems. The following was posted on the NZ v6 list and might be of interest. andy Begin forwarded message: > From: Ben Stasiewicz > Date: 6 October 2009 5:24:43 PM > To: ipv6-techsig at listserver.internetnz.net.nz > Subject: [Ipv6-techsig] IPv6 PMTUD issues, some data > Reply-To: ben at wand.net.nz, ipv6-techsig at listserver.internetnz.net.nz > > Hi there, > > I'm a fourth-year Waikato University student who works for WAND in his > spare time. > > Earlier this year Geoff Huston wrote a very interesting article [1] in > which he describes and diagnoses a problem he had downloading an RFC > using IPv6. He determined that it was due to PMTUD failure (probably > caused by ICMPv6 filtering close to the web server) and suggests > lowering the MTU on interfaces used for IPv6 traffic to avoid this > problem. This and the resulting ipv6-techsig discussion [2] > motivated me > to do a university project (supervised by Dr. Matthew Luckie) that > investigates problems with PMTUD in IPv6. It aims to determine the > prevalence of PMTUD failure in IPv6 by running tests to a large number > of IPv6-enabled web servers on the Internet. > > As part of my investigation, I have written a module for scamper [3] > (an > Internet measurement tool created by Matthew) that can be used to > determine whether PMTUD for a given web server is successful. It is > based on the the IPv4 PMTUD test used by tbit [4]. I won't bore you > with > the exact details of the algorithm, but the general idea is: > > Establish a connection to the web server and make an HTTP request > for a > specific object. Do not acknowledge the response. Instead, send an > ICMPv6 Packet Too Big (PTB) message asking it to reduce the size of > its > packets to 1280 bytes. If the web server retransmits the HTTP response > using a smaller packet size, conclude that PMTUD was successful. > Otherwise if the retransmitted response packet is not smaller than the > original, retransmit the PTB message. If after two retransmissions > (three PTB messages) the server still hasn't reduced the size of its > HTTP response packet, conclude that PMTUD failed. > > The test halts if the original response packet is not larger than 1280 > bytes (the MTU specified in the PTB message). I can't specify a MTU > smaller than this because most hosts will ignore an MTU smaller than > 1280 bytes (the IPv6 Minimum Path MTU [5]). > > A test to a particular host will result in one of: > > RESULT_PMTUD_SUCCESS > The server successfully completed PMTUD. A smaller HTTP response > packet > was received from the server after sending it a PTB message. > > RESULT_PMTUD_FAIL > The server failed to complete PMTUD as we did not receive a smaller > response from it. The PTB messages are probably being filtered. > > RESULT_RX_TOOSMALL > The response packet was too small to be able to continue the test. It > must be at least 1281 bytes in size. > > RESULT_RX_NOACK > Did not receive an acknowledgement for the HTTP request. > > RESULT_RX_NODATA > The HTTP request was acknowledged, but no HTTP response was received. > > RESULT_TCP_RST > A TCP reset segment was received before the test could complete. > > RESULT_TCP_ERROR > Unexpected packet received in response to the HTTP request. > > RESULT_TCP_NOCONN > Failed to establish a TCP connection to the web server. > > Test Setup: > > I run the tests from a FreeBSD 7.2 box that sits in the lounge of my > flat. It has IPv6 connectivity using 6to4 and the tunnel interface on > our gateway box has an MTU of 1480 bytes. > > Test Parameters: > > An MSS of 1221 is advertised to avoid the effect of tunnels earlier in > the reverse path as much as possible. For reasons mentioned above, a > 1280 byte MTU is specified in the PTB message. > > Test Input: > > The list of IPv6 web servers was derived from the Alexa Top 1 Million > Websites list [6]. Of these 1 million domains, only 627 had globally > routable IPv6 addresses that could be connected to on port 80 (sad > eh?). > A script searched each of these for a URL to an object that was at > least > 1221 bytes in size. A request for such an object will hopefully result > in a large enough HTTP response packet. > > Test Results: > > Frequency of each result > > 371 PMTUD_SUCCESS > 214 RX_TOOSMALL > 22 RX_NODATA > 13 TCP_NOCONN > 9 PMTUD_FAIL > 5 TCP_RST > 2 RX_NOACK > 1 TCP_ERROR > > > In addition to the outright failures (PMTUD_FAILs), we believe that > the > results RX_NODATA and RX_NOACK also indicate PMTUD failure. They could > result when the server's HTTP response packets are discarded somewhere > along the path for being too big and the server never learns that this > is occurring (and neither do we). The server's response packets are > disappearing into a PMTU black hole. > > A large number of hosts send HTTP response packets that are too small > (RX_TOOSMALL). Some of these could actually indicate PMTUD success in > the presence of 1280 byte tunnels. I will look into this further. > > > Frequency of advertised MSS values > > 458 mss=1440 > 60 mss=1220 > 47 mss=1221 (the remote TCP echoing our advertised MSS) > 33 mss=1420 > 13 mss=1380 > 10 mss=0 (did not receive a SYN from the web server) > 2 mss=8940 > 2 mss=1410 > 2 mss=1300 > 1 mss=65455 > 1 mss=33160 > 1 mss=1460 > 1 mss=1436 > 1 mss=1432 > 1 mss=1416 > 1 mss=1412 > 1 mss=1374 > 1 mss=1370 > 1 mss=1340 > > > The vast majority of hosts advertised a 1440 byte MSS. We suspect that > the 1220 byte MSSs are from hosts that have been explicitly configured > with 1280 byte MTUs and had their PMTUD disabled so as to avoid the > ICMP > filtering problem. > > My current university project is almost complete, but in the Summer I > would like to continue my investigation into IPv6 PMTUD. Can any of > you > recommend another application layer protocol (preferably a simple one > like HTTP) that my PMTUD test could support in the future? Bittorrent > could be a good one (what do you think Nathan?). Is there anything > else > that you would be interested in me finding out? > > Questions and comments are most welcome. > > Cheers > Ben Stasiewicz > > [1] http://cidr-report.org/ispcol/2009-01/mtu6.html > > [2] > http://listserver.internetnz.net.nz/pipermail/ipv6-techsig/2009-February/000234.html > > [3] http://www.wand.net.nz/scamper/ > > [4] http://www.icir.org/mallman/papers/tcp-evo-ccr05.ps > > [5] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2460.txt > > [6] http://s3.amazonaws.com/alexa-static/top-1m.csv.zip > _______________________________________________ > IPv6-techsig mailing list > IPv6-techsig at listserver.internetnz.net.nz > http://listserver.internetnz.net.nz/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-techsig From ncc at ripe.net Thu Oct 8 09:42:59 2009 From: ncc at ripe.net (Nathalie Trenaman) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:42:59 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal to Remove Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy Implemented Message-ID: <4ACD9803.9030301@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that policy proposal 2000-06,"Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy", has been implemented. The RIPE NCC is now ready to accept requests for IPv6 address space under the new policy. This proposal can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-06.html The updated "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-481.html The following FAQ has also been updated to reflect this policy implementation: http://www.ripe.net/info/faq/rs/ipv6.html Regards, Nathalie Trenaman Registration Services RIPE NCC From shane at time-travellers.org Fri Oct 16 22:36:10 2009 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:36:10 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter Message-ID: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> All, At the RIPE meeting in Lisbon, I agreed to draft a proposed new charter for the IPv6 working group. Here it is: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists to further IPv6 adoption. The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people deploy IPv6. These activities include: * Outreach * Co-operation * Education The IPv4 Internet will continue for a long time. The IPv6 working group is also concerned with IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Please use this mailing list for discussion. We would like to have a new charter in place before the next RIPE meeting. How this proposed charter was made: I looked at all of the other RIPE charters, and decided I wanted to keep this short and simple. I had a lunch meeting with David Kessens, Denesh Bhabuta, Carlos Friacas, Marco Hogewoning, Bernard Tuy, Lance Wright, and Jan Zorz. We discussed the new charter, although the above text has not been reviewed by them or anyone else. I thank them all! For those interested, here are some thoughts that went into the proposed charter: Background ---------- The current IPv6 working group charter is out-of-date: The IPv6 working group follows the progress of specification and implementation of the new IP version. It coordinates implementations in Europe and is going to create testbeds. It comes from a time when IPv6 was immature; the focus was keeping track of technological advances and working on experimental networks. That time is over, and the IPv6 working group needs an updated charter. Goal ---- The goal of creating a new charter is to do more than simply to update the text. We have almost finished allocating all IPv4 addresses. IPv6 is still only used by a small fraction of network traffic, many devices do not support IPv6 at all, and most organizations have no plans for IPv6 adoption. RIPE is a unique community, and should do what it can to help make the migration to IPv6 as easy as possible. A new charter is just the first step. Commentary ---------- The proposed new charter lists some activities: * Outreach * Co-operation * Education Outreach involves getting people, organisations, and groups to begin or continue IPv6 adoption. This includes vendors, governments, and developers. It also includes groups which are traditionally unrepresented, like gamers or content creators. Outreach means both going to other venues and inviting people from outside the RIPE community to visiting RIPE activities. Co-operation is working within the networking industry and without, to share resources and combine efforts. There are a large number of organisations and projects, and we should work with them whenever possible, so that IPv6 can fit in with their goals. This also includes co-operation with the many IPv6 efforts that exist worldwide. Education means all methods of increasing IPv6 knowledge. Note that the RIPE NCC is not able to do very much in terms of education, since it cannot compete with its members. However, the RIPE IPv6 working group can and should educate. -- Shane From jan at go6.si Fri Oct 16 22:46:07 2009 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:46:07 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> Message-ID: <4AD8DB8F.5060108@go6.si> On 16.10.09 22:36, Shane Kerr wrote: > All, > > At the RIPE meeting in Lisbon, I agreed to draft a proposed new charter > for the IPv6 working group. Here it is: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists > to further IPv6 adoption. > > The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people > deploy IPv6. These activities include: > > * Outreach > * Co-operation > * Education > > The IPv4 Internet will continue for a long time. The IPv6 working group > is also concerned with IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree. Maybe we can also add "provide guidance for governments and regulators". Jan Zorz From sander at steffann.nl Fri Oct 16 22:54:59 2009 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:54:59 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <4AD8DB8F.5060108@go6.si> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <4AD8DB8F.5060108@go6.si> Message-ID: Hi Jan, > Maybe we can also add "provide guidance for governments and > regulators". I think that is already covered by 'outreach'. Sander From sander at steffann.nl Fri Oct 16 22:53:02 2009 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:53:02 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> Message-ID: <0D9A08A9-42E7-4762-9251-A78B0F611F72@steffann.nl> Hi Shane, > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists > to further IPv6 adoption. > > The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people > deploy IPv6. These activities include: > > * Outreach > * Co-operation > * Education > > The IPv4 Internet will continue for a long time. The IPv6 working > group > is also concerned with IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I like it. One thing: The 'is also concerned with IPv4/IPv6 co- existence' part sounds a bit like an afterthought while it is probably the most difficult issue when deploying IPv6. What do you think of this: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists to further IPv6 adoption. The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people deploy IPv6 and deal with IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. These activities include: * Outreach * Co-operation * Education ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Although 'deal with' is probably not the right way to say it. Sander From jan at go6.si Sat Oct 17 07:37:39 2009 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:37:39 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <0D9A08A9-42E7-4762-9251-A78B0F611F72@steffann.nl> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <0D9A08A9-42E7-4762-9251-A78B0F611F72@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <4AD95823.2050305@go6.si> > One thing: The 'is also concerned with IPv4/IPv6 > co-existence' part sounds a bit like an afterthought while it is > probably the most difficult issue when deploying IPv6. Agree. I was kind of surprised on some small evidence of resistance to "coexistance" focus within the re-chartering group. /jan P.S: Shane, told ya :) From joao at bondis.org Sat Oct 17 17:06:39 2009 From: joao at bondis.org (joao damas) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:06:39 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> Message-ID: <240C8496-BFFB-4249-B516-837392494FFF@bondis.org> I like the proposed charter, with Sander's suggested amendment. I welcome the renewed interest and willingness to do things as exemplified by Shane's initiative, of which I would have liked to see more of in the recent past. Also, as consequence of the above, I would like to use this email to suggest to fellow wg participants that Shane be put forward as co- chair (if he is willing, I haven't asked) and bring in regenerative energy. Joao On 16 Oct 2009, at 22:36, Shane Kerr wrote: > All, > > At the RIPE meeting in Lisbon, I agreed to draft a proposed new > charter > for the IPv6 working group. Here it is: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists > to further IPv6 adoption. > > The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people > deploy IPv6. These activities include: > > * Outreach > * Co-operation > * Education > > The IPv4 Internet will continue for a long time. The IPv6 working > group > is also concerned with IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Please use this mailing list for discussion. > > We would like to have a new charter in place before the next RIPE > meeting. > > > How this proposed charter was made: > > I looked at all of the other RIPE charters, and decided I wanted to > keep > this short and simple. > > I had a lunch meeting with David Kessens, Denesh Bhabuta, Carlos > Friacas, Marco Hogewoning, Bernard Tuy, Lance Wright, and Jan Zorz. We > discussed the new charter, although the above text has not been > reviewed > by them or anyone else. I thank them all! > > > For those interested, here are some thoughts that went into the > proposed > charter: > > Background > ---------- > The current IPv6 working group charter is out-of-date: > > The IPv6 working group follows the progress of specification and > implementation of the new IP version. It coordinates > implementations in Europe and is going to create testbeds. > > It comes from a time when IPv6 was immature; the focus was keeping > track of technological advances and working on experimental networks. > That time is over, and the IPv6 working group needs an updated > charter. > > > Goal > ---- > The goal of creating a new charter is to do more than simply to update > the text. > > We have almost finished allocating all IPv4 addresses. IPv6 is still > only used by a small fraction of network traffic, many devices do not > support IPv6 at all, and most organizations have no plans for IPv6 > adoption. > > RIPE is a unique community, and should do what it can to help make the > migration to IPv6 as easy as possible. A new charter is just the first > step. > > > Commentary > ---------- > The proposed new charter lists some activities: > > * Outreach > * Co-operation > * Education > > Outreach involves getting people, organisations, and groups to begin > or continue IPv6 adoption. This includes vendors, governments, and > developers. It also includes groups which are traditionally > unrepresented, like gamers or content creators. Outreach means both > going to other venues and inviting people from outside the RIPE > community to visiting RIPE activities. > > Co-operation is working within the networking industry and without, to > share resources and combine efforts. There are a large number of > organisations and projects, and we should work with them whenever > possible, so that IPv6 can fit in with their goals. This also includes > co-operation with the many IPv6 efforts that exist worldwide. > > Education means all methods of increasing IPv6 knowledge. Note that > the RIPE NCC is not able to do very much in terms of education, since > it cannot compete with its members. However, the RIPE IPv6 working > group can and should educate. > > -- > Shane > From marcoh at marcoh.net Sat Oct 17 23:44:20 2009 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:44:20 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <240C8496-BFFB-4249-B516-837392494FFF@bondis.org> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <240C8496-BFFB-4249-B516-837392494FFF@bondis.org> Message-ID: <892C4254-9FB4-4C2D-9083-BFCE03C005FB@marcoh.net> On Oct 17, 2009, at 5:06 PM, joao damas wrote: > I like the proposed charter, with Sander's suggested amendment. > > I welcome the renewed interest and willingness to do things as > exemplified by Shane's initiative, of which I would have liked to > see more of in the recent past. Indeed, I think the change Sander proposes makes sense and I would like to voice support for the new charter. MarcoH From jan at go6.si Sun Oct 18 00:42:47 2009 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:42:47 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <240C8496-BFFB-4249-B516-837392494FFF@bondis.org> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <240C8496-BFFB-4249-B516-837392494FFF@bondis.org> Message-ID: <4ADA4867.5050903@go6.si> > Also, as consequence of the above, I would like to use this email to > suggest to fellow wg participants that Shane be put forward as co-chair > (if he is willing, I haven't asked) and bring in regenerative energy. > > Joao Agree 100%. But, let's reach the consensus here and recharter the WG first. Jan Zorz From slz at baycix.de Sun Oct 18 10:16:17 2009 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:16:17 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <892C4254-9FB4-4C2D-9083-BFCE03C005FB@marcoh.net> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <240C8496-BFFB-4249-B516-837392494FFF@bondis.org> <892C4254-9FB4-4C2D-9083-BFCE03C005FB@marcoh.net> Message-ID: <4ADACED1.6020603@baycix.de> Marco Hogewoning wrote: > > On Oct 17, 2009, at 5:06 PM, joao damas wrote: > >> I like the proposed charter, with Sander's suggested amendment. >> >> I welcome the renewed interest and willingness to do things as >> exemplified by Shane's initiative, of which I would have liked to see >> more of in the recent past. > > > Indeed, I think the change Sander proposes makes sense and I would like > to voice support for the new charter. i support the new charter, too. It makes sense to me and it's the direction where i'd like the IPv6-WG to go. -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ======================================================================== From spz at serpens.de Sun Oct 18 11:08:00 2009 From: spz at serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:08:00 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <0D9A08A9-42E7-4762-9251-A78B0F611F72@steffann.nl> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <0D9A08A9-42E7-4762-9251-A78B0F611F72@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <20091018090800.GA10942@serpens.de> Hi, Thus wrote Sander Steffann (sander at steffann.nl): > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists > to further IPv6 adoption. > > The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people > deploy IPv6 and deal with IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. These activities > include: > > * Outreach > * Co-operation > * Education > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Although 'deal with' is probably not the right way to say it. s/deal with/handle/ or s/deal with/manage/ ? I'm missing a point on "swapping (painful) lessons learned" although that could possibly be seen under education. To me, the latter point tastes a bit too much of "we know the answers, here's the FAQ" to cover that. regards, spz -- spz at serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler) From jogi at mur.at Sun Oct 18 11:08:16 2009 From: jogi at mur.at (Jogi Hofmueller) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:08:16 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <4ADACED1.6020603@baycix.de> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <240C8496-BFFB-4249-B516-837392494FFF@bondis.org> <892C4254-9FB4-4C2D-9083-BFCE03C005FB@marcoh.net> <4ADACED1.6020603@baycix.de> Message-ID: <4ADADB00.6080101@mur.at> Sascha Lenz schrieb: > Marco Hogewoning wrote: >> >> On Oct 17, 2009, at 5:06 PM, joao damas wrote: >> >>> I like the proposed charter, with Sander's suggested amendment. >>> >>> I welcome the renewed interest and willingness to do things as >>> exemplified by Shane's initiative, of which I would have liked to see >>> more of in the recent past. >> >> >> Indeed, I think the change Sander proposes makes sense and