From shane at time-travellers.org  Fri Sep  4 17:04:10 2009
From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr)
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:04:10 +0200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
Message-ID: <1252076650.3172.28697.camel@shane-asus-laptop>

All,

I checked Geoff Huston's IPv4 estimate again today:

http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html

Assuming he's correct, we have 4 more RIPE meetings until IANA runs out
of IPv4 addresses:

RIPE 59 (2009 Autumn)
RIPE 60 (2010 Spring)
RIPE 61 (2010 Autumn)
RIPE 62 (2011 Spring)

And... that's it! IANA is done with IPv4!

Then the real fun begins as we enter the RIR IPv4 run-out period. We
then have 1 or 2 RIPE meetings until the RIRs run out of IPv4 blocks to
hand out:

RIPE 63 (2011 Autumn)
RIPE 64 (2012 Spring... maybe)


So... what is going on in the RIPE IPv6 working group at this critical
phase?

Since the last RIPE meeting there have been messages from the RIPE NCC
about their IPv6ActNow stuff and a survey, and some messages about the
minutes. The only thread with any content has been one about IPv6
minimum allocation sizes (thanks Marco!).

This is not much.


Since this group isn't actually doing anything, I propose we:

     1. Shut down this working group after the next RIPE meeting.
     2. Move discussion of IPv6 issues to other working groups (since
        "IPv6 issues" will become "IP issues" very soon anyway).

Cheers,

--
Shane




From nuno.vieira at nfsi.pt  Fri Sep  4 17:20:17 2009
From: nuno.vieira at nfsi.pt (Nuno Vieira - nfsi)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 16:20:17 +0100 (WEST)
Subject: [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
In-Reply-To: <1252076650.3172.28697.camel@shane-asus-laptop>
Message-ID: <1792650114.196701252077617737.JavaMail.root@zimbra.nfsi.pt>

Hi,

This is really concerning.

We could provide *IPv6 connectivity only*, during a certain period of time, for some people feel the pain. :-)

Anyway, this is an hot subject that should be raised next October.

Looking forward to see you there,
---
Nuno Vieira
nfsi telecom, lda.

nuno.vieira at nfsi.pt
Tel. (+351) 21 949 2300 - Fax (+351) 21 949 2301
http://www.nfsi.pt/



----- "Shane Kerr" <shane at time-travellers.org> wrote:

> All,
> 
> I checked Geoff Huston's IPv4 estimate again today:
> 
> http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html
> 
> Assuming he's correct, we have 4 more RIPE meetings until IANA runs
> out
> of IPv4 addresses:
> 
> RIPE 59 (2009 Autumn)
> RIPE 60 (2010 Spring)
> RIPE 61 (2010 Autumn)
> RIPE 62 (2011 Spring)
> 
> And... that's it! IANA is done with IPv4!
> 
> Then the real fun begins as we enter the RIR IPv4 run-out period. We
> then have 1 or 2 RIPE meetings until the RIRs run out of IPv4 blocks
> to
> hand out:
> 
> RIPE 63 (2011 Autumn)
> RIPE 64 (2012 Spring... maybe)
> 
> 
> So... what is going on in the RIPE IPv6 working group at this
> critical
> phase?
> 
> Since the last RIPE meeting there have been messages from the RIPE
> NCC
> about their IPv6ActNow stuff and a survey, and some messages about
> the
> minutes. The only thread with any content has been one about IPv6
> minimum allocation sizes (thanks Marco!).
> 
> This is not much.
> 
> 
> Since this group isn't actually doing anything, I propose we:
> 
>      1. Shut down this working group after the next RIPE meeting.
>      2. Move discussion of IPv6 issues to other working groups (since
>         "IPv6 issues" will become "IP issues" very soon anyway).
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --
> Shane



From david.kessens at nsn.com  Fri Sep  4 17:47:29 2009
From: david.kessens at nsn.com (David Kessens)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 08:47:29 -0700
Subject: [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
In-Reply-To: <1252076650.3172.28697.camel@shane-asus-laptop>
References: <1252076650.3172.28697.camel@shane-asus-laptop>
Message-ID: <20090904154728.GH23056@nsn.com>

Shane,

On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 05:04:10PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote:
> 
> Since the last RIPE meeting there have been messages from the RIPE NCC
> about their IPv6ActNow stuff and a survey, and some messages about the
> minutes. The only thread with any content has been one about IPv6
> minimum allocation sizes (thanks Marco!).
> 
> This is not much.
> 
> Since this group isn't actually doing anything, I propose we:
> 
>      1. Shut down this working group after the next RIPE meeting.
>      2. Move discussion of IPv6 issues to other working groups (since
>         "IPv6 issues" will become "IP issues" very soon anyway).

You clearly have not read the minutes and/or have been at any of the  
meetings as we have run out of time every single meeting in the past
few years and we needed the largest meeting room available.

In any case, are you coming to the next RIPE meeting so that I can put
this on the agenda and you can propose this to the working group ?

David Kessens
---



From michael.dillon at bt.com  Fri Sep  4 18:14:45 2009
From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:14:45 +0100
Subject: [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
In-Reply-To: <1252076650.3172.28697.camel@shane-asus-laptop>
Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802F5F9A8@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>

> Since this group isn't actually doing anything, I propose we:
> 
>      1. Shut down this working group after the next RIPE meeting.
>      2. Move discussion of IPv6 issues to other working groups (since
>         "IPv6 issues" will become "IP issues" very soon anyway).

Given that we are just now moving into the time period when people will
be seriously deploying IPv6, I strongly oppose this move.

Instead, RIPE should promote this WG, and it would not hurt to clarify
its terms of reference. For instance, how does the RIPE IPv6 WG 
differ from ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de ?

It costs nothing to carry a mailing list with very low traffic, and even
if it only serves as an announcement list for the next three years, that
is atill a worthwhile use of the RIPE resources.

--Michael Dillon



From gert at space.net  Fri Sep  4 18:25:09 2009
From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 18:25:09 +0200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
In-Reply-To: <20090904154728.GH23056@nsn.com>
References: <1252076650.3172.28697.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20090904154728.GH23056@nsn.com>
Message-ID: <20090904162509.GI79272@Space.Net>

Hi,

On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 08:47:29AM -0700, David Kessens wrote:
> You clearly have not read the minutes and/or have been at any of the  
> meetings as we have run out of time every single meeting in the past
> few years and we needed the largest meeting room available.

Which might not be *so* contradictory in the end.

If we consider IPv6 to be "the mainstream Internet" in the future, the
IPv6 content will sort of naturally move to "the plenary" (because that's
what we all should be interested in, no?).  If that happens, the question
"what remains to be specifically discussed inside the IPv6 WG" is a 
valid one.

I don't think that this is a very realistic scenario for the next few years, 
though - and I expect lots of "IPv4 centric" talk in the plenary.  Like
"how can I make my NAT devices scale?" and "how can I make my users stop
hating me for NATting to death all their connections"... :-)


OTOH, maybe we should create an IPv4 WG (and an IPX WG) for those still 
stuck with last century's legacy networking protocols.

half-seriously,

Gert Doering
        -- myself
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  128645

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279



From david.kessens at nsn.com  Fri Sep  4 18:36:47 2009
From: david.kessens at nsn.com (David Kessens)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:36:47 -0700
Subject: [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
In-Reply-To: <20090904162509.GI79272@Space.Net>
References: <1252076650.3172.28697.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20090904154728.GH23056@nsn.com> <20090904162509.GI79272@Space.Net>
Message-ID: <20090904163647.GL23056@nsn.com>

Gert,

On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 06:25:09PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 08:47:29AM -0700, David Kessens wrote:
> > You clearly have not read the minutes and/or have been at any of the  
> > meetings as we have run out of time every single meeting in the past
> > few years and we needed the largest meeting room available.
> 
> Which might not be *so* contradictory in the end.
> 
> If we consider IPv6 to be "the mainstream Internet" in the future, the
> IPv6 content will sort of naturally move to "the plenary" (because that's
> what we all should be interested in, no?).  If that happens, the question
> "what remains to be specifically discussed inside the IPv6 WG" is a 
> valid one.

Yes, that should be the natural course when IPv6 is going to become
more mainstream. Even now already, we carefully weigh (with
plenary/eof program committee) whether certain topics are more fit for
the plenary program or for the IPv6 working group.

David Kessens
---



From isacco.fontana at trentinonetwork.it  Sun Sep  6 09:45:34 2009
From: isacco.fontana at trentinonetwork.it (Isacco Fontana)
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 09:45:34 +0200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] LDP over Ipv6
In-Reply-To: <1792650114.196701252077617737.JavaMail.root@zimbra.nfsi.pt>
References: <1792650114.196701252077617737.JavaMail.root@zimbra.nfsi.pt>
Message-ID: <4AA3689E.7090108@trentinonetwork.it>

Hi,
we're planning to use ipv6 only on our backbone. Our idea is to use ipv6 
for backbone mpls and mpls vpn to holding old ipv4 customers and all 
ipv4 networks inside vpn BUT today LDP work only with IPv4. So now we 
can't use ipv6 for mpls and we have still use ipv4 addresses to run ldp 
on backbone and 6vpe for vpn.