I would >> like to voice support for the new charter. > > i support the new charter, too. > It makes sense to me and it's the direction where i'd like the IPv6-WG > to go. I also agree to the new charter with Sander's proposed changes included. Cheers, j. -- NCC09 - Netart Community Convention 2009 What the net! 23.11.09 - 29.11.09 Graz/Austria https://wiki.mur.at/ncc09/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 260 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jan at go6.si Sun Oct 18 12:23:57 2009 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:23:57 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <20091018090800.GA10942@serpens.de> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <0D9A08A9-42E7-4762-9251-A78B0F611F72@steffann.nl> <20091018090800.GA10942@serpens.de> Message-ID: <4ADAECBD.1000806@go6.si> >> Although 'deal with' is probably not the right way to say it. > > s/deal with/handle/ or s/deal with/manage/ ? I vote for "manage". Jan Zorz P.S: Can somebody set "reply-to-list" in mailinglist settings and not "reply-to-sender"? From sander at steffann.nl Sun Oct 18 14:51:23 2009 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:51:23 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <240C8496-BFFB-4249-B516-837392494FFF@bondis.org> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <240C8496-BFFB-4249-B516-837392494FFF@bondis.org> Message-ID: Hi Joao, > Also, as consequence of the above, I would like to use this email to > suggest to fellow wg participants that Shane be put forward as co- > chair (if he is willing, I haven't asked) and bring in regenerative > energy. Good idea, if Shane wants to take that responsibility of course :) Sander From dburk at burkov.aha.ru Sun Oct 18 18:14:26 2009 From: dburk at burkov.aha.ru (Dmitry Burkov) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:14:26 +0400 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <240C8496-BFFB-4249-B516-837392494FFF@bondis.org> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <240C8496-BFFB-4249-B516-837392494FFF@bondis.org> Message-ID: <4ADB3EE2.30708@burkov.aha.ru> I strongly support Shane proposal with Sander 's proposals and prefer clear defition of WG chapter. I think we should take more attention to IPv4/IPv6 coexistance - imwo - it is a real challenge Dima joao damas wrote: > I like the proposed charter, with Sander's suggested amendment. > > I welcome the renewed interest and willingness to do things as > exemplified by Shane's initiative, of which I would have liked to see > more of in the recent past. > > Also, as consequence of the above, I would like to use this email to > suggest to fellow wg participants that Shane be put forward as > co-chair (if he is willing, I haven't asked) and bring in regenerative > energy. > > Joao > > On 16 Oct 2009, at 22:36, Shane Kerr wrote: > >> All, >> >> At the RIPE meeting in Lisbon, I agreed to draft a proposed new charter >> for the IPv6 working group. Here it is: >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists >> to further IPv6 adoption. >> >> The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people >> deploy IPv6. These activities include: >> >> * Outreach >> * Co-operation >> * Education >> >> The IPv4 Internet will continue for a long time. The IPv6 working group >> is also concerned with IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Please use this mailing list for discussion. >> >> We would like to have a new charter in place before the next RIPE >> meeting. >> >> >> How this proposed charter was made: >> >> I looked at all of the other RIPE charters, and decided I wanted to keep >> this short and simple. >> >> I had a lunch meeting with David Kessens, Denesh Bhabuta, Carlos >> Friacas, Marco Hogewoning, Bernard Tuy, Lance Wright, and Jan Zorz. We >> discussed the new charter, although the above text has not been reviewed >> by them or anyone else. I thank them all! >> >> >> For those interested, here are some thoughts that went into the proposed >> charter: >> >> Background >> ---------- >> The current IPv6 working group charter is out-of-date: >> >> The IPv6 working group follows the progress of specification and >> implementation of the new IP version. It coordinates >> implementations in Europe and is going to create testbeds. >> >> It comes from a time when IPv6 was immature; the focus was keeping >> track of technological advances and working on experimental networks. >> That time is over, and the IPv6 working group needs an updated >> charter. >> >> >> Goal >> ---- >> The goal of creating a new charter is to do more than simply to update >> the text. >> >> We have almost finished allocating all IPv4 addresses. IPv6 is still >> only used by a small fraction of network traffic, many devices do not >> support IPv6 at all, and most organizations have no plans for IPv6 >> adoption. >> >> RIPE is a unique community, and should do what it can to help make the >> migration to IPv6 as easy as possible. A new charter is just the first >> step. >> >> >> Commentary >> ---------- >> The proposed new charter lists some activities: >> >> * Outreach >> * Co-operation >> * Education >> >> Outreach involves getting people, organisations, and groups to begin >> or continue IPv6 adoption. This includes vendors, governments, and >> developers. It also includes groups which are traditionally >> unrepresented, like gamers or content creators. Outreach means both >> going to other venues and inviting people from outside the RIPE >> community to visiting RIPE activities. >> >> Co-operation is working within the networking industry and without, to >> share resources and combine efforts. There are a large number of >> organisations and projects, and we should work with them whenever >> possible, so that IPv6 can fit in with their goals. This also includes >> co-operation with the many IPv6 efforts that exist worldwide. >> >> Education means all methods of increasing IPv6 knowledge. Note that >> the RIPE NCC is not able to do very much in terms of education, since >> it cannot compete with its members. However, the RIPE IPv6 working >> group can and should educate. >> >> -- >> Shane From david.kessens at nsn.com Mon Oct 19 06:46:44 2009 From: david.kessens at nsn.com (David Kessens) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:46:44 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Procedural approach for approval of new charter Message-ID: <20091019044643.GB3630@nsn.com> Hi, First of all, a big thank you to Shane for writing the new proposed charter. I propose that we spend until Oct 23 to give feedback to Shane. At that point, we will ask whether Shane can do a revision and I will issue a Last Call when the revision is ready so that we can get a new charter in place as soon as possible. And finally, it is nice to have a new shiny charter, but it is even more important that we as a community actually do something with it. For example, there is nothing that should stop individual participants to do proposals or volunteer for any activities that would bring our new charter (closer) to completion. For example, it would be good to hear how and whether we can do something regarding the issue that Geert Jan brought up about a week ago. David Kessens --- ----- Forwarded message from Shane Kerr ----- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:36:10 +0200 From: Shane Kerr To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter All, At the RIPE meeting in Lisbon, I agreed to draft a proposed new charter for the IPv6 working group. Here it is: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists to further IPv6 adoption. The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people deploy IPv6. These activities include: * Outreach * Co-operation * Education The IPv4 Internet will continue for a long time. The IPv6 working group is also concerned with IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Please use this mailing list for discussion. We would like to have a new charter in place before the next RIPE meeting. How this proposed charter was made: I looked at all of the other RIPE charters, and decided I wanted to keep this short and simple. I had a lunch meeting with David Kessens, Denesh Bhabuta, Carlos Friacas, Marco Hogewoning, Bernard Tuy, Lance Wright, and Jan Zorz. We discussed the new charter, although the above text has not been reviewed by them or anyone else. I thank them all! For those interested, here are some thoughts that went into the proposed charter: Background ---------- The current IPv6 working group charter is out-of-date: The IPv6 working group follows the progress of specification and implementation of the new IP version. It coordinates implementations in Europe and is going to create testbeds. It comes from a time when IPv6 was immature; the focus was keeping track of technological advances and working on experimental networks. That time is over, and the IPv6 working group needs an updated charter. Goal ---- The goal of creating a new charter is to do more than simply to update the text. We have almost finished allocating all IPv4 addresses. IPv6 is still only used by a small fraction of network traffic, many devices do not support IPv6 at all, and most organizations have no plans for IPv6 adoption. RIPE is a unique community, and should do what it can to help make the migration to IPv6 as easy as possible. A new charter is just the first step. Commentary ---------- The proposed new charter lists some activities: * Outreach * Co-operation * Education Outreach involves getting people, organisations, and groups to begin or continue IPv6 adoption. This includes vendors, governments, and developers. It also includes groups which are traditionally unrepresented, like gamers or content creators. Outreach means both going to other venues and inviting people from outside the RIPE community to visiting RIPE activities. Co-operation is working within the networking industry and without, to share resources and combine efforts. There are a large number of organisations and projects, and we should work with them whenever possible, so that IPv6 can fit in with their goals. This also includes co-operation with the many IPv6 efforts that exist worldwide. Education means all methods of increasing IPv6 knowledge. Note that the RIPE NCC is not able to do very much in terms of education, since it cannot compete with its members. However, the RIPE IPv6 working group can and should educate. -- Shane ----- End forwarded message ----- David Kessens --- From us at sweet-sorrow.com Mon Oct 19 11:07:04 2009 From: us at sweet-sorrow.com (Us) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:07:04 +0000 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <4ADB3EE2.30708@burkov.aha.ru> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <240C8496-BFFB-4249-B516-837392494FFF@bondis.org> <4ADB3EE2.30708@burkov.aha.ru> Message-ID: <4ADC2C38.8080802@sweet-sorrow.com> As all the of the previous repliers, I agree also that the new charter be formed with Sander's proposition included... Ragnar Us From anders.mundt.due at uni-c.dk Mon Oct 19 09:22:13 2009 From: anders.mundt.due at uni-c.dk (Anders Mundt Due) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:22:13 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <0D9A08A9-42E7-4762-9251-A78B0F611F72@steffann.nl> <20091018090800.GA10942@serpens.de> Message-ID: <80D52320F10F9143AF3670B571348EEA27479D@LGBEXCHANGE01.unic.local> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group > exists to further IPv6 adoption. > > The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people > deploy IPv6 and deal with IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. These activities > include: > > * Outreach > * Co-operation > * Education > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Sounds good, although I would suggest changing the first 'further' to 'promote' and Replace 'deal with' with 'further' to create. > IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group > exists to promote IPv6 adoption. > > The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people > deploy IPv6 and further IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. These activities > include: > > * Outreach > * Co-operation > * Education /Anders From matjaz at go6.si Mon Oct 19 09:23:46 2009 From: matjaz at go6.si (=?windows-1252?Q?Matja=9E_Straus?=) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:23:46 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <4ADB3EE2.30708@burkov.aha.ru> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <240C8496-BFFB-4249-B516-837392494FFF@bondis.org> <4ADB3EE2.30708@burkov.aha.ru> Message-ID: I also strongly agree with that and prefer Jan's vote for "manage". On 18.10.2009, at 18:14, Dmitry Burkov wrote: > I strongly support Shane proposal with Sander 's proposals and > prefer clear defition of WG chapter. > > I think we should take more attention to IPv4/IPv6 coexistance - > imwo - it is a real challenge > > Dima Regards, Matja? Straus From GeertJan.deGroot at xs4all.nl Tue Oct 20 14:58:28 2009 From: GeertJan.deGroot at xs4all.nl (Geert Jan de Groot) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:58:28 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:00:01 +0200." <20091017100001.27498.22571.Mailman@postboy.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20091020125828.58D77FE4A@berserkly.xs4all.nl> > The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people > deploy IPv6. These activities include: > * Outreach > * Co-operation > * Education I also would like to propose to add "handle early deployment experiences" or wording to that effect - as I reported yesterday, the PMTU-thing reported on the list during the RIPE meeting. We're at the beginning of large-scale deployment and I believe that we cannot accept the "if something doesn't work, just switch off the IPv6 stack" approach people currently have to take, and I have a few reasons to believe my problem is not unique. We're testing new technology, building a new network - making support work for large-scale consumer-grade deployment is one of the next challenges we face, I think. Geert Jan From spz at serpens.de Tue Oct 20 17:01:04 2009 From: spz at serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:01:04 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <20091020125828.58D77FE4A@berserkly.xs4all.nl> References: <20091017100001.27498.22571.Mailman@postboy.ripe.net> <20091020125828.58D77FE4A@berserkly.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <20091020150103.GG24379@serpens.de> Thus wrote Geert Jan de Groot (GeertJan.deGroot at xs4all.nl): > > The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people > > deploy IPv6. These activities include: > > * Outreach > > * Co-operation > > * Education > > I also would like to propose to add "handle early deployment experiences" > or wording to that effect - as I reported yesterday, the PMTU-thing > reported on the list during the RIPE meeting. I think it would be unwise to limit to early deployment experiences. "So we had the network running happily for 3 years and then we needed to expand it and ran into the following, oops" is quite valuable too (and IPv6 won't be the new thing forever either :) Of course the 1001st "we deployed and it ping6es, wheee!" is fun for the people involved but not necessarily a topic for a mailing list like this. So, "reports on novel problems and experiences", maybe? Native speakers to the fore :) regards, spz -- spz at serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler) From marcoh at marcoh.net Tue Oct 20 17:36:11 2009 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:36:11 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <20091020150103.GG24379@serpens.de> References: <20091017100001.27498.22571.Mailman@postboy.ripe.net> <20091020125828.58D77FE4A@berserkly.xs4all.nl> <20091020150103.GG24379@serpens.de> Message-ID: <379D40E9-44DB-47DD-8A05-3A031DD421D2@marcoh.net> On 20 okt 2009, at 17:01, S.P.Zeidler wrote: > Thus wrote Geert Jan de Groot (GeertJan.deGroot at xs4all.nl): > >>> The working group activities may be anything useful in helping >>> people >>> deploy IPv6. These activities include: >>> * Outreach >>> * Co-operation >>> * Education >> >> I also would like to propose to add "handle early deployment >> experiences" >> or wording to that effect - as I reported yesterday, the PMTU-thing >> reported on the list during the RIPE meeting. > > I think it would be unwise to limit to early deployment experiences. > "So we had the network running happily for 3 years and then we > needed to > expand it and ran into the following, oops" is quite valuable too > (and IPv6 won't be the new thing forever either :) > > Of course the 1001st "we deployed and it ping6es, wheee!" is fun > for the people involved but not necessarily a topic for a mailing list > like this. So, "reports on novel problems and experiences", maybe? > Native speakers to the fore :) Keep in mind a charter should be somewhat short and not to specific, it's not the agenda... Groet, MarcoH From joao at bondis.org Tue Oct 20 17:41:15 2009 From: joao at bondis.org (joao damas) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:41:15 -0400 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <379D40E9-44DB-47DD-8A05-3A031DD421D2@marcoh.net> References: <20091017100001.27498.22571.Mailman@postboy.ripe.net> <20091020125828.58D77FE4A@berserkly.xs4all.nl> <20091020150103.GG24379@serpens.de> <379D40E9-44DB-47DD-8A05-3A031DD421D2@marcoh.net> Message-ID: indeed! On 20 Oct 2009, at 11:36, Marco Hogewoning wrote: > Keep in mind a charter should be somewhat short and not to specific, > it's not the agenda... > > Groet, > > MarcoH > From jan at go6.si Tue Oct 20 18:27:54 2009 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:27:54 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <379D40E9-44DB-47DD-8A05-3A031DD421D2@marcoh.net> References: <20091017100001.27498.22571.Mailman@postboy.ripe.net> <20091020125828.58D77FE4A@berserkly.xs4all.nl> <20091020150103.GG24379@serpens.de> <379D40E9-44DB-47DD-8A05-3A031DD421D2@marcoh.net> Message-ID: <4ADDE50A.9090904@go6.si> > Keep in mind a charter should be somewhat short and not to specific, > it's not the agenda... +1 If we can stick to that, we can shorten this process to minimum amount of time and efforts spent. Thnx, Jan Zorz From cfriacas at fccn.pt Thu Oct 22 09:05:13 2009 From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:05:13 +0100 (WEST) Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <4ADACED1.6020603@baycix.de> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <240C8496-BFFB-4249-B516-837392494FFF@bondis.org> <892C4254-9FB4-4C2D-9083-BFCE03C005FB@marcoh.net> <4ADACED1.6020603@baycix.de> Message-ID: On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, Sascha Lenz wrote: > Marco Hogewoning wrote: >> >> On Oct 17, 2009, at 5:06 PM, joao damas wrote: >> >>> I like the proposed charter, with Sander's suggested amendment. >>> >>> I welcome the renewed interest and willingness to do things as exemplified >>> by Shane's initiative, of which I would have liked to see more of in the >>> recent past. >> >> >> Indeed, I think the change Sander proposes makes sense and I would like to >> voice support for the new charter. > > i support the new charter, too. > It makes sense to me and it's the direction where i'd like the IPv6-WG to go. > > -- > ======================================================================== > = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = > = Network Design & Operations = > = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = > ======================================================================== Hello, I also agree with the proposed new charter, and Sander's suggestion. I would also like to thank Shane, and i also support his co-chair nomination. Regards, Carlos From pfs at cisco.com Thu Oct 22 18:10:30 2009 From: pfs at cisco.com (Philip Smith) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:10:30 +1000 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <240C8496-BFFB-4249-B516-837392494FFF@bondis.org> <892C4254-9FB4-4C2D-9083-BFCE03C005FB@marcoh.net> <4ADACED1.6020603@baycix.de> Message-ID: <4AE083F6.60506@cisco.com> Carlos Friacas said the following on 22/10/09 17:05 : > > I also agree with the proposed new charter, and Sander's suggestion. > > I would also like to thank Shane, and i also support his co-chair > nomination. It's bad form to say "me too", but I'm going to say "me too". Thanks Shane, a great initiative. philip -- From david.kessens at nsn.com Thu Oct 22 22:40:48 2009 From: david.kessens at nsn.com (David Kessens) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:40:48 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> Message-ID: <20091022204047.GA8508@nsn.com> Shane, On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:36:10PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote: > > Please use this mailing list for discussion. Please see below for a version of the proposed charter based on Shane's proposal and after reading all the comments on the mailing list. I tried to incorporate as many comments as possible and tried to clean up the language a little bit. This version is intended as input for composing a final proposal and is my own personal opinion as an individual contributor to this working group. The biggest change that was not discussed yet was that I left 'Cooperation' out. I felt that it was already somewhat covered under outreach and is something that is a natural for any RIPE working group - to say it in another way, RIPE working groups exist for the purpose of cooperation. Basically, I support the work item but I did not see much reason to list it specifically. In addition, I felt that the workitem sounded rather vague if you don't know about the background text so an alternative could be to bring it back but make it a bit more clear what it means. Please let Shane/the working group know what you think. David Kessens --- ---- IPv6 is the next generation of the Internet Protocol (IP). The IPv6 working group exists to advance the adoption of IPv6 in the Internet. The working group activities cover anything that facilitates the deployment of IPv6 and that supports the co-existence of IPv6 and IPv4. These activities include: * Outreach * Education * Share and track deployment experiences * Propose solutions for operational issues ---- > Background > ---------- > The current IPv6 working group charter is out-of-date: > > The IPv6 working group follows the progress of specification and > implementation of the new IP version. It coordinates > implementations in Europe and is going to create testbeds. > > It comes from a time when IPv6 was immature; the focus was keeping > track of technological advances and working on experimental networks. > That time is over, and the IPv6 working group needs an updated > charter. > > > Goal > ---- > The goal of creating a new charter is to do more than simply to update > the text. > > We have almost finished allocating all IPv4 addresses. IPv6 is still > only used by a small fraction of network traffic, many devices do not > support IPv6 at all, and most organizations have no plans for IPv6 > adoption. > > RIPE is a unique community, and should do what it can to help make the > migration to IPv6 as easy as possible. A new charter is just the first > step. > > > Commentary > ---------- > The proposed new charter lists some activities: > > * Outreach > * Co-operation > * Education > > Outreach involves getting people, organisations, and groups to begin > or continue IPv6 adoption. This includes vendors, governments, and > developers. It also includes groups which are traditionally > unrepresented, like gamers or content creators. Outreach means both > going to other venues and inviting people from outside the RIPE > community to visiting RIPE activities. > > Co-operation is working within the networking industry and without, to > share resources and combine efforts. There are a large number of > organisations and projects, and we should work with them whenever > possible, so that IPv6 can fit in with their goals. This also includes > co-operation with the many IPv6 efforts that exist worldwide. > > Education means all methods of increasing IPv6 knowledge. Note that > the RIPE NCC is not able to do very much in terms of education, since > it cannot compete with its members. However, the RIPE IPv6 working > group can and should educate. > > -- > Shane David Kessens --- From Ragnar.Anfinsen at altibox.no Fri Oct 23 11:12:20 2009 From: Ragnar.Anfinsen at altibox.no (Anfinsen, Ragnar) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:12:20 +0200 Subject: SV: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <20091022204047.GA8508@nsn.com> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20091022204047.GA8508@nsn.com> Message-ID: >---- > >IPv6 is the next generation of the Internet Protocol (IP). The IPv6 >working group exists to advance the adoption of IPv6 in the Internet. > >The working group activities cover anything that facilitates the >deployment of IPv6 and that supports the co-existence of IPv6 and IPv4. > >These activities include: > >* Outreach >* Education >* Share and track deployment experiences >* Propose solutions for operational issues > >---- I support this new charter. Best Regards? Ragnar Anfinsen Altibox AS? Network Engineer? Phone +47 51 90 80 00? Phone?direct +47 51 90?82?35 Mobile +47 93 48 82?35 E-mail:?ragnar.anfinsen at altibox.no www.altibox.no www.lyse.no From LHOFFMAN at bouyguestelecom.fr Sun Oct 25 15:17:31 2009 From: LHOFFMAN at bouyguestelecom.fr (HOFFMANN, Lionel) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:17:31 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <20091020150103.GG24379@serpens.de> References: <20091017100001.27498.22571.Mailman@postboy.ripe.net> <20091020125828.58D77FE4A@berserkly.xs4all.nl> <20091020150103.GG24379@serpens.de> Message-ID: Hello I totally agree with the new charter. May be we could also add in sharing information and experience some visits between operators , ISPs .... Regards, Lionel HOFFMANN Direction Technique Tel: 01 39 45 42 76 Mob: 06 60 31 42 76 Email: lhoffman at bouyguestelecom.fr Adresse: Centre d'affaires La Boursidiere RN186 92355 LE PLESSIS ROBINSON cedex -----Message d'origine----- De : ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] De la part de S.P.Zeidler Envoy? : mardi 20 octobre 2009 17:01 ? : Geert Jan de Groot Cc : ipv6-wg at ripe.net Objet : Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: Proposal for new charter Thus wrote Geert Jan de Groot (GeertJan.deGroot at xs4all.nl): > > The working group activities may be anything useful in helping > > people deploy IPv6. These activities include: > > * Outreach > > * Co-operation > > * Education > > I also would like to propose to add "handle early deployment experiences" > or wording to that effect - as I reported yesterday, the PMTU-thing > reported on the list during the RIPE meeting. I think it would be unwise to limit to early deployment experiences. "So we had the network running happily for 3 years and then we needed to expand it and ran into the following, oops" is quite valuable too (and IPv6 won't be the new thing forever either :) Of course the 1001st "we deployed and it ping6es, wheee!" is fun for the people involved but not necessarily a topic for a mailing list like this. So, "reports on novel problems and experiences", maybe? Native speakers to the fore :) regards, spz -- spz at serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler) L'int?grit? de ce message n'?tant pas assur?e sur internet, la soci?t? exp?ditrice ne peut ?tre tenue responsable de son contenu ni de ses pi?ces jointes. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autoris?e est interdite. Si vous n'?tes pas destinataire de ce message, merci de le d?truire et d'avertir l'exp?diteur. The integrity of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. The company that sent this message cannot therefore be held liable for its content nor attachments. Any unauthorized use or dissemination is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, then please delete it and notify the sender. From jan at go6.si Mon Oct 26 09:37:50 2009 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:37:50 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <20091022204047.GA8508@nsn.com> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20091022204047.GA8508@nsn.com> Message-ID: <4AE55FDE.9040803@go6.si> > ---- > > IPv6 is the next generation of the Internet Protocol (IP). The IPv6 > working group exists to advance the adoption of IPv6 in the Internet. > > The working group activities cover anything that facilitates the > deployment of IPv6 and that supports the co-existence of IPv6 and IPv4. > > These activities include: > > * Outreach > * Education > * Share and track deployment experiences > * Propose solutions for operational issues > > ---- Hi. My feeling is that proposed charter quite differs from Shane's text, even if it would be modified with comments that followed in discussion. I would like to ask why? I would suggest Shane to modify his text with comments and post it again. I think that's his job to do. Chair needs just to steer the discussion if it goes in a wrong direction. Don't get me wrong, David's comments in discussion are more than welcome, but with his chair hat off. Regards, Jan Zorz P.S: BTW, what happened with co-chair proposal? Dissapeared? From david.kessens at nsn.com Mon Oct 26 17:49:40 2009 From: david.kessens at nsn.com (David Kessens) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:49:40 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <4AE55FDE.9040803@go6.si> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20091022204047.GA8508@nsn.com> <4AE55FDE.9040803@go6.si> Message-ID: <20091026164939.GA3411@nsn.com> Jan, On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 09:37:50AM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > > My feeling is that proposed charter quite differs from Shane's text, even > if it would be modified with comments that followed in discussion. I > would like to ask why? I tried to include a lot of the discussion on the list. In addition, I tried out some potentially better wording. To say it in a different way, the question is not "why", the question is whether there are elemements that you like better or worse than in the original version so that you can help Shane write a better version? > Don't get me wrong, David's comments in discussion are more than > welcome, but with his chair hat off. I obviously agree. Did you miss the following in my mail? I think I was quite clear when I wrote: "This version is intended as input for composing a final proposal and is my own personal opinion as an individual contributor to this working group." > P.S: BTW, what happened with co-chair proposal? Dissapeared? I think this was mentioned during the working group session: we first deal with the charter. David Kessens --- From: David Kessens To: Shane Kerr Cc: ipv6-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:40:48 -0700 Shane, On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:36:10PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote: > > Please use this mailing list for discussion. Please see below for a version of the proposed charter based on Shane's proposal and after reading all the comments on the mailing list. I tried to incorporate as many comments as possible and tried to clean up the language a little bit. This version is intended as input for composing a final proposal and is my own personal opinion as an individual contributor to this working group. The biggest change that was not discussed yet was that I left 'Cooperation' out. I felt that it was already somewhat covered under outreach and is something that is a natural for any RIPE working group - to say it in another way, RIPE working groups exist for the purpose of cooperation. Basically, I support the work item but I did not see much reason to list it specifically. In addition, I felt that the workitem sounded rather vague if you don't know about the background text so an alternative could be to bring it back but make it a bit more clear what it means. Please let Shane/the working group know what you think. David Kessens --- ---- IPv6 is the next generation of the Internet Protocol (IP). The IPv6 working group exists to advance the adoption of IPv6 in the Internet. The working group activities cover anything that facilitates the deployment of IPv6 and that supports the co-existence of IPv6 and IPv4. These activities include: * Outreach * Education * Share and track deployment experiences * Propose solutions for operational issues ---- > Background > ---------- > The current IPv6 working group charter is out-of-date: > > The IPv6 working group follows the progress of specification and > implementation of the new IP version. It coordinates > implementations in Europe and is going to create testbeds. > > It comes from a time when IPv6 was immature; the focus was keeping > track of technological advances and working on experimental networks. > That time is over, and the IPv6 working group needs an updated > charter. > > > Goal > ---- > The goal of creating a new charter is to do more than simply to update > the text. > > We have almost finished allocating all IPv4 addresses. IPv6 is still > only used by a small fraction of network traffic, many devices do not > support IPv6 at all, and most organizations have no plans for IPv6 > adoption. > > RIPE is a unique community, and should do what it can to help make the > migration to IPv6 as easy as possible. A new charter is just the first > step. > > > Commentary > ---------- > The proposed new charter lists some activities: > > * Outreach > * Co-operation > * Education > > Outreach involves getting people, organisations, and groups to begin > or continue IPv6 adoption. This includes vendors, governments, and > developers. It also includes groups which are traditionally > unrepresented, like gamers or content creators. Outreach means both > going to other venues and inviting people from outside the RIPE > community to visiting RIPE activities. > > Co-operation is working within the networking industry and without, to > share resources and combine efforts. There are a large number of > organisations and projects, and we should work with them whenever > possible, so that IPv6 can fit in with their goals. This also includes > co-operation with the many IPv6 efforts that exist worldwide. > > Education means all methods of increasing IPv6 knowledge. Note that > the RIPE NCC is not able to do very much in terms of education, since > it cannot compete with its members. However, the RIPE IPv6 working > group can and should educate. > > -- > Shane From jan at go6.si Mon Oct 26 18:10:34 2009 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:10:34 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <20091026164939.GA3411@nsn.com> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20091022204047.GA8508@nsn.com> <4AE55FDE.9040803@go6.si> <20091026164939.GA3411@nsn.com> Message-ID: <4AE5D80A.8080005@go6.si> > To say it in a different way, the question is not "why", the question > is whether there are elemements that you like better or worse than in > the original version so that you can help Shane write a better version? There are. I'll do that and help Shane modify the original proposal. > I think this was mentioned during the working group session: we first > deal with the charter. agree. :) Cheers, Jan Zorz From david.kessens at nsn.com Mon Oct 26 18:22:19 2009 From: david.kessens at nsn.com (David Kessens) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:22:19 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <4AE5D80A.8080005@go6.si> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20091022204047.GA8508@nsn.com> <4AE55FDE.9040803@go6.si> <20091026164939.GA3411@nsn.com> <4AE5D80A.8080005@go6.si> Message-ID: <20091026172218.GC3411@nsn.com> Jan, On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 06:10:34PM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > >> To say it in a different way, the question is not "why", the question >> is whether there are elemements that you like better or worse than in >> the original version so that you can help Shane write a better version? > > There are. I'll do that and help Shane modify the original proposal. And now with my working group chair hat on ;-): It is helpful if you post such comments (negative as well as positive) on the list so that people have a chance to show agreement or disagreement, or suggestions for improvement. Eg. it is much easier for Shane to know whether a particular direction makes sense if he knows that there is support from more than one person. David Kessens --- From sander at steffann.nl Mon Oct 26 18:48:54 2009 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:48:54 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <20091026172218.GC3411@nsn.com> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20091022204047.GA8508@nsn.com> <4AE55FDE.9040803@go6.si> <20091026164939.GA3411@nsn.com> <4AE5D80A.8080005@go6.si> <20091026172218.GC3411@nsn.com> Message-ID: <1080.80.101.103.96.1256579334.squirrel@webmail.sintact.nl> >> There are. I'll do that and help Shane modify the original proposal. > > And now with my working group chair hat on ;-): > > It is helpful if you post such comments (negative as well as positive) > on the list so that people have a chance to show agreement or > disagreement, or suggestions for improvement. Eg. it is much easier > for Shane to know whether a particular direction makes sense if he > knows that there is support from more than one person. Shane has had a lot of support on this list. I think it would be best if Shane remains the author of the new charter, as agreed at the last RIPE meeting. I think having multiple versions of the charter text confuses people. Shane is the one who wrote the first version. Let him look at the comments and propose a second version. We can then see if we have consensus on that version or if we need another version. But we should let Shane do the task he was given at the meeting. And after the charter is done we can start the co-chair election process. Sander. From jan at go6.si Mon Oct 26 19:21:12 2009 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:21:12 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <20091026172218.GC3411@nsn.com> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20091022204047.GA8508@nsn.com> <4AE55FDE.9040803@go6.si> <20091026164939.GA3411@nsn.com> <4AE5D80A.8080005@go6.si> <20091026172218.GC3411@nsn.com> Message-ID: <4AE5E898.4080104@go6.si> > And now with my working group chair hat on ;-): > > It is helpful if you post such comments (negative as well as positive) > on the list so that people have a chance to show agreement or > disagreement, or suggestions for improvement. Eg. it is much easier > for Shane to know whether a particular direction makes sense if he > knows that there is support from more than one person. David hi. Normally I would agree with you, I also think public discussion is important. In this case we saw massive support for Shane's first charter and also support for few suggestions for modifications. Shane just needs to tweak a bit his text and we might get the charter with full consensus in a very short period of time. I think no more data collecting is needed on this and that's why I agreed on helping Shane with tweaking the text. With respect, Jan Zorz From david.kessens at nsn.com Mon Oct 26 19:38:57 2009 From: david.kessens at nsn.com (David Kessens) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:38:57 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <1080.80.101.103.96.1256579334.squirrel@webmail.sintact.nl> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20091022204047.GA8508@nsn.com> <4AE55FDE.9040803@go6.si> <20091026164939.GA3411@nsn.com> <4AE5D80A.8080005@go6.si> <20091026172218.GC3411@nsn.com> <1080.80.101.103.96.1256579334.squirrel@webmail.sintact.nl> Message-ID: <20091026183856.GD3411@nsn.com> Sander, On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 06:48:54PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote: > > I think it would be best if Shane remains the author of the new > charter, as agreed at the last RIPE meeting. You are implying that this in question. There is no such question on the table. As I wrote in my mail, my text (just as the text you wrote yourself!) was intended as comment/input for Shane and Shane will write the final text. At the same time, everybody is free to give suggestions for larger or smaller pieces of text that Shane can use. Especially the comments on these suggestions will be helpful for Shane to determine what direction to take on the final text. Making such suggestions on the list (as opposed to privately) is a lot more transparent and allows for public comment. Basically, we are a working group and everybody can and is encouraged to contribute to the end result. David Kessens --- From fm at st-kilda.org Mon Oct 26 19:49:19 2009 From: fm at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:49:19 +0000 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <4AE5E898.4080104@go6.si> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20091022204047.GA8508@nsn.com> <4AE55FDE.9040803@go6.si> <20091026164939.GA3411@nsn.com> <4AE5D80A.8080005@go6.si> <20091026172218.GC3411@nsn.com> <4AE5E898.4080104@go6.si> Message-ID: <5D251DA1-3228-413A-823E-39EBC7758337@st-kilda.org> Jan On 26 Oct 2009, at 18:21, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > I think no more data collecting is needed on this and that's why I > agreed on helping Shane with tweaking the text. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the proposed charter was first posted to the list on the 16th of this month, a mere 10 days ago. During that time, certainly in this part of the world, it has been a school holiday period so it is quite possible for people to not even have read the discussion at this point. What if someone has objections to the tweaked proposals, are you saying that it is too late for them to comment on new text? The charter discussion is not something that should be wrapped up in less than two weeks, we wouldn't make policy within that timeframe under the PDP, neither should we set a new WG charter in that timescale in my opinion. Regards f From spz at serpens.de Mon Oct 26 19:52:47 2009 From: spz at serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:52:47 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <4AE5E898.4080104@go6.si> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20091022204047.GA8508@nsn.com> <4AE55FDE.9040803@go6.si> <20091026164939.GA3411@nsn.com> <4AE5D80A.8080005@go6.si> <20091026172218.GC3411@nsn.com> <4AE5E898.4080104@go6.si> Message-ID: <20091026185246.GJ843@serpens.de> Thus wrote Jan Zorz @ go6.si (jan at go6.si): > In this case we saw massive support for Shane's first charter and also > support for few suggestions for modifications. Shane just needs to tweak > a bit his text and we might get the charter with full consensus in a very > short period of time. > > I think no more data collecting is needed on this and that's why I agreed > on helping Shane with tweaking the text. So shut up and go away? Last time I checked a WG chair was allowed to contribute as well. I don't quite understand why you feel the need to be this hostile. regards, spz -- spz at serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler) From david.kessens at nsn.com Mon Oct 26 20:12:12 2009 From: david.kessens at nsn.com (David Kessens) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:12:12 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <4AE5E898.4080104@go6.si> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20091022204047.GA8508@nsn.com> <4AE55FDE.9040803@go6.si> <20091026164939.GA3411@nsn.com> <4AE5D80A.8080005@go6.si> <20091026172218.GC3411@nsn.com> <4AE5E898.4080104@go6.si> Message-ID: <20091026191212.GE3411@nsn.com> Jan, On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 07:21:12PM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > > In this case we saw massive support for Shane's first charter and also > support for few suggestions for modifications. Shane just needs to tweak > a bit his text and we might get the charter with full consensus in a very > short period of time. I don't think it is useful to speak in terms of people being against or for a particular proposal. Both me and Sander sent different revisions of the original text. I don't think either of was not in support of the original text: we both had some ideas on how it was possible to rearrange/improve the text. As my text was based on Sander's text, and I tried to incorporated some of the ideas posted on the mailing list my text naturally appeared to be somewhat more different from the original than Sander's. On the other hand, I tried not to change the direction except from what I picked up from the comments