Any comments ?

Thanks
Isacco
-- 

Ing. Isacco Fontana

Trentino Network s.r.l.
A socio Unico

Direzione Servizi
Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete

Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO
Tel       (+39) 0461.020200
Fax      (+39) 0461.020201

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cap. Soc. sottoscritto  ? 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA 01904880224 E-mail: sede at trentinonetwork.it
Societ? soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Autonoma di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From dr at cluenet.de  Sun Sep  6 14:42:02 2009
From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen)
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:42:02 +0200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: LDP over Ipv6
In-Reply-To: <4AA3689E.7090108@trentinonetwork.it>
References: <1792650114.196701252077617737.JavaMail.root@zimbra.nfsi.pt> <4AA3689E.7090108@trentinonetwork.it>
Message-ID: <20090906124202.GA29116@srv03.cluenet.de>

On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 09:45:34AM +0200, Isacco Fontana wrote:
> we're planning to use ipv6 only on our backbone. Our idea is to use ipv6 
> for backbone mpls and mpls vpn to holding old ipv4 customers and all ipv4 
> networks inside vpn BUT today LDP work only with IPv4. So now we can't use 
> ipv6 for mpls and we have still use ipv4 addresses to run ldp on backbone 
> and 6vpe for vpn.
>
> Any comments ?

When approached about missing IPv6 transport implementation (specs are
there!) for LDP+RSVP, Cisco and Juniper both say "no customer demand".

Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0



From us at sweet-sorrow.com  Sun Sep  6 18:00:14 2009
From: us at sweet-sorrow.com (Ragnar Belial Us)
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 18:00:14 +0200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] LDP over Ipv6
In-Reply-To: <4AA3689E.7090108@trentinonetwork.it>
References: <1792650114.196701252077617737.JavaMail.root@zimbra.nfsi.pt>
	 <4AA3689E.7090108@trentinonetwork.it>
Message-ID: <acbdd760909060900l61889f4crab79e4e0f36211b4@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I'm quite sure that we, as network operations people, will be discovering
more and more "glitches" in the big vendors IPv6 implementations as we
transit along.
As far as I go, I'm sure we'll be getting very "gray-haired" due to this...

Ragnar Us

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Isacco Fontana <
isacco.fontana at trentinonetwork.it> wrote:

> Hi,
> we're planning to use ipv6 only on our backbone. Our idea is to use ipv6
> for backbone mpls and mpls vpn to holding old ipv4 customers and all ipv4
> networks inside vpn BUT today LDP work only with IPv4. So now we can't use
> ipv6 for mpls and we have still use ipv4 addresses to run ldp on backbone
> and 6vpe for vpn.
>
> Any comments ?
>
> Thanks
> Isacco
> --
>
> Ing. Isacco Fontana
>
> Trentino Network s.r.l.
> A socio Unico
>
> Direzione Servizi
> Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete
>
> Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO
> Tel       (+39) 0461.020200
> Fax      (+39) 0461.020201
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Cap. Soc. sottoscritto  ? 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA
> 01904880224 E-mail: sede at trentinonetwork.it
> Societ? soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Autonoma
> di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20090906/b8ba8772/attachment.html>

From jan at go6.si  Sun Sep  6 20:35:02 2009
From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si)
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 20:35:02 +0200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] LDP over Ipv6
In-Reply-To: <acbdd760909060900l61889f4crab79e4e0f36211b4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1792650114.196701252077617737.JavaMail.root@zimbra.nfsi.pt>	 <4AA3689E.7090108@trentinonetwork.it> <acbdd760909060900l61889f4crab79e4e0f36211b4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4AA400D6.5090208@go6.si>

On 6.9.09 18:00, Ragnar Belial Us wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm quite sure that we, as network operations people, will be
> discovering more and more "glitches" in the big vendors IPv6
> implementations as we transit along.
> As far as I go, I'm sure we'll be getting very "gray-haired" due to this...
>
> Ragnar Us

More glitches we report back to developers/vendors, more glitches we get fixed.

:)

Jan Zorz



From fm at st-kilda.org  Sun Sep  6 21:07:24 2009
From: fm at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay)
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 20:07:24 +0100
Subject: [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
In-Reply-To: <1792650114.196701252077617737.JavaMail.root@zimbra.nfsi.pt>
References: <1792650114.196701252077617737.JavaMail.root@zimbra.nfsi.pt>
Message-ID: <C13EEA31-3A9C-45F4-BA08-8FDF92B2C61F@st-kilda.org>

On 4 Sep 2009, at 16:20, Nuno Vieira - nfsi wrote:

> We could provide *IPv6 connectivity only*, during a certain period  
> of time, for some people feel the pain. :-)

This has already  been done at RIPE meetings, as well as other RIR &  
IETF meetings.

	f



From isacco.fontana at trentinonetwork.it  Sun Sep  6 23:06:47 2009
From: isacco.fontana at trentinonetwork.it (Isacco Fontana)
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 23:06:47 +0200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: LDP over Ipv6
In-Reply-To: <20090906124202.GA29116@srv03.cluenet.de>
References: <1792650114.196701252077617737.JavaMail.root@zimbra.nfsi.pt> <4AA3689E.7090108@trentinonetwork.it> <20090906124202.GA29116@srv03.cluenet.de>
Message-ID: <4AA42467.30002@trentinonetwork.it>

Hi Daniel,
thanks for your answer.

I think this (LPD over ipv6) is not a customer (isp/carrier) demand but 
a real problem when RIRs stop to allocate ipv4 addresses. How 
ISP/Carriers can build a new mpls backbone If  big vendor not support 
the IPv6 over LDP and isp can't make request for new ipv4 blocks ?

Isacco


Daniel Roesen ha scritto:
> On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 09:45:34AM +0200, Isacco Fontana wrote:
>   
>> we're planning to use ipv6 only on our backbone. Our idea is to use ipv6 
>> for backbone mpls and mpls vpn to holding old ipv4 customers and all ipv4 
>> networks inside vpn BUT today LDP work only with IPv4. So now we can't use 
>> ipv6 for mpls and we have still use ipv4 addresses to run ldp on backbone 
>> and 6vpe for vpn.
>>
>> Any comments ?
>>     
>
> When approached about missing IPv6 transport implementation (specs are
> there!) for LDP+RSVP, Cisco and Juniper both say "no customer demand".
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel
>
>   


-- 

Ing. Isacco Fontana

Trentino Network s.r.l.
A socio Unico

Direzione Servizi
Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete

Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO
Tel       (+39) 0461.020200
Fax      (+39) 0461.020201

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cap. Soc. sottoscritto  EUR 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA 01904880224 E-mail: sede at trentinonetwork.it
Societ? soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Autonoma di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20090906/ab3958a7/attachment.html>

From mtinka at globaltransit.net  Mon Sep  7 06:39:02 2009
From: mtinka at globaltransit.net (Mark Tinka)
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 12:39:02 +0800
Subject: [ipv6-wg] LDP over Ipv6
In-Reply-To: <4AA3689E.7090108@trentinonetwork.it>
References: <1792650114.196701252077617737.JavaMail.root@zimbra.nfsi.pt> <4AA3689E.7090108@trentinonetwork.it>
Message-ID: <200909071239.02831.mtinka@globaltransit.net>

On Sunday 06 September 2009 03:45:34 pm Isacco Fontana 
wrote:

> we're planning to use ipv6 only on our backbone. Our idea
> is to use ipv6 for backbone mpls and mpls vpn to holding
> old ipv4 customers and all ipv4 networks inside vpn BUT
> today LDP work only with IPv4. So now we can't use ipv6
> for mpls and we have still use ipv4 addresses to run ldp
> on backbone and 6vpe for vpn.

I may need to pull up some old e-mails to confirm, but the 
last time we spoke to Juniper, they planned to have support 
for an MPLS control plane for IPv6 some time end of this 
year (nothing yet, so far).

As for Cisco, no firm commitment.

Let me give them another ping and see if I turn up anything 
useful.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20090907/541904f5/attachment.sig>

From mtinka at globaltransit.net  Mon Sep  7 06:56:17 2009
From: mtinka at globaltransit.net (Mark Tinka)
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 12:56:17 +0800
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: LDP over Ipv6
In-Reply-To: <4AA42467.30002@trentinonetwork.it>
References: <1792650114.196701252077617737.JavaMail.root@zimbra.nfsi.pt> <20090906124202.GA29116@srv03.cluenet.de> <4AA42467.30002@trentinonetwork.it>
Message-ID: <200909071256.17702.mtinka@globaltransit.net>

On Monday 07 September 2009 05:06:47 am Isacco Fontana 
wrote:

> I think this (LPD over ipv6) is not a customer
> (isp/carrier) demand but a real problem when RIRs stop to
> allocate ipv4 addresses. How ISP/Carriers can build a new
> mpls backbone If  big vendor not support the IPv6 over
> LDP and isp can't make request for new ipv4 blocks ?

Given how much money vendors are making from MPLS, it might 
be safe to say they'll have support for it when v4 runs out. 
The only question is which customer will be big enough for 
them to get it in there :-).

My main concern is, given how much traffic is being carried 
by MPLS today (for better or worse), the earlier vendors put 
out native support for it in v6, the quicker bugs can be 
worked out. Even if support became available today, I'd 
probably feel safer not deploying it at least 3 releases 
from when it's launched, looking at the current state of v6 
debug (or lack thereof) for folk that have deployed it.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20090907/8b08def3/attachment.sig>

From isacco.fontana at trentinonetwork.it  Mon Sep  7 17:36:13 2009
From: isacco.fontana at trentinonetwork.it (Isacco Fontana)
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:36:13 +0200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: LDP over Ipv6
In-Reply-To: <200909071256.17702.mtinka@globaltransit.net>
References: <1792650114.196701252077617737.JavaMail.root@zimbra.nfsi.pt> <20090906124202.GA29116@srv03.cluenet.de> <4AA42467.30002@trentinonetwork.it> <200909071256.17702.mtinka@globaltransit.net>
Message-ID: <4AA5286D.9090904@trentinonetwork.it>

Do you think we can start discussion with big vendors (Cisco/Juniper) ?

Mark Tinka ha scritto:
> On Monday 07 September 2009 05:06:47 am Isacco Fontana 
> wrote:
>
>   
>> I think this (LPD over ipv6) is not a customer
>> (isp/carrier) demand but a real problem when RIRs stop to
>> allocate ipv4 addresses. How ISP/Carriers can build a new
>> mpls backbone If  big vendor not support the IPv6 over
>> LDP and isp can't make request for new ipv4 blocks ?
>>     
>
> Given how much money vendors are making from MPLS, it might 
> be safe to say they'll have support for it when v4 runs out. 
> The only question is which customer will be big enough for 
> them to get it in there :-).
>
> My main concern is, given how much traffic is being carried 
> by MPLS today (for better or worse), the earlier vendors put 
> out native support for it in v6, the quicker bugs can be 
> worked out. Even if support became available today, I'd 
> probably feel safer not deploying it at least 3 releases 
> from when it's launched, looking at the current state of v6 
> debug (or lack thereof) for folk that have deployed it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark.
>   


-- 

Ing. Isacco Fontana

Trentino Network s.r.l.
A socio Unico

Direzione Servizi
Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete

Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO
Tel       (+39) 0461.020200
Fax      (+39) 0461.020201

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cap. Soc. sottoscritto  ? 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA 01904880224 E-mail: sede at trentinonetwork.it
Societ? soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Autonoma di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20090907/9bebe474/attachment.html>

From gert at space.net  Mon Sep  7 17:39:12 2009
From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering)
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 17:39:12 +0200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: LDP over Ipv6
In-Reply-To: <4AA5286D.9090904@trentinonetwork.it>
References: <1792650114.196701252077617737.JavaMail.root@zimbra.nfsi.pt> <20090906124202.GA29116@srv03.cluenet.de> <4AA42467.30002@trentinonetwork.it> <200909071256.17702.mtinka@globaltransit.net> <4AA5286D.9090904@trentinonetwork.it>
Message-ID: <20090907153912.GK79272@Space.Net>

Hi,

On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 05:36:13PM +0200, Isacco Fontana wrote:
> Do you think we can start discussion with big vendors (Cisco/Juniper) ?

Of course.  Go to your vendor, tell him "we are not going to buy your
gear if you are not shipping LDP-over-IPv6"!

If you're waving with enough money, they might even listen.  But as long
as everybody is just grumbling to himself, the vendors might truthfully
say "noone has asked yet".

Gert
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  128645

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279



From mtinka at globaltransit.net  Tue Sep  8 03:08:11 2009
From: mtinka at globaltransit.net (Mark Tinka)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:08:11 +0800
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: LDP over Ipv6
In-Reply-To: <4AA5286D.9090904@trentinonetwork.it>
References: <1792650114.196701252077617737.JavaMail.root@zimbra.nfsi.pt> <200909071256.17702.mtinka@globaltransit.net> <4AA5286D.9090904@trentinonetwork.it>
Message-ID: <200909080908.12044.mtinka@globaltransit.net>

On Monday 07 September 2009 11:36:13 pm Isacco Fontana 
wrote:

> Do you think we can start discussion with big vendors
> (Cisco/Juniper) ?

Gert is right, the more we "collectively" speak to our 
vendors, the quicker they will likely implement the 
technology (it's not new, it's already been documented).

For instance, I've been pushing Cisco and Juniper for an 
MPLS control plane for v6 for nearly 2 years now, but this 
isn't enough. Vendors tend to listen if:

a) there is a collective.

or

b) as Gert and myself have already mentioned, you're waving
   wads of cash their way.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20090908/e8780526/attachment.sig>

From isacco.fontana at trentinonetwork.it  Tue Sep  8 13:34:56 2009
From: isacco.fontana at trentinonetwork.it (Isacco Fontana)
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:34:56 +0200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: LDP over Ipv6
In-Reply-To: <200909080908.12044.mtinka@globaltransit.net>
References: <1792650114.196701252077617737.JavaMail.root@zimbra.nfsi.pt> <200909071256.17702.mtinka@globaltransit.net> <4AA5286D.9090904@trentinonetwork.it> <200909080908.12044.mtinka@globaltransit.net>
Message-ID: <4AA64160.8080702@trentinonetwork.it>

Hi,
yes I agree but during IETF 74 Swallow, Kompella and others said the 
next generation backbone networks will based on mpls for transport so I 
think the support of ldp over ipv6 should be added before the RIRs stop 
to allocate ipv4 addresses.

Isacco


Mark Tinka ha scritto:
> On Monday 07 September 2009 11:36:13 pm Isacco Fontana 
> wrote:
>
>   
>> Do you think we can start discussion with big vendors
>> (Cisco/Juniper) ?
>>     
>
> Gert is right, the more we "collectively" speak to our 
> vendors, the quicker they will likely implement the 
> technology (it's not new, it's already been documented).
>
> For instance, I've been pushing Cisco and Juniper for an 
> MPLS control plane for v6 for nearly 2 years now, but this 
> isn't enough. Vendors tend to listen if:
>
> a) there is a collective.
>
> or
>
> b) as Gert and myself have already mentioned, you're waving
>    wads of cash their way.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark.
>   


-- 

Ing. Isacco Fontana

Trentino Network s.r.l.
A socio Unico

Direzione Servizi
Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete

Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO
Tel       (+39) 0461.020200
Fax      (+39) 0461.020201

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cap. Soc. sottoscritto  ? 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA 01904880224 E-mail: sede at trentinonetwork.it
Societ? soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Autonoma di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20090908/5a6c0ecc/attachment.html>

From turchanyi.geza at gmail.com  Tue Sep  8 14:24:47 2009
From: turchanyi.geza at gmail.com (Turchanyi Geza)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 14:24:47 +0200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: ipv6-wg digest, Vol 1 #413 - 3 msgs
In-Reply-To: <20090908100001.9376.57944.Mailman@postboy.ripe.net>
References: <20090908100001.9376.57944.Mailman@postboy.ripe.net>
Message-ID: <f1110c510909080524x20009419h8366533fa330d035@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

for your MPLS backbone you still could reserve a few IPv4 addresses to
use. The first place where you won't have enough addresses will be at
your costumer's side. (All ISP has more costumers than backbone
routers)

Do you know while the Broadband Forum has no clear ideas even now how
to support IPv6?

This is a bit more important question, I think...

Best,

       Geza

On 9/8/09, ipv6-wg-request at ripe.net <ipv6-wg-request at ripe.net> wrote:
> Send ipv6-wg mailing list submissions to
> 	ipv6-wg at ripe.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	ipv6-wg-request at ripe.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ipv6-wg digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Re: LDP over Ipv6 (Isacco Fontana)
>    2. Re: Re: LDP over Ipv6 (Gert Doering)
>    3. Re: Re: LDP over Ipv6 (Mark Tinka)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:36:13 +0200
> From: Isacco Fontana <isacco.fontana at trentinonetwork.it>
> To: mtinka at globaltransit.net
> CC: ipv6-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: LDP over Ipv6
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------010708050001040605090703
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Do you think we can start discussion with big vendors (Cisco/Juniper) ?
>
> Mark Tinka ha scritto:
>> On Monday 07 September 2009 05:06:47 am Isacco Fontana=20
>> wrote:
>>
>>  =20
>>> I think this (LPD over ipv6) is not a customer
>>> (isp/carrier) demand but a real problem when RIRs stop to
>>> allocate ipv4 addresses. How ISP/Carriers can build a new
>>> mpls backbone If  big vendor not support the IPv6 over
>>> LDP and isp can't make request for new ipv4 blocks ?
>>>    =20
>>
>> Given how much money vendors are making from MPLS, it might=20
>> be safe to say they'll have support for it when v4 runs out.=20
>> The only question is which customer will be big enough for=20
>> them to get it in there :-).
>>
>> My main concern is, given how much traffic is being carried=20
>> by MPLS today (for better or worse), the earlier vendors put=20
>> out native support for it in v6, the quicker bugs can be=20
>> worked out. Even if support became available today, I'd=20
>> probably feel safer not deploying it at least 3 releases=20
>> from when it's launched, looking at the current state of v6=20
>> debug (or lack thereof) for folk that have deployed it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Mark.
>>  =20
>
>
> --=20
>
> Ing. Isacco Fontana
>
> Trentino Network s.r.l.
> A socio Unico
>
> Direzione Servizi
> Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete
>
> Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO
> Tel       (+39) 0461.020200
> Fax      (+39) 0461.020201
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Cap. Soc. sottoscritto  =A4 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA 0=
> 1904880224 E-mail: sede at trentinonetwork.it
> Societ=E0 soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Auton=
> oma di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --------------010708050001040605090703
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
> <html>
> <head>
>   <meta content=3D"text/html;charset=3DISO-8859-15"
>  http-equiv=3D"Content-Type">
> </head>
> <body bgcolor=3D"#ffffff" text=3D"#000000">
> Do you think we can start discussion with big vendors (Cisco/Juniper) ?<b=
> r>
> <br>
> Mark Tinka ha scritto:
> <blockquote cite=3D"mid:200909071256.17702.mtinka at globaltransit.net"
>  type=3D"cite">
>   <pre wrap=3D"">On Monday 07 September 2009 05:06:47 am Isacco Fontana=20
> wrote:
>
>   </pre>
>   <blockquote type=3D"cite">
>     <pre wrap=3D"">I think this (LPD over ipv6) is not a customer
> (isp/carrier) demand but a real problem when RIRs stop to
> allocate ipv4 addresses. How ISP/Carriers can build a new
> mpls backbone If  big vendor not support the IPv6 over
> LDP and isp can't make request for new ipv4 blocks ?
>     </pre>
>   </blockquote>
>   <pre wrap=3D""><!---->
> Given how much money vendors are making from MPLS, it might=20
> be safe to say they'll have support for it when v4 runs out.=20
> The only question is which customer will be big enough for=20
> them to get it in there :-).
>
> My main concern is, given how much traffic is being carried=20
> by MPLS today (for better or worse), the earlier vendors put=20
> out native support for it in v6, the quicker bugs can be=20
> worked out. Even if support became available today, I'd=20
> probably feel safer not deploying it at least 3 releases=20
> from when it's launched, looking at the current state of v6=20
> debug (or lack thereof) for folk that have deployed it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark.
>   </pre>
> </blockquote>
> <br>
> <br>
> <pre class=3D"moz-signature" cols=3D"72">--=20
>
> Ing. Isacco Fontana
>
> Trentino Network s.r.l.
> A socio Unico
>
> Direzione Servizi
> Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete
>
> Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO
> Tel       (+39) 0461.020200
> Fax      (+39) 0461.020201
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Cap. Soc. sottoscritto  =A4 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA 0=
> 1904880224 E-mail: <a class=3D"moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href=3D"mailto:s=
> ede at trentinonetwork.it">sede at trentinonetwork.it</a>
> Societ=E0 soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Auton=
> oma di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> -------------------------------------------------------</pre>
> </body>
> </html>
>
> --------------010708050001040605090703--
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 17:39:12 +0200
> From: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
> To: Isacco Fontana <isacco.fontana at trentinonetwork.it>
> Cc: mtinka at globaltransit.net, ipv6-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: LDP over Ipv6
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 05:36:13PM +0200, Isacco Fontana wrote:
>> Do you think we can start discussion with big vendors (Cisco/Juniper) ?
>
> Of course.  Go to your vendor, tell him "we are not going to buy your
> gear if you are not shipping LDP-over-IPv6"!
>
> If you're waving with enough money, they might even listen.  But as long
> as everybody is just grumbling to himself, the vendors might truthfully
> say "noone has asked yet".
>
> Gert
> --
> Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  128645
>
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> From: Mark Tinka <mtinka at globaltransit.net>
> Reply-To: mtinka at globaltransit.net
> Organization: Global Transit International
> To: Isacco Fontana <isacco.fontana at trentinonetwork.it>
> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: LDP over Ipv6
> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:08:11 +0800
> Cc: ipv6-wg at ripe.net
>
> --nextPart1744977.BctdEMcGiX
> Content-Type: text/plain;
>   charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> On Monday 07 September 2009 11:36:13 pm Isacco Fontana=20
> wrote:
>
>> Do you think we can start discussion with big vendors
>> (Cisco/Juniper) ?
>
> Gert is right, the more we "collectively" speak to our=20
> vendors, the quicker they will likely implement the=20
> technology (it's not new, it's already been documented).
>
> =46or instance, I've been pushing Cisco and Juniper for an=20
> MPLS control plane for v6 for nearly 2 years now, but this=20
> isn't enough. Vendors tend to listen if:
>
> a) there is a collective.
>
> or
>
> b) as Gert and myself have already mentioned, you're waving
>    wads of cash their way.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark.
>
> --nextPart1744977.BctdEMcGiX
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
> Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQIcBAABAgAGBQJKpa57AAoJEGcZuYTeKm+GhrgQAKRZt6scEjKCuwXqcJizc4AX
> bv5D27EYduzotX1POj1PM/VCQmt/PunMZJ9V0BIyYiNKu2k7tR+x7+Ki/kM0GrvZ
> Bhj2vyXyXCOx41DFfL8Qrj3htJolNTj5cLbuxSq/F5NmgD2XsqxtbOd+orGLu4Ch
> BzJG1/Rf+sotzobSVmrOB+47LCNrAbXYLH2MseFFw/JeMQUK+7XOX7gqx8V5qtjs
> Sm8ovQEoYvguelW79mZxwH35SeGZO44m2SJnJxX8o21GG+jiN6PY1q3haJO10ycN
> dg7ZKic2r9g9h40T6ajeCCI5zgGXRUzrXJ9eXCaAbaxJfuKt/dOzdYBDwCkldYmo
> 9sFQKkNmTzV/4uPDlrxPPfLEtlQUdcXqQVdjeWqoGPOdrLCZlV+GrpjZKBB5Qm9H
> pR7TnxP8e1YVk4s+SqCW0f09PRn0Z+LJOonYyRHN9266WduNRfMcm+MNomRkeIlN
> fNl9aDAPer2tzrxbLTbUN+fPMNZJy32FwLuoumkQ80ts9q1/YVweb5pODPwlrBEk
> 4lxQusghMw8Kx9CXk2TaZ9MzOFr7KXrOa+j6r+RBBjhIJDDrQcj96LVnBmfV4Mn2
> z1DuK4SzOF1NuCVgy3tJzSybYneJpf1bkB5gIL50nngBlnjV36CWSEyObjdxUE4n
> dED+kJlqDSaPTMwobLp3
> =xvej
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --nextPart1744977.BctdEMcGiX--
>
>
>
>
> End of ipv6-wg Digest
>



From david.kessens at nsn.com  Thu Sep 10 05:40:50 2009
From: david.kessens at nsn.com (David Kessens)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 20:40:50 -0700
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Call for agenda items RIPE59
Message-ID: <20090910034050.GC11334@nsn.com>

Hi,

I would like to hereby solicit your input for agenda items for our
working group session for RIPE 59.

We are scheduled to meet:

Tue Oct 6, 16.00-18.00, Corinthia Hotel, Lisbon, Portugal

All items that are of interest for the operational community regarding
the deployment of IPv6 will be considered. Whether a proposal is brief
or long, with powerpoint or no powerpoint, you have your own
presentation or just a suggestion for a presenter, all proposals are
welcome.

Thanks,

David Kessens
---



From shane at time-travellers.org  Tue Sep 15 14:45:59 2009
From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:45:59 +0200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
In-Reply-To: <20090904154728.GH23056@nsn.com>
References: <1252076650.3172.28697.camel@shane-asus-laptop>
	 <20090904154728.GH23056@nsn.com>
Message-ID: <1253018759.6558.882.camel@shane-asus-laptop>

David,

On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 08:47 -0700, David Kessens wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 05:04:10PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote:
> > 
> > Since the last RIPE meeting there have been messages from the RIPE NCC
> > about their IPv6ActNow stuff and a survey, and some messages about the
> > minutes. The only thread with any content has been one about IPv6
> > minimum allocation sizes (thanks Marco!).
> > 
> > This is not much.
> > 
> > Since this group isn't actually doing anything, I propose we:
> > 
> >      1. Shut down this working group after the next RIPE meeting.
> >      2. Move discussion of IPv6 issues to other working groups (since
> >         "IPv6 issues" will become "IP issues" very soon anyway).
> 
> You clearly have not read the minutes and/or have been at any of the  
> meetings as we have run out of time every single meeting in the past
> few years and we needed the largest meeting room available.

On the contrary, I have been at most of the RIPE meetings in the last
few years, and read most of the minutes.


I think you are making a common mistake of management, which is you are
confusing cost with benefit. This confusion is natural, because cost is
often relatively easy to measure, compared to benefit.

The time spent in meetings talking about IPv6 is a cost. I don't
disagree that there have been rooms full of IPv6 advocates or people who
want to learn about IPv6, talking for hours and hours. What I am unsure
of is the actual benefit of this activity. The suggestion to close the
working group is partially an observation that this discussion between
IPv6-aware people actually works AGAINST the idea of IPv6 adoption.


I had a look at the charter for this working group:

        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.

Based on that I guess the working group is at least partially
successful. I see lots of "following", although not much "coordinating"
and certainly no testbeds.

Perhaps it is time to move beyond the traditional administrative and
technical co-ordination of RIPE and begin shameless advocacy. Widespread
IPv6 adoption is in the best interests of everyone.


I am sure we can think of a lot of ways that RIPE can use its unique
position to improve IPv6 adoption. The discussion about vendors saying
"no demand" is a good point. Things like petitions signed by a huge
number of ISPs in Europe may have an effect. It may also be possible to
encourage governments in the RIPE region to insist on IPv6 for new
purchases. I doubt there would be a shortage of ideas if people were
asked for them.

However, none of that seems to be happening now. If it is, it is
happening "off-camera", certainly not on the mailing list. Maybe that is
okay, given the working group seems to be chartered to merely keep track
of what is going on. But honestly, I don't see the point. Surely we can
find something better to do with our time than see another chart showing
IPv6 traffic rise 20% (*)?


As Gert noted, IPv6 discussion should naturally move to wider forums. I
actually quite like his idea of having an IPv4 working group - or
perhaps we should call it the Post-Exhaustion Working Group.

> In any case, are you coming to the next RIPE meeting so that I can put
> this on the agenda and you can propose this to the working group ?

I guess I'm a little confused. I thought I already did propose this to
the working group? :) In any case I'll be at the next RIPE meeting, and
will be happy to discuss this there.

--
Shane

(*) From 0.000012% to 0.000014% I mean. ;)



From michael.dillon at bt.com  Tue Sep 15 15:10:19 2009
From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:10:19 +0100
Subject: [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
In-Reply-To: <1253018759.6558.882.camel@shane-asus-laptop>
Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458031E8782@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>

> Perhaps it is time to move beyond the traditional 
> administrative and technical co-ordination of RIPE and begin 
> shameless advocacy. Widespread
> IPv6 adoption is in the best interests of everyone.

Have you heard of <ipv6-wg at ripe.net>, not to mention the RIPE postion
statement on IPv6? Advocacy can be bad as well as good. I think that 
the blind advocacy of the past has actually hurt IPv6 adoption and
we need to be careful not to carry that forward. There are sound
business and technical reasons to deploy IPv6 over the next couple
of years, and to upgrade software and systems to support that 
deployment. 

> I am sure we can think of a lot of ways that RIPE can use its 
> unique position to improve IPv6 adoption. 

I'm sure that we can think of lots of ways in which RIPE's unique
position makes it relatively powerless when it comes to impacting
IPv6 adoption.

> The discussion 
> about vendors saying "no demand" is a good point. Things like 
> petitions signed by a huge number of ISPs in Europe may have 
> an effect.

This is the kind of ridiculousness that comes from blind advocacy.
Vendors do not listen to petitions, they listen to customers. When
we needed one of our vendors to support IPv6 in order to use their
equipment in an internal IPv6 trial, we went and talked to them.
In a month or so they had added IPv6 support and supplied units for
us to test.

The bottleneck is not the vendors, it is the technical people who
know about the need to deploy IPv6 but fail to engage with their
coworkers in the same company to coordinate IPv6 readiness activities.

> It may also be possible to encourage governments 
> in the RIPE region to insist on IPv6 for new purchases. I 
> doubt there would be a shortage of ideas if people were asked 
> for them.

Have you heard of the EU's IPv6 Task Force? <http://www.ipv6.eu/>
If they can't get government to insist on IPv6 for new purchases
then RIPE certainly can't either.

> Surely we can find something 
> better to do with our time than see another chart showing
> IPv6 traffic rise 20% (*)?

I agree about that. It is better to share case studies, and to talk
about events rather than look at meaningless traffic charts. In fact,
the WG could coordinate certain actions, for instance, as many WG
members
as possible will collect IPv6 roadmaps from DSL gateway vendors, and 
the WG will collate the data and report on how many DSL vendors support
IPv6, how many have a date for support, how many are vague and how many
do not have it on their roadmap. That is an example of one action. The
following RIPE meeting would see a new action planned, perhaps engaging
with your city's IT staff to see when they expect to be buying IPv6
access,
then collate some stats.

Note that each one of those events spreads awareness of IPv6 and
provides
an opportunity for a press release, further spreading awareness. In
marketing,
there is a rule of thumb that you must repeat your message 7 times
before it
takes hold. Advocacy is a form of marketing.

> I guess I'm a little confused. I thought I already did 
> propose this to the working group? :) In any case I'll be at 
> the next RIPE meeting, and will be happy to discuss this there.

It's a shame that RIPE no longer follows the IETF traditions from which
it grew,
and treat the mailing list as the primary venue for discussion.

--Michael Dillon



From michael.dillon at bt.com  Tue Sep 15 15:14:38 2009
From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:14:38 +0100
Subject: [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458031E8782@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
Message-ID: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C497458031E87B4@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>

> Have you heard of <ipv6-wg at ripe.net>, not to mention the RIPE 
> postion statement on IPv6? 

Cut and paste error above <http://www.ipv6.eu/>



From jan at go6.si  Tue Sep 15 19:15:28 2009
From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:15:28 +0200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
In-Reply-To: <1253018759.6558.882.camel@shane-asus-laptop>
References: <1252076650.3172.28697.camel@shane-asus-laptop>	 <20090904154728.GH23056@nsn.com> <1253018759.6558.882.camel@shane-asus-laptop>
Message-ID: <4AAFCBB0.5030207@go6.si>

> However, none of that seems to be happening now. If it is, it is
> happening "off-camera", certainly not on the mailing list. Maybe that is
> okay, given the working group seems to be chartered to merely keep track
> of what is going on. But honestly, I don't see the point. Surely we can
> find something better to do with our time than see another chart showing
> IPv6 traffic rise 20% (*)?

Shane, +1. Totally agree.

Jan Zorz, go6.si



From heldal at eml.cc  Tue Sep 15 19:49:26 2009
From: heldal at eml.cc (Per Heldal)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:49:26 +0200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
In-Reply-To: <1253018759.6558.882.camel@shane-asus-laptop>
References: <1252076650.3172.28697.camel@shane-asus-laptop>
	 <20090904154728.GH23056@nsn.com>
	 <1253018759.6558.882.camel@shane-asus-laptop>
Message-ID: <1253036966.27940.32.camel@obelix>

On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:45 +0200, Shane Kerr wrote:
> But honestly, I don't see the point. Surely we can
> find something better to do with our time than see another chart showing
> IPv6 traffic rise 20% (*)?
> 
> 
> As Gert noted, IPv6 discussion should naturally move to wider forums. I
> actually quite like his idea of having an IPv4 working group - or
> perhaps we should call it the Post-Exhaustion Working Group.

>From the RIR perspective I agree on both points. It is however worth
noticing that the RIPE-meetings traditionally have served a bigger role,
comparable to that of the combined ARIN+NANOG meetings. Maybe this
should be part of a wider discussion of the function of RIPE meetings,
and/or whether there are other alternatives for the European operators
community to share their experiences.


//per



From asjl at lpnz.org  Wed Sep 16 00:00:25 2009
From: asjl at lpnz.org (Andy Linton)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:00:25 +1200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
In-Reply-To: <1253018759.6558.882.camel@shane-asus-laptop>
References: <1252076650.3172.28697.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20090904154728.GH23056@nsn.com> <1253018759.6558.882.camel@shane-asus-laptop>
Message-ID: <64C9713A-0591-4859-851A-79F35A5C63D5@lpnz.org>

On 16/09/2009, at  Wed, Sep 16, 00:45, Shane Kerr wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps it is time to move beyond the traditional administrative and
> technical co-ordination of RIPE and begin shameless advocacy.  
> Widespread
> IPv6 adoption is in the best interests of everyone.
>
>
> I am sure we can think of a lot of ways that RIPE can use its unique
> position to improve IPv6 adoption. The discussion about vendors saying
> "no demand" is a good point. Things like petitions signed by a huge
> number of ISPs in Europe may have an effect. It may also be possible  
> to
> encourage governments in the RIPE region to insist on IPv6 for new
> purchases. I doubt there would be a shortage of ideas if people were
> asked for them.
>

Perhaps one option is to look to intoduce a policy like the one which  
is currently in final call in the APNIC region. It's prop-073:  
Simplifying allocation/assignment of IPv6 to APNIC members with  
existing IPv4 addresses http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-073

Terry Manderson and I pushed for this when we realised that a number  
of people had misconceptions about how difficult it is to get IPv6  
address space. I know that a similar proposal was mooted in the RIPE  
region and it failed to be adopted for a number of reasons but perhaps  
it's time for the IPv6 Working Group to advocate for this and other  
measures that make adoption easier.

Terry and I advocated strongly that people on the APNIC sig-policy  
group and other who attend APNIC meetings were not necessarily an  
ideal litmus test about how easy or hard adopting IPv6 is - they're  
mostly people who get it and I'm sure the same applies in the RIPE  
region and other RIRs.

Regards,
andy



From gert at space.net  Wed Sep 16 08:59:09 2009
From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:59:09 +0200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
In-Reply-To: <64C9713A-0591-4859-851A-79F35A5C63D5@lpnz.org>
References: <1252076650.3172.28697.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20090904154728.GH23056@nsn.com> <1253018759.6558.882.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <64C9713A-0591-4859-851A-79F35A5C63D5@lpnz.org>
Message-ID: <20090916065909.GC79272@Space.Net>

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:00:25AM +1200, Andy Linton wrote:
> Perhaps one option is to look to intoduce a policy like the one which  
> is currently in final call in the APNIC region. It's prop-073:  
> Simplifying allocation/assignment of IPv6 to APNIC members with  
> existing IPv4 addresses http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-073
> 
> Terry Manderson and I pushed for this when we realised that a number  
> of people had misconceptions about how difficult it is to get IPv6  
> address space. 

Getting IPv6 address (as a LIR) is as easy as it gets.  Fill in the 
template, send to hostmaster at ripe.net, get address space.  I've just 
done it with a new LIR, and no single question(!) got asked.

The counter argument in the discussion we had in the APWG list regarding
similar proposals was "what good is it going to do, to allocate address
space to people that won't use it" - because if they *want* to use it, 
getting it is really easy.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  141055

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279



From president at ukraine.su  Wed Sep 16 09:50:40 2009
From: president at ukraine.su (Max Tulyev)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:50:40 +0300
Subject: [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802F5F9A8@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802F5F9A8@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
Message-ID: <4AB098D0.7010009@ukraine.su>

Here I say again my lovely 5c ;)

Here are mostly people building networks and thinking in network 
engineering way. But the most usual people are not. Regular people go to 
the Internet not for IPv4 or IPv6. They go for *CONTENT*. And the main 
problem there is no content in the IPv6 Internet.

RIPE *CAN* help to promote IPv6 by sponsoring content providers. For 
example, by assigning IPv6 PI for free completely or for some trial 
period to hosting/colo/VDS providers. It will be a big step forward.

michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>> Since this group isn't actually doing anything, I propose we:
>>
>>      1. Shut down this working group after the next RIPE meeting.
>>      2. Move discussion of IPv6 issues to other working groups (since
>>         "IPv6 issues" will become "IP issues" very soon anyway).
> 
> Given that we are just now moving into the time period when people will
> be seriously deploying IPv6, I strongly oppose this move.
> 
> Instead, RIPE should promote this WG, and it would not hurt to clarify
> its terms of reference. For instance, how does the RIPE IPv6 WG 
> differ from ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de ?
> 
> It costs nothing to carry a mailing list with very low traffic, and even
> if it only serves as an announcement list for the next three years, that
> is atill a worthwhile use of the RIPE resources.
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> 



From cfriacas at fccn.pt  Wed Sep 16 14:26:50 2009
From: cfriacas at fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:26:50 +0100 (WEST)
Subject: [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
In-Reply-To: <1253018759.6558.882.camel@shane-asus-laptop>
References: <1252076650.3172.28697.camel@shane-asus-laptop>  <20090904154728.GH23056@nsn.com> <1253018759.6558.882.camel@shane-asus-laptop>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0909161323580.8839@gauntlet.id.fccn.pt>

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Shane Kerr wrote:

(...)
> I had a look at the charter for this working group:
>
>        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.

I certainly agree we need to review the WG's charter.


Regards,
Carlos



From shane at time-travellers.org  Thu Sep 24 14:04:20 2009
From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:04:20 +0200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Simulation of the future IPv4 world at RIPE meetings?
Message-ID: <1253793861.9283.5963.camel@shane-asus-laptop>

All,

Perhaps we should begin preparing ourselves for the future IPv4 world by
simulating various levels of IPv4 exhaustion at future RIPE meetings?

I can imagine a few stages:

     1. We can no longer give public IPv4 addresses to attendees. RFC
        1918 for everyone, but with 1:1 mapping to public addresses.
     2. The entire meeting gets NAT'ed to a single /24. 
     3. The entire meeting gets NAT'ed to a single IP address.

Of course, this is the easy side. People are already accustomed to
living behind NAT with their laptops. (They might be a little more
annoyed when Google Maps won't work because there aren't enough ports to
handle all the simultaneous open connections.)

To be fair, we should also disable IPv4 for access to the meeting
itself, as this is the first problem that new entrants to the Internet
will have. But this is a huge burden on RIPE NCC staff and remote
participants, so this will have to wait. :)

--
Shane



From niallm at avernus.net  Thu Sep 24 15:33:04 2009
From: niallm at avernus.net (Niall Murphy)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:33:04 +0100
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Simulation of the future IPv4 world at RIPE meetings?
In-Reply-To: <1253793861.9283.5963.camel@shane-asus-laptop>
References: <1253793861.9283.5963.camel@shane-asus-laptop>
Message-ID: <ffbc86c00909240633m4b807878rd6870c52f2c2f11a@mail.gmail.com>

What a lovely idea!
Stage 4: The entire meeting gets put behind a single IP address, and shares
outgoing bandwidth with another meeting, also put behind a single IP
address, which has another NAT gateway behind it.

For that extra verisimillitude,

NRM

2009/9/24 Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org>

> All,
>
> Perhaps we should begin preparing ourselves for the future IPv4 world by
> simulating various levels of IPv4 exhaustion at future RIPE meetings?
>
> I can imagine a few stages:
>
>     1. We can no longer give public IPv4 addresses to attendees. RFC
>        1918 for everyone, but with 1:1 mapping to public addresses.
>     2. The entire meeting gets NAT'ed to a single /24.
>     3. The entire meeting gets NAT'ed to a single IP address.
>
> Of course, this is the easy side. People are already accustomed to
> living behind NAT with their laptops. (They might be a little more
> annoyed when Google Maps won't work because there aren't enough ports to
> handle all the simultaneous open connections.)
>
> To be fair, we should also disable IPv4 for access to the meeting
> itself, as this is the first problem that new entrants to the Internet
> will have. But this is a huge burden on RIPE NCC staff and remote
> participants, so this will have to wait. :)
>
> --
> Shane
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20090924/694784c3/attachment.html>

From marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca  Thu Sep 24 15:29:17 2009
From: marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca (Marc Blanchet)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:29:17 -0400
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Simulation of the future IPv4 world at RIPE meetings?
In-Reply-To: <1253793861.9283.5963.camel@shane-asus-laptop>
References: <1253793861.9283.5963.camel@shane-asus-laptop>
Message-ID: <4ABB742D.2010203@viagenie.ca>

start with 3. that is the real life scenario...

Marc.

Shane Kerr a ?crit :
> All,
> 
> Perhaps we should begin preparing ourselves for the future IPv4 world by
> simulating various levels of IPv4 exhaustion at future RIPE meetings?
> 
> I can imagine a few stages:
> 
>      1. We can no longer give public IPv4 addresses to attendees. RFC
>         1918 for everyone, but with 1:1 mapping to public addresses.
>      2. The entire meeting gets NAT'ed to a single /24. 
>      3. The entire meeting gets NAT'ed to a single IP address.
> 
> Of course, this is the easy side. People are already accustomed to
> living behind NAT with their laptops. (They might be a little more
> annoyed when Google Maps won't work because there aren't enough ports to
> handle all the simultaneous open connections.)
> 
> To be fair, we should also disable IPv4 for access to the meeting
> itself, as this is the first problem that new entrants to the Internet
> will have. But this is a huge burden on RIPE NCC staff and remote
> participants, so this will have to wait. :)
> 
> --
> Shane



From kzorba at otenet.gr  Thu Sep 24 16:30:13 2009
From: kzorba at otenet.gr (Kostas Zorbadelos)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:30:13 +0300
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Simulation of the future IPv4 world at RIPE meetings?
In-Reply-To: <1253793861.9283.5963.camel@shane-asus-laptop>
References: <1253793861.9283.5963.camel@shane-asus-laptop>
Message-ID: <200909241730.13514.kzorba@otenet.gr>

On Thursday 24 September 2009 15:04:20 Shane Kerr wrote:
> All,
>
> Perhaps we should begin preparing ourselves for the future IPv4 world by
> simulating various levels of IPv4 exhaustion at future RIPE meetings?
>
> I can imagine a few stages:
>
>      1. We can no longer give public IPv4 addresses to attendees. RFC
>         1918 for everyone, but with 1:1 mapping to public addresses.
>      2. The entire meeting gets NAT'ed to a single /24.
>      3. The entire meeting gets NAT'ed to a single IP address.
>
> Of course, this is the easy side. People are already accustomed to
> living behind NAT with their laptops. (They might be a little more
> annoyed when Google Maps won't work because there aren't enough ports to
> handle all the simultaneous open connections.)
>

If a /24 is used for NAT, considering the size of RIPE meetings, I guess 
nobody will notice anything inconvenient.

> To be fair, we should also disable IPv4 for access to the meeting
> itself, as this is the first problem that new entrants to the Internet
> will have. But this is a huge burden on RIPE NCC staff and remote
> participants, so this will have to wait. :)
>

It would be interesting to observe the frustration this will cause to the 
actual participants, apart from the work load and burden on the RIPE NCC 
staff :)

Kostas  

> --
> Shane




From marcoh at marcoh.net  Thu Sep 24 16:44:38 2009
From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:44:38 +0200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Simulation of the future IPv4 world at RIPE meetings?
In-Reply-To: <200909241730.13514.kzorba@otenet.gr>
References: <1253793861.9283.5963.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <200909241730.13514.kzorba@otenet.gr>
Message-ID: <51A5665F-D202-4345-96B8-BEC350A188AA@marcoh.net>

On 24 sep 2009, at 16:30, Kostas Zorbadelos wrote:

> If a /24 is used for NAT, considering the size of RIPE meetings, I  
> guess
> nobody will notice anything inconvenient.


It's a 1 in 3 mapping if you count heads, I guess devices is 1 on 5 :)  
If you think this won't raise any issues I guess the world in general  
doesn't have a problem, we can simply extend the IPv4 space by a  
multiple of 5 :P

Even if open ports wouldn't be an issue, think of:

- inbound connections (people using VOIP)
- VPN to connect back home (meeting is still providing fixed IP for  
that purpose)
- CPU load
- traceability (Pentagon got hacked by somebody at RIPE-XX)

Groet,

MarcoH



From gert at space.net  Thu Sep 24 17:02:35 2009
From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:02:35 +0200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Simulation of the future IPv4 world at RIPE meetings?
In-Reply-To: <51A5665F-D202-4345-96B8-BEC350A188AA@marcoh.net>
References: <1253793861.9283.5963.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <200909241730.13514.kzorba@otenet.gr> <51A5665F-D202-4345-96B8-BEC350A188AA@marcoh.net>
Message-ID: <20090924150235.GN628@Space.Net>

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 04:44:38PM +0200, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
> Even if open ports wouldn't be an issue, think of:
> 
> - inbound connections (people using VOIP)
> - VPN to connect back home (meeting is still providing fixed IP for  
> that purpose)
> - CPU load
> - traceability (Pentagon got hacked by somebody at RIPE-XX)

Which is the point, isn't it?  "NAT BAD! IPv6 GOOD!".

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  141055

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279



From kzorba at otenet.gr  Thu Sep 24 17:05:48 2009
From: kzorba at otenet.gr (Kostas Zorbadelos)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:05:48 +0300
Subject: [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
In-Reply-To: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802F5F9A8@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802F5F9A8@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
Message-ID: <200909241805.48297.kzorba@otenet.gr>

On Friday 04 September 2009 19:14:45 michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
> > Since this group isn't actually doing anything, I propose we:
> >
> >      1. Shut down this working group after the next RIPE meeting.
> >      2. Move discussion of IPv6 issues to other working groups (since
> >         "IPv6 issues" will become "IP issues" very soon anyway).
>
> Given that we are just now moving into the time period when people will
> be seriously deploying IPv6, I strongly oppose this move.
>

I agree with Michael about that. An IPv6 WG is useful. However there are good 
point in Shane's posts.

> Instead, RIPE should promote this WG, and it would not hurt to clarify
> its terms of reference. For instance, how does the RIPE IPv6 WG
> differ from ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de ?
>

I read that "IPv6 discussion should naturally move to wider forums".
Can anyone mention any such forums active right now? Is 
ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de such a forum? 

> It costs nothing to carry a mailing list with very low traffic, and even
> if it only serves as an announcement list for the next three years, that
> is atill a worthwhile use of the RIPE resources.
>

I see this as a more general issue. I find RIPE mailing lists under-utilized 
in general.

Kostas





From kzorba at otenet.gr  Thu Sep 24 16:22:04 2009
From: kzorba at otenet.gr (Kostas Zorbadelos)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:22:04 +0300
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Simulation of the future IPv4 world at RIPE meetings?
In-Reply-To: <ffbc86c00909240633m4b807878rd6870c52f2c2f11a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1253793861.9283.5963.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <ffbc86c00909240633m4b807878rd6870c52f2c2f11a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200909241722.04501.kzorba@otenet.gr>

On Thursday 24 September 2009 16:33:04 Niall Murphy wrote:
> What a lovely idea!
> Stage 4: The entire meeting gets put behind a single IP address, and shares
> outgoing bandwidth with another meeting, also put behind a single IP
> address, which has another NAT gateway behind it.
>

I know (and I guess a lot of others too) such setups now in the real world and 
in quite large scale :)
It would be a really bad idea to replicate them, but the future could turn out 
to be quite ugly.

Kostas

> For that extra verisimillitude,
>
> NRM
>
> 2009/9/24 Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org>
>
> > All,
> >
> > Perhaps we should begin preparing ourselves for the future IPv4 world by
> > simulating various levels of IPv4 exhaustion at future RIPE meetings?
> >
> > I can imagine a few stages:
> >
> >     1. We can no longer give public IPv4 addresses to attendees. RFC
> >        1918 for everyone, but with 1:1 mapping to public addresses.
> >     2. The entire meeting gets NAT'ed to a single /24.
> >     3. The entire meeting gets NAT'ed to a single IP address.
> >
> > Of course, this is the easy side. People are already accustomed to
> > living behind NAT with their laptops. (They might be a little more
> > annoyed when Google Maps won't work because there aren't enough ports to
> > handle all the simultaneous open connections.)
> >
> > To be fair, we should also disable IPv4 for access to the meeting
> > itself, as this is the first problem that new entrants to the Internet
> > will have. But this is a huge burden on RIPE NCC staff and remote
> > participants, so this will have to wait. :)
> >
> > --
> > Shane




From us at sweet-sorrow.com  Fri Sep 25 08:18:02 2009
From: us at sweet-sorrow.com (Us)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:18:02 +0200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Simulation of the future IPv4 world at RIPE meetings?
In-Reply-To: <20090924150235.GN628@Space.Net>
References: <1253793861.9283.5963.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <200909241730.13514.kzorba@otenet.gr> <51A5665F-D202-4345-96B8-BEC350A188AA@marcoh.net> <20090924150235.GN628@Space.Net>
Message-ID: <4ABC609A.6040806@sweet-sorrow.com>


Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 04:44:38PM +0200, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>> Even if open ports wouldn't be an issue, think of:
>>
>> - inbound connections (people using VOIP)
>> - VPN to connect back home (meeting is still providing fixed IP for  
>> that purpose)
>> - CPU load
>> - traceability (Pentagon got hacked by somebody at RIPE-XX)
> 
> Which is the point, isn't it?  "NAT BAD! IPv6 GOOD!".
> 
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster


Hm... this attitude is (I belive) registered to Jan Zorz... It's all he
talks about...
Then again, let's do it on a pre-set date and just flick the switch :)


Ragnar Belial Us



From kzorba at otenet.gr  Fri Sep 25 09:06:46 2009
From: kzorba at otenet.gr (Kostas Zorbadelos)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:06:46 +0300
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Simulation of the future IPv4 world at RIPE meetings?
In-Reply-To: <51A5665F-D202-4345-96B8-BEC350A188AA@marcoh.net>
References: <1253793861.9283.5963.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <200909241730.13514.kzorba@otenet.gr> <51A5665F-D202-4345-96B8-BEC350A188AA@marcoh.net>
Message-ID: <200909251006.47524.kzorba@otenet.gr>

On Thursday 24 September 2009 17:44:38 Marco Hogewoning wrote:
> On 24 sep 2009, at 16:30, Kostas Zorbadelos wrote:
> > If a /24 is used for NAT, considering the size of RIPE meetings, I
> > guess
> > nobody will notice anything inconvenient.
>
> It's a 1 in 3 mapping if you count heads, I guess devices is 1 on 5 :)
> If you think this won't raise any issues I guess the world in general
> doesn't have a problem, we can simply extend the IPv4 space by a
> multiple of 5 :P
>

I didn't say there are no issues, I said the people will not feel 
inconvenient.

> Even if open ports wouldn't be an issue, think of:
>
> - inbound connections (people using VOIP)

There are ugly ways to address this (eg ALG).
 
> - VPN to connect back home (meeting is still providing fixed IP for
> that purpose)

I have used openVPN in a NAT environment without problems.
 
> - CPU load
> - traceability (Pentagon got hacked by somebody at RIPE-XX)
>

:-D

Don't get me wrong, I am a proponent of IPv6 and I hate NAT. But unfortunately 
all those ugly solutions keep IPv4 running, who knows for how long more.

Regards,

Kostas  

> Groet,
>
> MarcoH




From spz at serpens.de  Fri Sep 25 13:44:51 2009
From: spz at serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:44:51 +0200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
In-Reply-To: <200909241805.48297.kzorba@otenet.gr>
References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802F5F9A8@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <200909241805.48297.kzorba@otenet.gr>
Message-ID: <20090925114451.GQ8687@serpens.de>

Hi,

Thus wrote Kostas Zorbadelos (kzorba at otenet.gr):

> > its terms of reference. For instance, how does the RIPE IPv6 WG
> > differ from ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de ?
> 
> I read that "IPv6 discussion should naturally move to wider forums".
> Can anyone mention any such forums active right now? Is 
> ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de such a forum? 

Not speaking authoritatively, but since noone else seems to want to pick
it up: ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de is for operational issues in IPv6,
like eg "Why is the shortest path to my next door neighbour suddenly
crossing the pacific, twice?" or "Can you see my prefix?" or
"Announcement of prefix XX is doing funny things", as well as
"Could a IPv6-clueful person from AS YY please contact me offlist?".
It is not limited to the RIPE region but intended as a nanog equiv for
IPv6 networks. Of course, topic shift happens. :)

regards,
	spz
-- 
spz at serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler)



From tme at multicasttech.com  Fri Sep 25 14:16:29 2009
From: tme at multicasttech.com (Marshall Eubanks)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:16:29 -0400
Subject: [ipv6-wg] A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
In-Reply-To: <20090925114451.GQ8687@serpens.de>
References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802F5F9A8@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <200909241805.48297.kzorba@otenet.gr> <20090925114451.GQ8687@serpens.de>
Message-ID: <ACC566D6-1439-458B-8CF5-8B0C5F1358F9@multicasttech.com>

On Sep 25, 2009, at 7:44 AM, S.P.Zeidler wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thus wrote Kostas Zorbadelos (kzorba at otenet.gr):
>
>>> its terms of reference. For instance, how does the RIPE IPv6 WG
>>> differ from ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de ?
>>
>> I read that "IPv6 discussion should naturally move to wider forums".
>> Can anyone mention any such forums active right now? Is
>> ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de such a forum?
>
> Not speaking authoritatively, but since noone else seems to want to  
> pick
> it up: ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de is for operational issues in IPv6,
> like eg "Why is the shortest path to my next door neighbour suddenly
> crossing the pacific, twice?" or "Can you see my prefix?" or
> "Announcement of prefix XX is doing funny things", as well as
> "Could a IPv6-clueful person from AS YY please contact me offlist?".
> It is not limited to the RIPE region but intended as a nanog equiv for
> IPv6 networks. Of course, topic shift happens. :)

Is this a normal mailman subscription site ? Is there a subscription  
page ?

Regards
Marshall

>
> regards,
> 	spz
> -- 
> spz at serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler)
>
>



From dr at cluenet.de  Fri Sep 25 14:28:07 2009
From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:28:07 +0200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Re: A Modest IPv6-wg Proposal
In-Reply-To: <ACC566D6-1439-458B-8CF5-8B0C5F1358F9@multicasttech.com>
References: <28E139F46D45AF49A31950F88C49745802F5F9A8@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <200909241805.48297.kzorba@otenet.gr> <20090925114451.GQ8687@serpens.de> <ACC566D6-1439-458B-8CF5-8B0C5F1358F9@multicasttech.com>
Message-ID: <20090925122807.GA9768@srv03.cluenet.de>

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 08:16:29AM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> Is this a normal mailman subscription site ? Is there a subscription page ?

http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-ops

Yes, standard Mailman.

Best regards,
Daniel (ipv6-ops admin)

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0



From david.kessens at nsn.com  Tue Sep 29 06:37:54 2009
From: david.kessens at nsn.com (David Kessens)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:37:54 -0700
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Agenda for IPv6 wg RIPE (v1)
Message-ID: <20090929043754.GC7049@nsn.com>

Hi,

Please see below for the first version of our working group agenda for
RIPE 59.

The agenda looks a bit different from usual: as you know, Maarten
Botterman did a survey regarding IPv6 deployment and offered to
organize a followup panel discussion with realtime input from the
public using an online tool. Please contact Maarten Botterman
<maarten at gnksconsult.com> directly if there are particular followup
topics that you believe are useful for the discussion.

We are scheduled to meet:

Tue Oct 6, 16.00-18.00, Corinthia Hotel, Lisbon, Portugal

We very often get a few last minute agenda items that are interesting
enough to make it worthwhile to revise our agenda and we still have a
little bit of flexibility with our timing so I fully expect that the
agenda might still change a little bit.

See you all in Lisbon,

David Kessens
---

Agenda (v1) for IPv6 wg RIPE59

When:  Tue Oct 6, 16.00-18.00
Where: Corinthia Hotel, Lisbon, Portugal

A. Administrative stuff
   - appointment of scribe
   - agenda bashing
     (David Kessens)

B. RIPE NCC IPv6 update
   (James Aldridge)

C. Future of the working group
   - charter discussion
     (Shane Kerr, David Kessens, input from the audience)

D. Future RIPE network experiments
   (David Kessens, input from the audience)

E. IPv6 Deployment: what are the remaining issues and bottlenecks?
   (panel discussion with interactive input from the audience,
    moderator: Maarten Botterman, GNKS Consult)
   
F. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond
   (input from the audience)

...
   
Y. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan
   (input from the audience)
      
Z. AOB
---
      
                  



From Bernard.Tuy at renater.fr  Tue Sep 29 10:49:53 2009
From: Bernard.Tuy at renater.fr (Bernard Tuy)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:49:53 +0200
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Agenda for IPv6 wg RIPE (v1)
In-Reply-To: <20090929043754.GC7049@nsn.com>
References: <20090929043754.GC7049@nsn.com>
Message-ID: <4AC1CA31.3040706@renater.fr>


====BT: David,

	any information on the EU poll about IPv6 will probably be interesting 
too ?

	I guess I've seen this as a plenary item during this week, but has 
anyone the chance to attend all the week ... ?


   Thanx & cheers,

   +Bernard T.
---

David Kessens wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Please see below for the first version of our working group agenda for
> RIPE 59.
> 
> The agenda looks a bit different from usual: as you know, Maarten
> Botterman did a survey regarding IPv6 deployment and offered to
> organize a followup panel discussion with realtime input from the
> public using an online tool. Please contact Maarten Botterman
> <maarten at gnksconsult.com> directly if there are particular followup
> topics that you believe are useful for the discussion.
> 
> We are scheduled to meet:
> 
> Tue Oct 6, 16.00-18.00, Corinthia Hotel, Lisbon, Portugal
> 
> We very often get a few last minute agenda items that are interesting
> enough to make it worthwhile to revise our agenda and we still have a
> little bit of flexibility with our timing so I fully expect that the
> agenda might still change a little bit.
> 
> See you all in Lisbon,
> 
> David Kessens
> ---
> 
> Agenda (v1) for IPv6 wg RIPE59
> 
> When:  Tue Oct 6, 16.00-18.00
> Where: Corinthia Hotel, Lisbon, Portugal
> 
> A. Administrative stuff
>    - appointment of scribe
>    - agenda bashing
>      (David Kessens)
> 
> B. RIPE NCC IPv6 update
>    (James Aldridge)
> 
> C. Future of the working group
>    - charter discussion
>      (Shane Kerr, David Kessens, input from the audience)
> 
> D. Future RIPE network experiments
>    (David Kessens, input from the audience)
> 
> E. IPv6 Deployment: what are the remaining issues and bottlenecks?
>    (panel discussion with interactive input from the audience,
>     moderator: Maarten Botterman, GNKS Consult)
>    
> F. Developments/initiatives regarding IPv6 in the RIPE region and beyond
>    (input from the audience)
> 
> ...
>    
> Y. Input for the RIPE NCC Activity Plan
>    (input from the audience)
>       
> Z. AOB
> ---
>       
>                   
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4038 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20090929/e8a2ff09/attachment.bin>

From david.kessens at nsn.com  Tue Sep 29 20:00:21 2009
From: david.kessens at nsn.com (David Kessens)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:00:21 -0700
Subject: [ipv6-wg] Agenda for IPv6 wg RIPE (v1)
In-Reply-To: <4AC1CA31.3040706@renater.fr>
References: <20090929043754.GC7049@nsn.com> <4AC1CA31.3040706@renater.fr>
Message-ID: <20090929180021.GC13088@nsn.com>

Bernard,

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:49:53AM +0200, Bernard Tuy wrote:
>
> ====BT: David,
>
> 	any information on the EU poll about IPv6 will probably be interesting  
> too ?
>
> 	I guess I've seen this as a plenary item during this week, but has  
> anyone the chance to attend all the week ... ?

Sure, but in this case, the plenary item is just before the break
before the IPv6 working group session. 

David Kessens
---