from the list and the change about leaving out the word 'cooperation' (which was a real change and which I motivated!). Basically, we really don't have a situation of disagreement: we seem to have mostly converged but talking on different ways on how to present/write up the points that we want in the charter. This is not about disagreeing it is about working together to get the best possible text together. I do believe it is important to spend some time on this: the charter is the first thing that the world sees about the working group so posting some different options of arranging the text or using different words gives us a chance to get a charter together that is clear but also reads well and looks professional. > I think no more data collecting is needed on this and that's why I agreed > on helping Shane with tweaking the text. Of course the actual final text needs to be written down by somebody and we asked Shane to do so. In addition, it is perfectly fine if Shane gets some help. On the other hand, we are a working group and doing some of the work on the mailing list has the benefit that we don't have to do as many iterations of the final text as more people have already seen the potential tweaks and suggestions on the mailing list (for example, if Sander had send his text privately, he would have had no idea whether people liked his tweaks). David Kessens --- From jan at go6.si Mon Oct 26 20:36:16 2009 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:36:16 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <5D251DA1-3228-413A-823E-39EBC7758337@st-kilda.org> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20091022204047.GA8508@nsn.com> <4AE55FDE.9040803@go6.si> <20091026164939.GA3411@nsn.com> <4AE5D80A.8080005@go6.si> <20091026172218.GC3411@nsn.com> <4AE5E898.4080104@go6.si> <5D251DA1-3228-413A-823E-39EBC7758337@st-kilda.org> Message-ID: <4AE5FA30.4050803@go6.si> Hi Fergas. > What if someone has objections to the tweaked proposals, are you saying > that it is too late for them to comment on new text? Absolutely not. Regards, Jan From jan at go6.si Mon Oct 26 21:45:14 2009 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:45:14 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <4AE5FA30.4050803@go6.si> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20091022204047.GA8508@nsn.com> <4AE55FDE.9040803@go6.si> <20091026164939.GA3411@nsn.com> <4AE5D80A.8080005@go6.si> <20091026172218.GC3411@nsn.com> <4AE5E898.4080104@go6.si> <5D251DA1-3228-413A-823E-39EBC7758337@st-kilda.org> <4AE5FA30.4050803@go6.si> Message-ID: <4AE60A5A.5010307@go6.si> On 26.10.09 20:36, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > Hi Fergas. > >> What if someone has objections to the tweaked proposals, are you saying >> that it is too late for them to comment on new text? > > Absolutely not. > > Regards, Jan > Fergas suggested me offlist to clarify this a bit. My view of how it should be done is: Shane proposed charter-01, strong support was shown and some comments came in. Shane needs to compile charter-02 and gather more comments (if any). If comments, charter-03 should be done, and so on until we get the consensus. That's how work gets done. Everything else is just chatting and ego fighting. Somebody mentioned hostility; I'm not, not even close, I just give short answers sometimes for some people. ... and I strongly agree with Sanders's today answer. Off until -02. Have fun, Jan From kzorba at otenet.gr Tue Oct 27 16:55:55 2009 From: kzorba at otenet.gr (Kostas Zorbadelos) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:55:55 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <20091022204047.GA8508@nsn.com> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20091022204047.GA8508@nsn.com> Message-ID: <200910271755.55881.kzorba@otenet.gr> On Thursday 22 October 2009 23:40:48 David Kessens wrote: I finally managed to read the entire thread. From all the discussions up to know, I prefer the wording of David's proposal. So I support this while waiting for Shane's input. It's really nice to see this mailing list being utilized. Kostas Zorbadelos > ---- > > IPv6 is the next generation of the Internet Protocol (IP). The IPv6 > working group exists to advance the adoption of IPv6 in the Internet. > > The working group activities cover anything that facilitates the > deployment of IPv6 and that supports the co-existence of IPv6 and IPv4. > > These activities include: > > * Outreach > * Education > * Share and track deployment experiences > * Propose solutions for operational issues > > ---- From marcoh at marcoh.net Wed Oct 28 14:01:31 2009 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:01:31 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Publication of default assignment sizes for end-user network ? Message-ID: <307AEED4-C22C-4207-B3F0-E76AC1663CFB@marcoh.net> Fellow WG members, This is something that seems to be lingering around for some time now and from talking to various people seems that there is some basic need for a system for this. I understand the IPv6-WG may not be the correct place to solve the issue, however I do think this is a nice platform to try and see if we can work out what the actual need is for that and hopefully this can result in some draft proposal that can be taken to the appropriate working group or even to another body for the actual implementation. As per RIPE-481 section 5.5 there is no need to register assignments of a /48 or longer into the public RIR/NIR database, as long it's registered by the LIR and that data is accessible by the RIR. Now this does not forbid you to register individual assignments into the public database, but doing so poses various problems. Not only the sheer number of assignments can be a problem, but also keeping that registration up-to-date will have serious impact on your day to day operations and especially with residential users there might be privacy issues as well. From an IR perspective this all makes sense and seems like reasonable behavior and I'm not intending of changing this. From what I see in the emerging deployments is that there are quite some differences between various operators on what the default assignment size to end users is and even in the same operator the actual size assigned might vary in between the various products from anywhere between a /128 to establish a link up to the full /48 possible. Together with these emerging deployments and this is primarily focussed on eyeballs but it may also apply to hosting as well, there seems to become a need to establish things like GEO-IP services but also blacklists for, as an example, email. Within IPv4 these kind of services can pretty much be done with a resolution of the full 32 bits registering individual IP addresses and still end up with a manageable list. With IPv6 emerging this situation changes, as most as not all customers will receive at least a /64 it seems natural to do some form of aggregation and I already can think of 2 reasons why: - Doing it on the full /128 will have the risks the lists become too big and maintaining and distributing them becomes impossible - Within the /64 it's fairly easy to switch addresses or to simply select multiple, so for instance a virus can use an almost unlimited number of source addresses to do evil. Naturally this has already led to aggregation, people working on collecting this data and generating these blacklists and also get-up services have invented there own scheme, some of them register individual /64's, others seem to have or start using a model where presence of X numbers of individual /64 blocks will lead to automatic aggregation and the next 'natural' boundary for that is /48. This in itself can lead to issues for instance when you assign /56 to a customer premises and somebody decides to aggregate he may as well block 256 house holds and not the one doing evil. Now talking with people the problem seems big enough that it needs fixing, in fact we may as well fix it before it goes wrong. Now I realize there are various way how to attack this and various platforms or community bodies to address this. At this point in time the RIR seems a reasonable place and what I'm trying with this post is see if there is some consensus about the fact this is a problem worth fixing and hopefully together and as a WG we can generate some output by for instance writing a draft proposal and bring it to other working groups or standardization bodies. So about the solution, one of the things I'm thinking about is asking the database group to implement an additional and optional attribute for inet6num which can hold the standard assignment size used for this block. So for instance I can put an object there saying 2001:980:1000::/36 is used for residential DSL assignments and default assignment size is /48 and that 2001:980:2000::/36 is used for hosting purposes and assignment size is a /64. That way people can find out about and aggregate their lists or even abuse complaints according to boundaries set by the operator and they no longer have to guess and potentially harm themselves or other users because there educate guess was of by 8 bits. This is only one possible solution, I also heard a voice saying we could try and solve this in DNS and it might be taken to IETF others suggested that instead of the database this should be published as a machine parseable list on a static URL. Now I'm perfectly happy to write that proposal, in fact some of it is already done. So is this worth going after, did I miss something here, can you provide arguments supporting this or against this approach and what sort of solution would you like. Looking forward to your comments either on this list or privately, especially from people who are in the business of data collection/ publishing. While we work on the new charter let's together try and proof this WG still is capable of producing something usefull :) Grtx, Marco Hogewoning (Both operator and concerned citizen) From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Oct 28 14:37:37 2009 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:37:37 -0000 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Publication of default assignment sizes for end-user network ? In-Reply-To: <307AEED4-C22C-4207-B3F0-E76AC1663CFB@marcoh.net> Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745803C8B0CC@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> > Now this does not forbid you to register individual > assignments into the public database, but doing so poses > various problems. Not only the sheer number of assignments > can be a problem, but also keeping that registration > up-to-date will have serious impact on your day to day > operations and especially with residential users there might > be privacy issues as well. If we would have a distributed database protocol to extend the RIPE database into the LIRs, then this would not be an issue. I'm thinking of something like DNS. For instance, if I need to look up data on three /48s in fdb8:e914::/32 I would first send a lookup request to RIPE. The RIPE db would tell me that all data for fdb8:e914::/32 is in a server at fdb8:e914::dbdb. I would cache that information, and send my first lookup request to the distributed server. After getting my reply, I would prepare to send the second request for fdb8:e914:c20f::/48, notice that the /32 is already in my cache, and use the cached server instead. This is roughly the way DNS lookups work with the result that the detailed data does not have to be kept in one central location. I would like to see the RIPE db move in the same direction. At the same time, I would like to see the spec opened up a bit so that the distributed server operators would be free to add additional attributes to existing objects, and additional objects so that there is the possibility of using the same distributed lookup mechanism for geographic or language identifications as well. --Michael Dillon From marcoh at marcoh.net Wed Oct 28 14:44:43 2009 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:44:43 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Publication of default assignment sizes for end-user network ? In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745803C8B0CC@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745803C8B0CC@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-ID: <8A56DF9B-F8AF-424E-8D2E-58870BC71940@marcoh.net> >> Now this does not forbid you to register individual >> assignments into the public database, but doing so poses >> various problems. Not only the sheer number of assignments >> can be a problem, but also keeping that registration >> up-to-date will have serious impact on your day to day >> operations and especially with residential users there might >> be privacy issues as well. > > If we would have a distributed database protocol to extend the > RIPE database into the LIRs, then this would not be an issue. > I'm thinking of something like DNS. > > For instance, if I need to look up data on three > /48s in fdb8:e914::/32 I would first send a lookup request to > RIPE. The RIPE db would tell me that all data for > fdb8:e914::/32 is in a server at fdb8:e914::dbdb. I would > cache that information, and send my first lookup request to > the distributed server. After getting my reply, I would prepare > to send the second request for fdb8:e914:c20f::/48, notice that > the /32 is already in my cache, and use the cached server > instead. > > This is roughly the way DNS lookups work with the result that > the detailed data does not have to be kept in one central > location. I would like to see the RIPE db move in the same > direction. > > At the same time, I would like to see the spec opened up a bit > so that the distributed server operators would be free to add > additional attributes to existing objects, and additional objects > so that there is the possibility of using the same distributed > lookup mechanism for geographic or language identifications as > well. This may as well be another solution, but it still needs some way of signalling where the actual boundary between customers is as I see no way to delegate it down to the customer level unless there is some way to incoorperate it into the CPE. And that's I think my main argument opposing to this path, it takes a lot of time to and develop that model ad get it implemented across all the LIR's. The big benefit of solving it at the RIR level is that it's only a handfull of systems that need to be changed and the basic way to retrieve that information is already there in the form of the whois protocol. I'm not syaing I don't like your solution, I'm just afraid that deployment will be just to late. Grtx, Marco From joao at bondis.org Wed Oct 28 18:11:38 2009 From: joao at bondis.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Damas?=) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:11:38 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <200910271755.55881.kzorba@otenet.gr> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20091022204047.GA8508@nsn.com> <200910271755.55881.kzorba@otenet.gr> Message-ID: <9C5C7B44-12D3-4FC5-80C6-00C24F506356@bondis.org> right, but it would be good if there are not multiple versions evolving in parallel. I think david was trying to helpful but unintentionally introduced confusion. So, Shane could you perhaps merge all input up to this point and put a new version out for comment? Then David can perhaps wrap up the discussion and call for consensus? Joao On 27 Oct 2009, at 16:55, Kostas Zorbadelos wrote: > On Thursday 22 October 2009 23:40:48 David Kessens wrote: > > I finally managed to read the entire thread. > > From all the discussions up to know, I prefer the wording of David's > proposal. > So I support this while waiting for Shane's input. > > It's really nice to see this mailing list being utilized. > > Kostas Zorbadelos > >> ---- >> >> IPv6 is the next generation of the Internet Protocol (IP). The IPv6 >> working group exists to advance the adoption of IPv6 in the Internet. >> >> The working group activities cover anything that facilitates the >> deployment of IPv6 and that supports the co-existence of IPv6 and >> IPv4. >> >> These activities include: >> >> * Outreach >> * Education >> * Share and track deployment experiences >> * Propose solutions for operational issues >> >> ---- > From shane at time-travellers.org Wed Oct 28 20:07:17 2009 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:07:17 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <9C5C7B44-12D3-4FC5-80C6-00C24F506356@bondis.org> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20091022204047.GA8508@nsn.com> <200910271755.55881.kzorba@otenet.gr> <9C5C7B44-12D3-4FC5-80C6-00C24F506356@bondis.org> Message-ID: <1256756837.5184.6798.camel@shane-asus-laptop> Joao, Apologies for being so quiet on this in the midst of the discussion. Rest assured, I have been following it with great interest. However, I am traveling, so a bit distracted at this moment. I will review all of the discussion again, and produce a new version today ("today" ending at midnight in California). Cheers, -- Shane On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 18:11 +0100, Jo?o Damas wrote: > right, but it would be good if there are not multiple versions > evolving in parallel. > I think david was trying to helpful but unintentionally introduced > confusion. > > So, Shane could you perhaps merge all input up to this point and put a > new version out for comment? > Then David can perhaps wrap up the discussion and call for consensus? > > Joao > > On 27 Oct 2009, at 16:55, Kostas Zorbadelos wrote: > > > On Thursday 22 October 2009 23:40:48 David Kessens wrote: > > > > I finally managed to read the entire thread. > > > > From all the discussions up to know, I prefer the wording of David's > > proposal. > > So I support this while waiting for Shane's input. > > > > It's really nice to see this mailing list being utilized. > > > > Kostas Zorbadelos > > > >> ---- > >> > >> IPv6 is the next generation of the Internet Protocol (IP). The IPv6 > >> working group exists to advance the adoption of IPv6 in the Internet. > >> > >> The working group activities cover anything that facilitates the > >> deployment of IPv6 and that supports the co-existence of IPv6 and > >> IPv4. > >> > >> These activities include: > >> > >> * Outreach > >> * Education > >> * Share and track deployment experiences > >> * Propose solutions for operational issues > >> > >> ---- > > > From david.kessens at nsn.com Wed Oct 28 20:30:08 2009 From: david.kessens at nsn.com (David Kessens) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:30:08 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <9C5C7B44-12D3-4FC5-80C6-00C24F506356@bondis.org> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20091022204047.GA8508@nsn.com> <200910271755.55881.kzorba@otenet.gr> <9C5C7B44-12D3-4FC5-80C6-00C24F506356@bondis.org> Message-ID: <20091028193008.GD4345@nsn.com> Jo?o, On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 06:11:38PM +0100, Jo?o Damas wrote: > > So, Shane could you perhaps merge all input up to this point and put a > new version out for comment? > Then David can perhaps wrap up the discussion and call for consensus? Maybe you missed my mail regarding the procedure that we were going to follow to get a new charter in place, but it matches exactly what you came up with 10 days later ;-). David Kessens --- Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:46:43 -0700 From: David Kessens To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net Subject: Procedural approach for approval of new charter Hi, First of all, a big thank you to Shane for writing the new proposed charter. I propose that we spend until Oct 23 to give feedback to Shane. At that point, we will ask whether Shane can do a revision and I will issue a Last Call when the revision is ready so that we can get a new charter in place as soon as possible. And finally, it is nice to have a new shiny charter, but it is even more important that we as a community actually do something with it. For example, there is nothing that should stop individual participants to do proposals or volunteer for any activities that would bring our new charter (closer) to completion. For example, it would be good to hear how and whether we can do something regarding the issue that Geert Jan brought up about a week ago. David Kessens --- From joao at bondis.org Wed Oct 28 22:45:11 2009 From: joao at bondis.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Damas?=) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:45:11 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter In-Reply-To: <20091028193008.GD4345@nsn.com> References: <1255725370.12024.744.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20091022204047.GA8508@nsn.com> <200910271755.55881.kzorba@otenet.gr> <9C5C7B44-12D3-4FC5-80C6-00C24F506356@bondis.org> <20091028193008.GD4345@nsn.com> Message-ID: <5418B87D-494B-4C1F-A1D5-C3ED51F735CF@bondis.org> On 28 Oct 2009, at 20:30, David Kessens wrote: > > Jo?o, > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 06:11:38PM +0100, Jo?o Damas wrote: >> >> So, Shane could you perhaps merge all input up to this point and >> put a >> new version out for comment? >> Then David can perhaps wrap up the discussion and call for consensus? > > Maybe you missed my mail regarding the procedure that we were going to > follow to get a new charter in place, but it matches exactly what you > came up with 10 days later ;-). great! let's keep going. Joao From marc at let.de Thu Oct 29 11:10:23 2009 From: marc at let.de (Marc Manthey) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:10:23 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Happy Birthday Internet !! The first Internet connection Message-ID: happy birthday to Charley Kline and Leonard Kleinrock, who made this possible "The first message over the internet was send 29 october 1969" http://macbroadcast.org/index.php?q=node/34 greetings marc -- Les enfants teribbles - research / deployment Marc Manthey- Vogelsangerstrasse 97 50823 K?ln - Germany Geo: 50.945554, 6.920293 PGP/GnuPG: 0x1ac02f3296b12b4d Tel.:0049-221-29891489 Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 project : http://opencu.org.uk blog: http://macbroadcast.org Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). Please note that according to the German law on data retention, information on every electronic information exchange with me is retained for a period of six months. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: