From alh-ietf at tndh.net Mon May 3 14:56:51 2010 From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 05:56:51 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> Message-ID: <0e0b01caeac0$19537240$4bfa56c0$@net> How about getting RIPE-NCC to read it.... ;) The remote feed page for the RIPE60 plenary has an embedded IPv4 address rather than the fqdn. // netConnectionUrl defines where the streams are found netConnectionUrl: 'rtmp://193.0.0.162/live' Putting the IPv6 literal into VLC shows that the streamer is not even listening on the IPv6 address of that machine because it just fails the connect, where VLC crashes when trying to take the stream from the IPv4 literal. > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf > Of Mirjam Kuehne > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 8:30 AM > To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs > > Dear colleagues, > > We looked at the "IPv6 ripeness" of all LIRs in the RIPE NCC service > region. This was initially created to adjust our IPv6 training course > depending on the country we are in. However, we felt this might also be > valuable in a bigger context. > > Please find the results and methodology on RIPE Labs: > > http://labs.ripe.net/content/ipv6-ripeness > > We would be interested to hear what you think about this idea in > general > and if you have any suggestions on how to modify or improve this. > > Kind Regards, > Mirjam K?hne > RIPE NCC From gert at space.net Mon May 3 15:06:27 2010 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 15:06:27 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <0e0b01caeac0$19537240$4bfa56c0$@net> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> <0e0b01caeac0$19537240$4bfa56c0$@net> Message-ID: <20100503130627.GB60850@Space.Net> Hi, (removing address-policy-wg from the CC: list) On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 05:56:51AM -0700, Tony Hain wrote: > How about getting RIPE-NCC to read it.... ;) > The remote feed page for the RIPE60 plenary has an embedded IPv4 address > rather than the fqdn. > > // netConnectionUrl defines where the streams are found > netConnectionUrl: 'rtmp://193.0.0.162/live' > > Putting the IPv6 literal into VLC shows that the streamer is not even > listening on the IPv6 address of that machine because it just fails the > connect, where VLC crashes when trying to take the stream from the IPv4 > literal. Seconded. *complain*! Gert Doering -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150584 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 alh-ietf at tndh.net Mon May 3 15:22:38 2010 From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 06:22:38 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <20100503130627.GB60850@Space.Net> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> <0e0b01caeac0$19537240$4bfa56c0$@net> <20100503130627.GB60850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <0e1d01caeac3$b3a333a0$1ae99ae0$@net> I did complain on the contact web page, but the only response has been the robot letting me know that the message was received. I also tried editing the html source to put in the IPv6 literal and it sits in SYN_SENT mode. This sounds like their choice of streamer app is the problem because it is not binding to the IPv6 side. Given that assumption is correct, it would make sense to put in an IPv4 literal because the fqdn would stall for all IPv6 enabled clients. This raises the question about why they chose to use that app for streaming. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf > Of Gert Doering > Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 6:06 AM > To: Tony Hain > Cc: 'Mirjam Kuehne'; ipv6-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" > measurements on RIPE Labs > > Hi, > > (removing address-policy-wg from the CC: list) > > On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 05:56:51AM -0700, Tony Hain wrote: > > How about getting RIPE-NCC to read it.... ;) > > The remote feed page for the RIPE60 plenary has an embedded IPv4 > address > > rather than the fqdn. > > > > // netConnectionUrl defines where the streams are found > > netConnectionUrl: 'rtmp://193.0.0.162/live' > > > > Putting the IPv6 literal into VLC shows that the streamer is not even > > listening on the IPv6 address of that machine because it just fails > the > > connect, where VLC crashes when trying to take the stream from the > IPv4 > > literal. > > Seconded. *complain*! > > Gert Doering > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150584 > > 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 gert at space.net Mon May 3 15:32:15 2010 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 15:32:15 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20100503133215.GG60850@Space.Net> Hi Mirjam, On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 05:30:28PM +0200, Mirjam Kuehne wrote: > We looked at the "IPv6 ripeness" of all LIRs in the RIPE NCC service > region. This was initially created to adjust our IPv6 training course > depending on the country we are in. However, we felt this might also be > valuable in a bigger context. > > Please find the results and methodology on RIPE Labs: > > http://labs.ripe.net/content/ipv6-ripeness You're asking for ideas for the "5th star". Some random thoughts... - have IPv6 transport (with addresses from their own prefix) to all/some of the DNS servers that the IPv6 reverse zone is delegated to - have www. with working IPv6 connectivity (now, might not be that easy to determine for some of the LIRs out there) - have IPv6 capable MXes for some/all of the listed contact e-mail addresses for the inet6num and/or the organization object Something revolving around "is actually moving bits over IPv6, instead of just sitting on the paperwork of having address + BGP + DNS in place" would be useful. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150584 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 gert at space.net Mon May 3 15:39:08 2010 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 15:39:08 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <20100503133215.GG60850@Space.Net> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> <20100503133215.GG60850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20100503133908.GJ60850@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 03:32:15PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > Something revolving around "is actually moving bits over IPv6, instead > of just sitting on the paperwork of having address + BGP + DNS in place" > would be useful. The 6th star could be "has found a way to listen to the RIPE meeting stream over IPv6"... Indeed, what happened here? We had meeting streams over IPv6 5 years ago... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150584 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 lutz at iks-jena.de Mon May 3 16:10:09 2010 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 14:10:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs References: <20100503133215.GG60850@Space.Net> Message-ID: * Gert Doering wrote: >> http://labs.ripe.net/content/ipv6-ripeness > > You're asking for ideas for the "5th star". Some random thoughts... > > - have IPv6 transport (with addresses from their own prefix) to all/some of > the DNS servers that the IPv6 reverse zone is delegated to > > - have www. with working IPv6 connectivity (now, > might not be that easy to determine for some of the > LIRs out there) > > - have IPv6 capable MXes for some/all of the listed contact e-mail > addresses for the inet6num and/or the organization object I second that. The draft-haberman-rpsl-reachable-test proposal is unusable: Update FAILED: [route6] 2001:4bd8::/32AS15725 ***Error: Syntax error in object route6: 2001:4bd8::/32 descr: DE-IKS-JENA origin: AS15725 mnt-by: IKS-MNT pingable: 2001:4bd8::4000:0:0:196 ***Error: "pingable" is not a known RPSL attribute ping-hdl: IKS-RIPE ***Error: "ping-hdl" is not a known RPSL attribute ... Update FAILED: [route] 217.17.192.0/20AS15725 ***Error: Syntax error in object route: 217.17.192.0/20 descr: DE-IKS-JENA origin: AS15725 mnt-by: IKS-MNT pingable: 217.17.192.196 ***Error: "pingable" is not a known RPSL attribute ping-hdl: IKS-RIPE ***Error: "ping-hdl" is not a known RPSL attribute ... Gert's tests are much more easy to fulfill: You might monitor (reverse) DNS queries on your system (to see who is resolving via IPv6 and who is queried for rDNSv6) ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 8.d.b.4.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. NS avalon.iks-jena.de. 8.d.b.4.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. NS jengate.thur.de. ;; Query time: 114 msec ;; SERVER: 2001:610:240:0:53::3#53(2001:610:240:0:53::3) You might monitor your mailserver log to see which systems does send or receive emails via IPv6: May 3 15:51:03 annwfn sm-mta[17288]: o43DoqKp017288: to=, delay=00:00:09, xdelay=00:00:09, mailer=esmtp, pri=31240, relay=postgirl.ripe.net. [IPv6:2001:610:240:11::c100:1342], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (OK id=1O8w30-0008Kf-CC) May 3 15:51:08 excalibur sm-mta[6518]: o43Dp6js006518: from=, size=2642, class=0, nrcpts=6, msgid=<20100503135105.6EBD89B1AC at cello.ripe.net>, proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=beaver.ipv6.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:610:240:11::c100:131d] But your own mailinglist server should be upgraded first: May 3 15:07:11 excalibur sm-mta[19888]: o43D79XZ019888: from=, size=3142, class=0, nrcpts=1, msgid=<20100503130627.GB60850 at Space.Net>, proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=postboy.ripe.net [193.0.19.3] LIR's website is difficult to determine. You might add a field on the LIR portal at https://lirportal.ripe.net/lirportal/liruser/general.html OTOH what is IPv6 delivery of website? How many parts come via IPv6 how many via IPv4? Take our website www.iks-jena.de as an example. It delivers - dual stacked - all content via IPv6, but if IPv6 is enabled, the show remote client address is displayed as IPv6 AND IPv4 at the same time. Is this IPv6 enabled? From briddle at ripe.net Mon May 3 16:44:39 2010 From: briddle at ripe.net (Brian Riddle) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 16:44:39 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <20100503133908.GJ60850@Space.Net> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> <20100503133215.GG60850@Space.Net> <20100503133908.GJ60850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <550A47C3-DA29-49ED-ABFE-EFF39FAAAD77@ripe.net> Hi all, Thank you all for your feedback. The system used to stream video webcast of the RIPE Meeting for the past four years was not set up to stream over IPv6. The RIPE NCC Meeting Team has been working to remedy this over the past hour or so, and as of 16:30 (CEST) it is possible to access the RIPE Meeting video webstream over native IPv6: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/live/main-index.php Thank you to everyone who drew this matter to our attention. If you have any further questions or concerns, please send an email to . Regards, Brian Riddle IT Manager, RIPE NCC On 3 May 2010, at 15:39, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 03:32:15PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: >> Something revolving around "is actually moving bits over IPv6, >> instead >> of just sitting on the paperwork of having address + BGP + DNS in >> place" >> would be useful. > > The 6th star could be "has found a way to listen to the RIPE meeting > stream > over IPv6"... > > Indeed, what happened here? We had meeting streams over IPv6 5 > years ago... > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150584 > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner- > Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > From slz at baycix.de Mon May 3 16:43:53 2010 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 16:43:53 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <20100503133908.GJ60850@Space.Net> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> <20100503133215.GG60850@Space.Net> <20100503133908.GJ60850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <4BDEE129.5090004@baycix.de> Hay, Am 03.05.2010 15:39, schrieb Gert Doering: > Hi, > > On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 03:32:15PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: >> Something revolving around "is actually moving bits over IPv6, instead >> of just sitting on the paperwork of having address + BGP + DNS in place" >> would be useful. > > The 6th star could be "has found a way to listen to the RIPE meeting stream > over IPv6"... > > Indeed, what happened here? We had meeting streams over IPv6 5 years ago... that just means that the NCC does get ZERO ipv6-ripeness stars for the RIPE60 meeting. The whole flash-java-ipv4only thing is a big step backwards anyways :-( -- ===================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ===================================================================== From gert at space.net Mon May 3 16:54:23 2010 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 16:54:23 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <550A47C3-DA29-49ED-ABFE-EFF39FAAAD77@ripe.net> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> <20100503133215.GG60850@Space.Net> <20100503133908.GJ60850@Space.Net> <550A47C3-DA29-49ED-ABFE-EFF39FAAAD77@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20100503145423.GO60850@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 04:44:39PM +0200, Brian Riddle wrote: > Thank you all for your feedback. The system used to stream video > webcast of the RIPE Meeting for the past four years was not set up to > stream over IPv6. The RIPE NCC Meeting Team has been working to remedy > this over the past hour or so, and as of 16:30 (CEST) it is possible > to access the RIPE Meeting video webstream over native IPv6: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/live/main-index.php Thanks! This is very good news, and I think we should see quite some v6 traffic peaks this week :-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150584 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: From slz at baycix.de Mon May 3 16:56:47 2010 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 16:56:47 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <4BDEE129.5090004@baycix.de> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> <20100503133215.GG60850@Space.Net> <20100503133908.GJ60850@Space.Net> <4BDEE129.5090004@baycix.de> Message-ID: <4BDEE42F.5040203@baycix.de> Follow-up: Am 03.05.2010 16:43, schrieb Sascha Lenz: [...] >> Indeed, what happened here? We had meeting streams over IPv6 5 years >> ago... > > that just means that the NCC does get ZERO ipv6-ripeness stars for the > RIPE60 meeting. > > The whole flash-java-ipv4only thing is a big step backwards anyways :-( > ...since it works now (thanks Brian & Team!), i only keep up complaining about thte flash-java things, but that's not relevant to the ipv6 wg so, i'm fine for now! You get all your ipv6-ripeness stars back :-) -- ===================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ===================================================================== From BECHA at ripe.net Mon May 3 17:01:42 2010 From: BECHA at ripe.net (Vesna Manojlovic) Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 17:01:42 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <20100503133215.GG60850@Space.Net> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> <20100503133215.GG60850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <4BDEE556.4010001@ripe.net> Thank you, Gert, and Lutz, for very concrete suggestions. On 5/3/10 3:32 PM, Gert Doering wrote: >> http://labs.ripe.net/content/ipv6-ripeness > > You're asking for ideas for the "5th star". Some random thoughts... We have received a lot of private answers (mostly in addition to requesting a T-shirt ;-) , and will summarize them *soon* and post them here and to the RIPE Labs forum. Greetings from a very busy RIPE 60, Vesna From gert at space.net Mon May 3 17:14:59 2010 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 17:14:59 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <4BDEE42F.5040203@baycix.de> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> <20100503133215.GG60850@Space.Net> <20100503133908.GJ60850@Space.Net> <4BDEE129.5090004@baycix.de> <4BDEE42F.5040203@baycix.de> Message-ID: <20100503151459.GP60850@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 04:56:47PM +0200, Sascha Lenz wrote: > You get all your ipv6-ripeness stars back :-) Nah, the "Real Time Transcript" still uses v4-only. Gert Doering -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150584 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From slz at baycix.de Mon May 3 17:20:08 2010 From: slz at baycix.de (Sascha Lenz) Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 17:20:08 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <20100503151459.GP60850@Space.Net> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> <20100503133215.GG60850@Space.Net> <20100503133908.GJ60850@Space.Net> <4BDEE129.5090004@baycix.de> <4BDEE42F.5040203@baycix.de> <20100503151459.GP60850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <4BDEE9A8.9050203@baycix.de> Hay, Am 03.05.2010 17:14, schrieb Gert Doering: > Hi, > > On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 04:56:47PM +0200, Sascha Lenz wrote: >> You get all your ipv6-ripeness stars back :-) > > Nah, the "Real Time Transcript" still uses v4-only. right. The IRC Java thingy, too (at least here). But that is all included on my "flash-java, bad" ranting, that never can be good :-) No wonder it doesn't speak IPv6 properly. (Actually, i'm surprised it was that easy to enable IPv6 for the flash stream thing) -- ===================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz at baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ===================================================================== From alh-ietf at tndh.net Mon May 3 17:26:00 2010 From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 08:26:00 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <20100503145423.GO60850@Space.Net> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> <20100503133215.GG60850@Space.Net> <20100503133908.GJ60850@Space.Net> <550A47C3-DA29-49ED-ABFE-EFF39FAAAD77@ripe.net> <20100503145423.GO60850@Space.Net> Message-ID: <0e5f01caead4$efce6e10$cf6b4a30$@net> For some reason I could not use the link provided. While it did replace the IPv4 literal with the fqdn, my system insisted on connecting IPv4 anyway. Someone did fix the app so that it is actually listening on IPv6 though because now I am getting the feed over an IPv6 literal based local hack on the html source. No it is not address selection preferring IPv4, because I have a local policy table that explicitly puts IPv4 after everything except 6over4 & SL. Precedence Label Prefix ---------- ----- -------------------------------- 90 0 ::1/128 80 8 2002::/16 65 1 fc00::/8 60 1 fd00::/8 50 2 2001::/16 50 2 2400::/8 50 2 2600::/8 50 2 2a00::/8 50 2 2c00::/8 30 3 2001::/32 20 4 ::/0 10 5 ::ffff:0:0/96 5 6 ::/96 4 6 fec0::/16 Earlier when I was playing around there was an error page returned from one of the RIPE url's complaining that it couldn't resolve the IPv6 ptr, so maybe that is part of the sequence and I can't tell from here. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf > Of Gert Doering > Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 7:54 AM > To: Brian Riddle > Cc: ipv6-wg at ripe.net; opsmtg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs > > Hi, > > On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 04:44:39PM +0200, Brian Riddle wrote: > > Thank you all for your feedback. The system used to stream video > > webcast of the RIPE Meeting for the past four years was not set up to > > stream over IPv6. The RIPE NCC Meeting Team has been working to > remedy > > this over the past hour or so, and as of 16:30 (CEST) it is possible > > to access the RIPE Meeting video webstream over native IPv6: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/live/main-index.php > > Thanks! This is very good news, and I think we should see quite some > v6 traffic peaks this week :-) > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150584 > > 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 pekkas at netcore.fi Tue May 4 07:14:57 2010 From: pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 08:14:57 +0300 (EEST) Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <20100503133215.GG60850@Space.Net> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> <20100503133215.GG60850@Space.Net> Message-ID: On Mon, 3 May 2010, Gert Doering wrote: >> http://labs.ripe.net/content/ipv6-ripeness > > You're asking for ideas for the "5th star". Some random thoughts... > > - have IPv6 transport (with addresses from their own prefix) to all/some of > the DNS servers that the IPv6 reverse zone is delegated to For the purposes of automation, I'd say "at least one of the (reverse) DNS servers for the prefix answers to a DNS query over v6" should be sufficient, and better than the two first alternatives. While there may be some small relevance whether the DNS server is from another prefix, it would result in false negatives in the cases where a (somehow defined) organisation is using multiple prefixes (e.g. due to mergers etc.). That would be confusing. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From alh-ietf at tndh.net Thu May 6 09:16:14 2010 From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 00:16:14 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <550A47C3-DA29-49ED-ABFE-EFF39FAAAD77@ripe.net> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> <20100503133215.GG60850@Space.Net> <20100503133908.GJ60850@Space.Net> <550A47C3-DA29-49ED-ABFE-EFF39FAAAD77@ripe.net> Message-ID: <141101caecec$03bd1200$0b373600$@net> For some reason the Flash thing is not working over IPv6 today. Also the RTSP streamer is not listening on IPv6. It appears that there is ~ 5 seconds delay for the Flash version wrt the RTSP stream. On the other hand the RTSP stream is very choppy and needs to rebuild the buffer every few minutes. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Riddle [mailto:briddle at ripe.net] > Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 7:45 AM > To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net > Cc: opsmtg at ripe.net; Tony Hain; Gert Doering; Mirjam Kuehne > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs > > Hi all, > > Thank you all for your feedback. The system used to stream video > webcast of the RIPE Meeting for the past four years was not set up to > stream over IPv6. The RIPE NCC Meeting Team has been working to remedy > this over the past hour or so, and as of 16:30 (CEST) it is possible > to access the RIPE Meeting video webstream over native IPv6: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/live/main-index.php > > Thank you to everyone who drew this matter to our attention. If you > have any further questions or concerns, please send an email to > >. > > Regards, > Brian Riddle > IT Manager, RIPE NCC > > On 3 May 2010, at 15:39, Gert Doering wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 03:32:15PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > >> Something revolving around "is actually moving bits over IPv6, > >> instead > >> of just sitting on the paperwork of having address + BGP + DNS in > >> place" > >> would be useful. > > > > The 6th star could be "has found a way to listen to the RIPE meeting > > stream > > over IPv6"... > > > > Indeed, what happened here? We had meeting streams over IPv6 5 > > years ago... > > > > Gert Doering > > -- NetMaster > > -- > > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150584 > > > > 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 alh-ietf at tndh.net Thu May 6 09:22:01 2010 From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 00:22:01 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <550A47C3-DA29-49ED-ABFE-EFF39FAAAD77@ripe.net> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> <20100503133215.GG60850@Space.Net> <20100503133908.GJ60850@Space.Net> <550A47C3-DA29-49ED-ABFE-EFF39FAAAD77@ripe.net> Message-ID: <141401caecec$d25fef60$771fce20$@net> For some reason the Flash thing is not working over IPv6 today. Also the RTSP streamer is not listening on IPv6. It appears that there is ~ 5 seconds delay for the Flash version wrt the RTSP stream. On the other hand the RTSP stream is very choppy and needs to rebuild the buffer every few minutes. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Riddle [mailto:briddle at ripe.net] > Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 7:45 AM > To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net > Cc: opsmtg at ripe.net; Tony Hain; Gert Doering; Mirjam Kuehne > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs > > Hi all, > > Thank you all for your feedback. The system used to stream video > webcast of the RIPE Meeting for the past four years was not set up to > stream over IPv6. The RIPE NCC Meeting Team has been working to remedy > this over the past hour or so, and as of 16:30 (CEST) it is possible > to access the RIPE Meeting video webstream over native IPv6: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/live/main-index.php > > Thank you to everyone who drew this matter to our attention. If you > have any further questions or concerns, please send an email to > >. > > Regards, > Brian Riddle > IT Manager, RIPE NCC > > On 3 May 2010, at 15:39, Gert Doering wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 03:32:15PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > >> Something revolving around "is actually moving bits over IPv6, > >> instead > >> of just sitting on the paperwork of having address + BGP + DNS in > >> place" > >> would be useful. > > > > The 6th star could be "has found a way to listen to the RIPE meeting > > stream > > over IPv6"... > > > > Indeed, what happened here? We had meeting streams over IPv6 5 > > years ago... > > > > Gert Doering > > -- NetMaster > > -- > > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150584 > > > > 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 bohara at ripe.net Thu May 6 09:31:31 2010 From: bohara at ripe.net (Ben O'Hara) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 09:31:31 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <141401caecec$d25fef60$771fce20$@net> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> <20100503133215.GG60850@Space.Net> <20100503133908.GJ60850@Space.Net> <550A47C3-DA29-49ED-ABFE-EFF39FAAAD77@ripe.net> <141401caecec$d25fef60$771fce20$@net> Message-ID: Hi Tony, Thanks for letting us know. We've had a look and we are watching the stream over IPv6 without problems. The machine, qtstreamer.ripe.net is listening on port 1935 over IPv6 and we cant see any problems connecting. dhcp-26-179:~ bohara$ netstat -an |grep 1935 tcp6 0 0 2001:67c:64:42:2.65444 2001:610:240:5::.1935 ESTABLISHED As you can see above, im connected over v6 to the stream. Could you send us some further info, your IPv6 address, a traceroute to qtstreamer and try telneting to 1935 on the machine? As for the choppy nature of the video, we'll restart the tricaster which sends the stream to qtstreamer during the next break. We did see that the RTSP stream was unstable initially but was OK after it had got going. Any extra info you can provide will help us track down any problems. Cheers Ben On 6 May 2010, at 09:22, Tony Hain wrote: > For some reason the Flash thing is not working over IPv6 today. Also the > RTSP streamer is not listening on IPv6. It appears that there is ~ 5 seconds > delay for the Flash version wrt the RTSP stream. On the other hand the RTSP > stream is very choppy and needs to rebuild the buffer every few minutes. > > Tony > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Brian Riddle [mailto:briddle at ripe.net] >> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 7:45 AM >> To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net >> Cc: opsmtg at ripe.net; Tony Hain; Gert Doering; Mirjam Kuehne >> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs >> >> Hi all, >> >> Thank you all for your feedback. The system used to stream video >> webcast of the RIPE Meeting for the past four years was not set up to >> stream over IPv6. The RIPE NCC Meeting Team has been working to remedy >> this over the past hour or so, and as of 16:30 (CEST) it is possible >> to access the RIPE Meeting video webstream over native IPv6: >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/live/main-index.php >> >> Thank you to everyone who drew this matter to our attention. If you >> have any further questions or concerns, please send an email to >> >> . >> >> Regards, >> Brian Riddle >> IT Manager, RIPE NCC >> >> On 3 May 2010, at 15:39, Gert Doering wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 03:32:15PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: >>>> Something revolving around "is actually moving bits over IPv6, >>>> instead >>>> of just sitting on the paperwork of having address + BGP + DNS in >>>> place" >>>> would be useful. >>> >>> The 6th star could be "has found a way to listen to the RIPE meeting >>> stream >>> over IPv6"... >>> >>> Indeed, what happened here? We had meeting streams over IPv6 5 >>> years ago... >>> >>> Gert Doering >>> -- NetMaster >>> -- >>> Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150584 >>> >>> 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 >>> > > -- Ben O'Hara RIPE Network Coordination Center Systems Engineer Singel 258, Amsterdam, NL http://www.ripe.net +31 20 535 4444 PGP Fingerprint: 080A 52FF BF0A A7FB F176 E7DB 513D 9A3D E968 7DBC From alh-ietf at tndh.net Thu May 6 09:58:25 2010 From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 00:58:25 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> <20100503133215.GG60850@Space.Net> <20100503133908.GJ60850@Space.Net> <550A47C3-DA29-49ED-ABFE-EFF39FAAAD77@ripe.net> <141401caecec$d25fef60$771fce20$@net> Message-ID: <141501caecf1$e7e15c20$b7a41460$@net> Routing problem on my end causing the flash problem, but other sites are working??? Using a different interface for now so the IPv6 stream is back up. VLC is not able to connect to rtsp://[2001:610:240:5::162]:1935/live/ripe -- I know it doesn't like IPv6 literals so I created a host file entry for that address to make sure IPv6 was the only choice. In the past it has worked so I will keep poking at it. Given that the flash stream appears to be using ~ 30% less bandwidth, I am not overly motivated to get it working. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf > Of Ben O'Hara > Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 12:32 AM > To: alh-ietf at tndh.net > Cc: 'Brian Riddle'; opsmtg at ripe.net; ipv6-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs > > Hi Tony, > > Thanks for letting us know. > > We've had a look and we are watching the stream over IPv6 without > problems. > > The machine, qtstreamer.ripe.net is listening on port 1935 over IPv6 > and we cant see any problems connecting. > > dhcp-26-179:~ bohara$ netstat -an |grep 1935 > tcp6 0 0 2001:67c:64:42:2.65444 2001:610:240:5::.1935 > ESTABLISHED > > As you can see above, im connected over v6 to the stream. > > Could you send us some further info, your IPv6 address, a traceroute to > qtstreamer and try telneting to 1935 on the machine? > > As for the choppy nature of the video, we'll restart the tricaster > which sends the stream to qtstreamer during the next break. We did see > that the RTSP stream was unstable initially but was OK after it had got > going. > > Any extra info you can provide will help us track down any problems. > > Cheers > Ben > > > On 6 May 2010, at 09:22, Tony Hain wrote: > > > For some reason the Flash thing is not working over IPv6 today. Also > the > > RTSP streamer is not listening on IPv6. It appears that there is ~ 5 > seconds > > delay for the Flash version wrt the RTSP stream. On the other hand > the RTSP > > stream is very choppy and needs to rebuild the buffer every few > minutes. > > > > Tony > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Brian Riddle [mailto:briddle at ripe.net] > >> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 7:45 AM > >> To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net > >> Cc: opsmtg at ripe.net; Tony Hain; Gert Doering; Mirjam Kuehne > >> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Thank you all for your feedback. The system used to stream video > >> webcast of the RIPE Meeting for the past four years was not set up > to > >> stream over IPv6. The RIPE NCC Meeting Team has been working to > remedy > >> this over the past hour or so, and as of 16:30 (CEST) it is possible > >> to access the RIPE Meeting video webstream over native IPv6: > >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/live/main-index.php > >> > >> Thank you to everyone who drew this matter to our attention. If you > >> have any further questions or concerns, please send an email to > >> >>> . > >> > >> Regards, > >> Brian Riddle > >> IT Manager, RIPE NCC > >> > >> On 3 May 2010, at 15:39, Gert Doering wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 03:32:15PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > >>>> Something revolving around "is actually moving bits over IPv6, > >>>> instead > >>>> of just sitting on the paperwork of having address + BGP + DNS in > >>>> place" > >>>> would be useful. > >>> > >>> The 6th star could be "has found a way to listen to the RIPE > meeting > >>> stream > >>> over IPv6"... > >>> > >>> Indeed, what happened here? We had meeting streams over IPv6 5 > >>> years ago... > >>> > >>> Gert Doering > >>> -- NetMaster > >>> -- > >>> Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150584 > >>> > >>> 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 > >>> > > > > > > -- > Ben O'Hara RIPE Network Coordination Center > Systems Engineer Singel 258, Amsterdam, NL > http://www.ripe.net +31 20 535 4444 > PGP Fingerprint: 080A 52FF BF0A A7FB F176 E7DB 513D 9A3D E968 7DBC > > > > > From alh-ietf at tndh.net Thu May 6 10:02:26 2010 From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 01:02:26 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> <20100503133215.GG60850@Space.Net> <20100503133908.GJ60850@Space.Net> <550A47C3-DA29-49ED-ABFE-EFF39FAAAD77@ripe.net> <141401caecec$d25fef60$771fce20$@net> Message-ID: <141701caecf2$77e7c840$67b758c0$@net> Routing problem on my end causing the flash problem, but other sites are working??? Using a different interface for now so the IPv6 stream is back up. VLC is not able to connect to rtsp://[2001:610:240:5::162]:1935/live/ripe -- I know it doesn't like IPv6 literals so I created a host file entry for that address to make sure IPv6 was the only choice. In the past it has worked so I will keep poking at it. Given that the flash stream appears to be using ~ 30% less bandwidth, I am not overly motivated to get it working. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf > Of Ben O'Hara > Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 12:32 AM > To: alh-ietf at tndh.net > Cc: 'Brian Riddle'; opsmtg at ripe.net; ipv6-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs > > Hi Tony, > > Thanks for letting us know. > > We've had a look and we are watching the stream over IPv6 without > problems. > > The machine, qtstreamer.ripe.net is listening on port 1935 over IPv6 > and we cant see any problems connecting. > > dhcp-26-179:~ bohara$ netstat -an |grep 1935 > tcp6 0 0 2001:67c:64:42:2.65444 2001:610:240:5::.1935 > ESTABLISHED > > As you can see above, im connected over v6 to the stream. > > Could you send us some further info, your IPv6 address, a traceroute to > qtstreamer and try telneting to 1935 on the machine? > > As for the choppy nature of the video, we'll restart the tricaster > which sends the stream to qtstreamer during the next break. We did see > that the RTSP stream was unstable initially but was OK after it had got > going. > > Any extra info you can provide will help us track down any problems. > > Cheers > Ben > > > On 6 May 2010, at 09:22, Tony Hain wrote: > > > For some reason the Flash thing is not working over IPv6 today. Also > the > > RTSP streamer is not listening on IPv6. It appears that there is ~ 5 > seconds > > delay for the Flash version wrt the RTSP stream. On the other hand > the RTSP > > stream is very choppy and needs to rebuild the buffer every few > minutes. > > > > Tony > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Brian Riddle [mailto:briddle at ripe.net] > >> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 7:45 AM > >> To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net > >> Cc: opsmtg at ripe.net; Tony Hain; Gert Doering; Mirjam Kuehne > >> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Thank you all for your feedback. The system used to stream video > >> webcast of the RIPE Meeting for the past four years was not set up > to > >> stream over IPv6. The RIPE NCC Meeting Team has been working to > remedy > >> this over the past hour or so, and as of 16:30 (CEST) it is possible > >> to access the RIPE Meeting video webstream over native IPv6: > >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/live/main-index.php > >> > >> Thank you to everyone who drew this matter to our attention. If you > >> have any further questions or concerns, please send an email to > >> >>> . > >> > >> Regards, > >> Brian Riddle > >> IT Manager, RIPE NCC > >> > >> On 3 May 2010, at 15:39, Gert Doering wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 03:32:15PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > >>>> Something revolving around "is actually moving bits over IPv6, > >>>> instead > >>>> of just sitting on the paperwork of having address + BGP + DNS in > >>>> place" > >>>> would be useful. > >>> > >>> The 6th star could be "has found a way to listen to the RIPE > meeting > >>> stream > >>> over IPv6"... > >>> > >>> Indeed, what happened here? We had meeting streams over IPv6 5 > >>> years ago... > >>> > >>> Gert Doering > >>> -- NetMaster > >>> -- > >>> Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150584 > >>> > >>> 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 > >>> > > > > > > -- > Ben O'Hara RIPE Network Coordination Center > Systems Engineer Singel 258, Amsterdam, NL > http://www.ripe.net +31 20 535 4444 > PGP Fingerprint: 080A 52FF BF0A A7FB F176 E7DB 513D 9A3D E968 7DBC > > > > > From bohara at ripe.net Thu May 6 10:16:49 2010 From: bohara at ripe.net (Ben O'Hara) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 10:16:49 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <141701caecf2$77e7c840$67b758c0$@net> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> <20100503133215.GG60850@Space.Net> <20100503133908.GJ60850@Space.Net> <550A47C3-DA29-49ED-ABFE-EFF39FAAAD77@ripe.net> <141401caecec$d25fef60$771fce20$@net> <141701caecf2$77e7c840$67b758c0$@net> Message-ID: <6E8C661A-B2B1-45B0-A33D-AC5205FB541A@ripe.net> Hi Tony, Thanks for letting us know. I get an error in VLNC when trying rtsp://[2001:610:240:5::162]:1935/live/ripe as it doesnt like the v6 address, however using qtstreamer.ripe.net which has AAAA and A records VLC connects over IPv6. Glad your now able to watch the stream anyway. Cheers Ben On 6 May 2010, at 10:02, Tony Hain wrote: > Routing problem on my end causing the flash problem, but other sites are > working??? Using a different interface for now so the IPv6 stream is back > up. > > VLC is not able to connect to rtsp://[2001:610:240:5::162]:1935/live/ripe -- > I know it doesn't like IPv6 literals so I created a host file entry for that > address to make sure IPv6 was the only choice. In the past it has worked so > I will keep poking at it. Given that the flash stream appears to be using ~ > 30% less bandwidth, I am not overly motivated to get it working. > > Tony > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf >> Of Ben O'Hara >> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 12:32 AM >> To: alh-ietf at tndh.net >> Cc: 'Brian Riddle'; opsmtg at ripe.net; ipv6-wg at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs >> >> Hi Tony, >> >> Thanks for letting us know. >> >> We've had a look and we are watching the stream over IPv6 without >> problems. >> >> The machine, qtstreamer.ripe.net is listening on port 1935 over IPv6 >> and we cant see any problems connecting. >> >> dhcp-26-179:~ bohara$ netstat -an |grep 1935 >> tcp6 0 0 2001:67c:64:42:2.65444 2001:610:240:5::.1935 >> ESTABLISHED >> >> As you can see above, im connected over v6 to the stream. >> >> Could you send us some further info, your IPv6 address, a traceroute to >> qtstreamer and try telneting to 1935 on the machine? >> >> As for the choppy nature of the video, we'll restart the tricaster >> which sends the stream to qtstreamer during the next break. We did see >> that the RTSP stream was unstable initially but was OK after it had got >> going. >> >> Any extra info you can provide will help us track down any problems. >> >> Cheers >> Ben >> >> >> On 6 May 2010, at 09:22, Tony Hain wrote: >> >>> For some reason the Flash thing is not working over IPv6 today. Also >> the >>> RTSP streamer is not listening on IPv6. It appears that there is ~ 5 >> seconds >>> delay for the Flash version wrt the RTSP stream. On the other hand >> the RTSP >>> stream is very choppy and needs to rebuild the buffer every few >> minutes. >>> >>> Tony >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Brian Riddle [mailto:briddle at ripe.net] >>>> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 7:45 AM >>>> To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net >>>> Cc: opsmtg at ripe.net; Tony Hain; Gert Doering; Mirjam Kuehne >>>> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Thank you all for your feedback. The system used to stream video >>>> webcast of the RIPE Meeting for the past four years was not set up >> to >>>> stream over IPv6. The RIPE NCC Meeting Team has been working to >> remedy >>>> this over the past hour or so, and as of 16:30 (CEST) it is possible >>>> to access the RIPE Meeting video webstream over native IPv6: >>>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/live/main-index.php >>>> >>>> Thank you to everyone who drew this matter to our attention. If you >>>> have any further questions or concerns, please send an email to >>>> >>>> . >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Brian Riddle >>>> IT Manager, RIPE NCC >>>> >>>> On 3 May 2010, at 15:39, Gert Doering wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 03:32:15PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: >>>>>> Something revolving around "is actually moving bits over IPv6, >>>>>> instead >>>>>> of just sitting on the paperwork of having address + BGP + DNS in >>>>>> place" >>>>>> would be useful. >>>>> >>>>> The 6th star could be "has found a way to listen to the RIPE >> meeting >>>>> stream >>>>> over IPv6"... >>>>> >>>>> Indeed, what happened here? We had meeting streams over IPv6 5 >>>>> years ago... >>>>> >>>>> Gert Doering >>>>> -- NetMaster >>>>> -- >>>>> Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150584 >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Ben O'Hara RIPE Network Coordination Center >> Systems Engineer Singel 258, Amsterdam, NL >> http://www.ripe.net +31 20 535 4444 >> PGP Fingerprint: 080A 52FF BF0A A7FB F176 E7DB 513D 9A3D E968 7DBC >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- Ben O'Hara RIPE Network Coordination Center Systems Engineer Singel 258, Amsterdam, NL http://www.ripe.net +31 20 535 4444 PGP Fingerprint: 080A 52FF BF0A A7FB F176 E7DB 513D 9A3D E968 7DBC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk Thu May 6 11:12:27 2010 From: tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 10:12:27 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <6E8C661A-B2B1-45B0-A33D-AC5205FB541A@ripe.net> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> <20100503133215.GG60850@Space.Net> <20100503133908.GJ60850@Space.Net> <550A47C3-DA29-49ED-ABFE-EFF39FAAAD77@ripe.net> <141401caecec$d25fef60$771fce20$@net> <141701caecf2$77e7c840$67b758c0$@net> <6E8C661A-B2B1-45B0-A33D-AC5205FB541A@ripe.net> <20100506091227.GA2341@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Message-ID: The streaming has been very good - left my browser open through the event and it's kept running just fine, IPv6 all the time without problem. Compared to many other events the extra camera angles really help to make remote participation a better experience. Tim On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 10:16:49AM +0200, Ben O'Hara wrote: > > Hi Tony, > > Thanks for letting us know. > > I get an error in VLNC when > trying [1]rtsp://[2001:610:240:5::162]:1935/live/ripe as it doesnt like the > v6 address, however using [2]qtstreamer.ripe.net which has AAAA and A > records VLC connects over IPv6. > > Glad your now able to watch the stream anyway. > > Cheers > > Ben > On 6 May 2010, at 10:02, Tony Hain wrote: > > Routing problem on my end causing the flash problem, but other sites are > working??? Using a different interface for now so the IPv6 stream is back > up. > VLC is not able to connect to [3]rtsp://[2001:610:240:5::162]:1935/live/ripe > -- > I know it doesn't like IPv6 literals so I created a host file entry for that > address to make sure IPv6 was the only choice. In the past it has worked so > I will keep poking at it. Given that the flash stream appears to be using ~ > 30% less bandwidth, I am not overly motivated to get it working. > Tony > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [4]ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf > > Of Ben O'Hara > > Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 12:32 AM > > To: [5]alh-ietf at tndh.net > > Cc: 'Brian Riddle'; [6]opsmtg at ripe.net; [7]ipv6-wg at ripe.net > > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs > > Hi Tony, > > Thanks for letting us know. > > We've had a look and we are watching the stream over IPv6 without > > problems. > > The machine, [8]qtstreamer.ripe.net is listening on port 1935 over IPv6 > > and we cant see any problems connecting. > > dhcp-26-179:~ bohara$ netstat -an |grep 1935 > > tcp6 0 0 2001:67c:64:42:2.65444 2001:610:240:5::.1935 > > ESTABLISHED > > As you can see above, im connected over v6 to the stream. > > Could you send us some further info, your IPv6 address, a traceroute to > > qtstreamer and try telneting to 1935 on the machine? > > As for the choppy nature of the video, we'll restart the tricaster > > which sends the stream to qtstreamer during the next break. We did see > > that the RTSP stream was unstable initially but was OK after it had got > > going. > > Any extra info you can provide will help us track down any problems. > > Cheers > > Ben > > On 6 May 2010, at 09:22, Tony Hain wrote: > > For some reason the Flash thing is not working over IPv6 today. Also > > the > > RTSP streamer is not listening on IPv6. It appears that there is ~ 5 > > seconds > > delay for the Flash version wrt the RTSP stream. On the other hand > > the RTSP > > stream is very choppy and needs to rebuild the buffer every few > > minutes. > > Tony > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brian Riddle [mailto:briddle at ripe.net] > > Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 7:45 AM > > To: [9]ipv6-wg at ripe.net > > Cc: [10]opsmtg at ripe.net; Tony Hain; Gert Doering; Mirjam Kuehne > > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs > > Hi all, > > Thank you all for your feedback. The system used to stream video > > webcast of the RIPE Meeting for the past four years was not set up > > to > > stream over IPv6. The RIPE NCC Meeting Team has been working to > > remedy > > this over the past hour or so, and as of 16:30 (CEST) it is possible > > to access the RIPE Meeting video webstream over native IPv6: > > [11]http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/live/main-index.php > > Thank you to everyone who drew this matter to our attention. If you > > have any further questions or concerns, please send an email to > > <[12]opsmtg at ripe.net > > . > > Regards, > > Brian Riddle > > IT Manager, RIPE NCC > > On 3 May 2010, at 15:39, Gert Doering wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 03:32:15PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > > Something revolving around "is actually moving bits over IPv6, > > instead > > of just sitting on the paperwork of having address + BGP + DNS in > > place" > > would be useful. > > The 6th star could be "has found a way to listen to the RIPE > > meeting > > stream > > over IPv6"... > > Indeed, what happened here? We had meeting streams over IPv6 5 > > years ago... > > Gert Doering > > -- NetMaster > > -- > > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150584 > > 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 > > -- > > Ben O'Hara RIPE Network Coordination Center > > Systems Engineer Singel 258, Amsterdam, NL > > [13]http://www.ripe.net +31 20 535 4444 > > PGP Fingerprint: 080A 52FF BF0A A7FB F176 E7DB 513D 9A3D E968 7DBC > > -- > Ben O'Hara RIPE Network Coordination Center > Systems Engineer Singel 258, Amsterdam, NL > [14]http://www.ripe.net +31 20 535 4444 > PGP Fingerprint: 080A 52FF BF0A A7FB F176 E7DB 513D 9A3D E968 7DBC > > References > > 1. rtsp://[2001:610:240:5::162]:1935/live/ripe > 2. http://qtstreamer.ripe.net/ > 3. rtsp://[2001:610:240:5::162]:1935/live/ripe > 4. mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net > 5. mailto:alh-ietf at tndh.net > 6. mailto:opsmtg at ripe.net > 7. mailto:ipv6-wg at ripe.net > 8. http://qtstreamer.ripe.net/ > 9. mailto:ipv6-wg at ripe.net > 10. mailto:opsmtg at ripe.net > 11. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/live/main-index.php > 12. mailto:opsmtg at ripe.net > 13. http://www.ripe.net/ > 14. http://www.ripe.net/ -- Tim From mir at ripe.net Thu May 6 14:35:25 2010 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 14:35:25 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 Ripeness movie on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4BE2B78D.80006@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, As a follow-up to the IPv6 ripeness article published on RIPE Labs last week, we created a little movie (Thanks, Emile!) that shows the IPv6 ripeness ratings of most countries in the RIPE region over time (for the period between January 2004 and May 2010). See the movie on RIPE Labs: http://labs.ripe.net. You can also download the file and watch it in a different media player. Kind Regards, Mirjam K?hne RIPE NCC Mirjam Kuehne wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > We looked at the "IPv6 ripeness" of all LIRs in the RIPE NCC service > region. This was initially created to adjust our IPv6 training course > depending on the country we are in. However, we felt this might also be > valuable in a bigger context. > > Please find the results and methodology on RIPE Labs: > > http://labs.ripe.net/content/ipv6-ripeness > > We would be interested to hear what you think about this idea in general > and if you have any suggestions on how to modify or improve this. > > Kind Regards, > Mirjam K?hne > RIPE NCC > From lubos.pinkava at casablanca.cz Thu May 6 14:48:45 2010 From: lubos.pinkava at casablanca.cz (Lubos Pinkava) Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 14:48:45 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] internal additional IPv4 assignment policy Message-ID: <4BE2BAAD.1040906@casablanca.cz> Hello, I've raised an idea concerning additional IPv4 assignments for our customers during RIPE60 beering with quite positive responses, so I would like to share it here and maybe get some additional feedback. We are a company running ISP/collocation business, promoting IPv6 since 2003 and already having substantial amount of IPv6 enabled customers. In our point of view, it's still pretty slow growth. What I indend to propose for our operations - active imediately - is this: - all customers requesting additional /25 (variable) shall have IPv6 assigned and asked for trying it (if not already done before) - all customers requesting additional /24 (variable) must already have active v6 services running (eg. NS/MX/web site for the beginning) There were several other ISP's interested, each of course with own specifics - but in general, we have agreed, that this can speed up IPv6 adoption especially in collocation / infastructure area and can still go through company processes. If there are more people interested, we can create some best practice document backing up our work. Any thoughts on this subject? Lubos Pinkava Casablanca INT s.r.o. From ahmed at tamkien.com Thu May 6 16:06:36 2010 From: ahmed at tamkien.com (Ahmed Abu-Abed) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 17:06:36 +0300 Subject: [ipv6-wg] internal additional IPv4 assignment policy In-Reply-To: <4BE2BAAD.1040906@casablanca.cz> References: <4BE2BAAD.1040906@casablanca.cz> Message-ID: <3AA585910BE148F99F6CCAB648292D37@mTOSH> This is a good policy and it should help move customers to IPv6 in an orderly manner. We are having a similar discussion on the IPv6 Forum mailing list. For validation, other than the Ripeness initiative, there are programs already in place by the IPv6 Forum that validate ISPs and web content owners for v6 readiness. If customers pass the tests they place the logo on their website and get listed on the Forum's IPv6 Enabled list. I suggest RIPE uses this resource (as well as Ripeness) for validating v6 compliance before issuing v4 address blocks. More at http://www.ipv6forum.com/ipv6_enabled/ Regards, Ahmed Abu-Abed -------------------------------------------------- From: "Lubos Pinkava" Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 3:48 PM To: Subject: [Bulk] [ipv6-wg] internal additional IPv4 assignment policy > Hello, > > I've raised an idea concerning additional IPv4 assignments for our > customers during RIPE60 beering with quite positive responses, so I would > like to share it here and maybe get some additional feedback. > > We are a company running ISP/collocation business, promoting IPv6 since > 2003 and already having substantial amount of IPv6 enabled customers. In > our point of view, it's still pretty slow growth. > > What I indend to propose for our operations - active imediately - is this: > > - all customers requesting additional /25 (variable) shall have IPv6 > assigned and asked for trying it (if not already done before) > - all customers requesting additional /24 (variable) must already have > active v6 services running (eg. NS/MX/web site for the beginning) > > There were several other ISP's interested, each of course with own > specifics - but in general, we have agreed, that this can speed up IPv6 > adoption especially in collocation / infastructure area and can still go > through company processes. > > If there are more people interested, we can create some best practice > document backing up our work. > > > Any thoughts on this subject? > > > Lubos Pinkava > Casablanca INT s.r.o. > From lutz at iks-jena.de Thu May 6 16:53:05 2010 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 14:53:05 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 Ripeness movie on RIPE Labs References: <4BE2B78D.80006@ripe.net> Message-ID: * Mirjam Kuehne wrote: > As a follow-up to the IPv6 ripeness article published on RIPE Labs last > week, we created a little movie (Thanks, Emile!) that shows the IPv6 > ripeness ratings of most countries in the RIPE region over time (for the > period between January 2004 and May 2010). Great video. Thank you all. From geo at multi-visp.com Thu May 6 18:00:58 2010 From: geo at multi-visp.com (Geoffroy RIVAT) Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 18:00:58 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] internal additional IPv4 assignment policy Message-ID: <20100506160058.GB4903@stargate.gs.par.multi-visp.net> Hi, In-Reply-To: <4BE2BAAD.1040906 at casablanca.cz> Lubos Pinkava wrote: > Hello, > > I've raised an idea concerning additional IPv4 assignments for our > customers during RIPE60 beering with quite positive responses, so I > would like to share it here and maybe get some additional feedback. > > We are a company running ISP/collocation business, promoting IPv6 > since 2003 and already having substantial amount of IPv6 enabled > customers. In our point of view, it's still pretty slow growth. > > What I indend to propose for our operations - active imediately - is this: > > - all customers requesting additional /25 (variable) shall have IPv6 > assigned and asked for trying it (if not already done before) > - all customers requesting additional /24 (variable) must already > have active v6 services running (eg. NS/MX/web site for the > beginning) This is a really good idea, on our network for each customers we have configured IPv6 and try to help them to use it. Our last procedure says to add firewall rules in both v4 and v6 when they ask using the last 2 bytes of the v4 address to map to their v6 address -- Geoffroy Rivat From marcoh at marcoh.net Sun May 9 20:28:56 2010 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 20:28:56 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] internal additional IPv4 assignment policy In-Reply-To: <3AA585910BE148F99F6CCAB648292D37@mTOSH> References: <4BE2BAAD.1040906@casablanca.cz> <3AA585910BE148F99F6CCAB648292D37@mTOSH> Message-ID: <09641736-3B1B-4EB7-BF97-189AAD5E89D8@marcoh.net> Hi all, Just to make the distinction here, the way I understand the original idea poste by Lubos is to change internal business rules to require customers to have IPv6 deployed before they are being assigned more IPv4 space. Now maybe this could work and since it is a business rule there is nothing prohibiting you from doing this. There is however a chance you will loose a customer to one of your competitors because they don't have such a rule. But in pricipal this does not change anything in exisiting assignment and allocation policies. Your network your rules and as an LIR you can always decide to not assign addresses. The suggestion being made by Ahmed however does hint about changing the IPv4 assignment policy to require some form of 'IPv6 readiness' before an end-user can get any new or additional assignments, am I right ? The latter case requires the involvement of the folks from the Address Policy WG, so I please be clear which direction this should go. Maybe as a first step we can try and work out what the exact requirements for calling somebody 'ipv6 ready' would be. Grtx, MarcoH On 6 mei 2010, at 16:06, Ahmed Abu-Abed wrote: > This is a good policy and it should help move customers to IPv6 in an orderly manner. We are having a similar discussion on the IPv6 Forum mailing list. > > For validation, other than the Ripeness initiative, there are programs already in place by the IPv6 Forum that validate ISPs and web content owners for v6 readiness. If customers pass the tests they place the logo on their website and get listed on the Forum's IPv6 Enabled list. > > I suggest RIPE uses this resource (as well as Ripeness) for validating v6 compliance before issuing v4 address blocks. More at http://www.ipv6forum.com/ipv6_enabled/ > > Regards, > Ahmed Abu-Abed > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Lubos Pinkava" > Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 3:48 PM > To: > Subject: [Bulk] [ipv6-wg] internal additional IPv4 assignment policy > >> Hello, >> >> I've raised an idea concerning additional IPv4 assignments for our customers during RIPE60 beering with quite positive responses, so I would like to share it here and maybe get some additional feedback. >> >> We are a company running ISP/collocation business, promoting IPv6 since 2003 and already having substantial amount of IPv6 enabled customers. In our point of view, it's still pretty slow growth. >> >> What I indend to propose for our operations - active imediately - is this: >> >> - all customers requesting additional /25 (variable) shall have IPv6 assigned and asked for trying it (if not already done before) >> - all customers requesting additional /24 (variable) must already have active v6 services running (eg. NS/MX/web site for the beginning) >> >> There were several other ISP's interested, each of course with own specifics - but in general, we have agreed, that this can speed up IPv6 adoption especially in collocation / infastructure area and can still go through company processes. >> >> If there are more people interested, we can create some best practice document backing up our work. >> >> >> Any thoughts on this subject? >> >> >> Lubos Pinkava >> Casablanca INT s.r.o. > From ahmed at tamkien.com Sun May 9 20:59:11 2010 From: ahmed at tamkien.com (Ahmed Abu-Abed) Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 21:59:11 +0300 Subject: [ipv6-wg] internal additional IPv4 assignment policy In-Reply-To: <09641736-3B1B-4EB7-BF97-189AAD5E89D8@marcoh.net> References: <4BE2BAAD.1040906@casablanca.cz> <3AA585910BE148F99F6CCAB648292D37@mTOSH> <09641736-3B1B-4EB7-BF97-189AAD5E89D8@marcoh.net> Message-ID: Hi Marco, Confirming your understanding, my suggestion is that an IPv4 address applicant should show they are _starting to move_ to IPv6 before they are assigned a v4 block. This prepares applicants for the 'no v4 is over' brick wall coming up in a year or two. A simple way to show them starting to move to IPv6 is to hold an "IPv6 Enabled ISP" status which is well defined and validated by the IPv6 Forum, more at http://ipv6forum.com/ipv6_enabled . The rules there are quite straight forward: get a prefix, have v6 connectivity and show that a user is accessing your prefix, then you pass. As far as I know the IPv6 Forum doesn't charge for the validation service, but Latif can comment on this if necessary. Or have the Ripeness initiative formalized with a validation procedure, or a mix of the above. Best wishes, -Ahmed -------------------------------------------------- From: "Marco Hogewoning" Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 9:28 PM To: "Ahmed Abu-Abed" Cc: Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] internal additional IPv4 assignment policy > Hi all, > > Just to make the distinction here, the way I understand the original idea > poste by Lubos is to change internal business rules to require customers > to have IPv6 deployed before they are being assigned more IPv4 space. > > Now maybe this could work and since it is a business rule there is nothing > prohibiting you from doing this. There is however a chance you will loose > a customer to one of your competitors because they don't have such a rule. > But in pricipal this does not change anything in exisiting assignment and > allocation policies. Your network your rules and as an LIR you can always > decide to not assign addresses. > > The suggestion being made by Ahmed however does hint about changing the > IPv4 assignment policy to require some form of 'IPv6 readiness' before an > end-user can get any new or additional assignments, am I right ? The > latter case requires the involvement of the folks from the Address Policy > WG, so I please be clear which direction this should go. > > Maybe as a first step we can try and work out what the exact requirements > for calling somebody 'ipv6 ready' would be. > > Grtx, > > MarcoH > > On 6 mei 2010, at 16:06, Ahmed Abu-Abed wrote: > >> This is a good policy and it should help move customers to IPv6 in an >> orderly manner. We are having a similar discussion on the IPv6 Forum >> mailing list. >> >> For validation, other than the Ripeness initiative, there are programs >> already in place by the IPv6 Forum that validate ISPs and web content >> owners for v6 readiness. If customers pass the tests they place the logo >> on their website and get listed on the Forum's IPv6 Enabled list. >> >> I suggest RIPE uses this resource (as well as Ripeness) for validating v6 >> compliance before issuing v4 address blocks. More at >> http://www.ipv6forum.com/ipv6_enabled/ >> >> Regards, >> Ahmed Abu-Abed >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Lubos Pinkava" >> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 3:48 PM >> To: >> Subject: [Bulk] [ipv6-wg] internal additional IPv4 assignment policy >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I've raised an idea concerning additional IPv4 assignments for our >>> customers during RIPE60 beering with quite positive responses, so I >>> would like to share it here and maybe get some additional feedback. >>> >>> We are a company running ISP/collocation business, promoting IPv6 since >>> 2003 and already having substantial amount of IPv6 enabled customers. In >>> our point of view, it's still pretty slow growth. >>> >>> What I indend to propose for our operations - active imediately - is >>> this: >>> >>> - all customers requesting additional /25 (variable) shall have IPv6 >>> assigned and asked for trying it (if not already done before) >>> - all customers requesting additional /24 (variable) must already have >>> active v6 services running (eg. NS/MX/web site for the beginning) >>> >>> There were several other ISP's interested, each of course with own >>> specifics - but in general, we have agreed, that this can speed up IPv6 >>> adoption especially in collocation / infastructure area and can still go >>> through company processes. >>> >>> If there are more people interested, we can create some best practice >>> document backing up our work. >>> >>> >>> Any thoughts on this subject? >>> >>> >>> Lubos Pinkava >>> Casablanca INT s.r.o. >> > From jfesler at gigo.com Tue May 11 19:07:35 2010 From: jfesler at gigo.com (Jason Fesler) Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 10:07:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ipv6-wg] test-ipv6.com Message-ID: Shane Kerr suggested I post this here; that some of you may find it useful. http://test-ipv6.com or http://aaaa.test-ipv6.com The intent of this site is to help the user what it will mean when publishers start publishing dual-stack. When it makes sense, the test will be updated to indicate what the future looks like when publishers are IPv6 only. The dual stack publishing case is an open question that has been discussed between content and access providers. Measurements published by Google indicate a number of users with IPv6 enabled, routes installed, but the connectivity fails. In this situation, from the user's perspective, the site is down, and the user will go to the competitor's site (Still "up", IPv4 only). Followup measurements by other parties (Tore Anderson published some data; I've seen private data by other organizations) confirm the scale of the numbers Google has seen. While content providers will continue to do their own measurements (whether publicly or privately), they won't likely be indicating to the "broken" users what fate they are facing or how to fix it. This is where I hope something like my site can help, in a brand-neutral way. Please review the FAQ; and if you have comments feel free to send them to me. The site will automatically show a survey form if you have results I don't fully understand; if you see it pop up, please fill it out with contact details in case I need to ask more questions. I've seen lots of crazy things so far! Note: This is a side project of mine, not an employer's. As such, resources are limited. Please don't post this to slashdot - I'm not appropriately resourced for it (both for hardware and finances). -- Jason Fesler, email/jabber resume: http://jfesler.com "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." From lubos.pinkava at casablanca.cz Wed May 12 12:34:47 2010 From: lubos.pinkava at casablanca.cz (Lubos Pinkava) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 12:34:47 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] internal additional IPv4 assignment policy In-Reply-To: <09641736-3B1B-4EB7-BF97-189AAD5E89D8@marcoh.net> References: <4BE2BAAD.1040906@casablanca.cz> <3AA585910BE148F99F6CCAB648292D37@mTOSH> <09641736-3B1B-4EB7-BF97-189AAD5E89D8@marcoh.net> Message-ID: <1273660487.27864.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> Hi Marco, what I'm working on is just our internal policy change, I simply wanted to share this idea here and possibly get some feedback. We have agreed on this policy with at least another 2 major czech ISPs, so although loosing customer is of course a possibity, we are not alone. Also we don't want to be rigid in cases of real technical problems (yeah, we all love security boxes vendors) - just to encourage our customers to start moving towards dualstack. With Regards Lubos Pinkava Marco Hogewoning p??e v Ne 09. 05. 2010 v 20:28 +0200: > Hi all, > > Just to make the distinction here, the way I understand the original idea poste by Lubos is to change internal business rules to require customers to have IPv6 deployed before they are being assigned more IPv4 space. > > Now maybe this could work and since it is a business rule there is nothing prohibiting you from doing this. There is however a chance you will loose a customer to one of your competitors because they don't have such a rule. But in pricipal this does not change anything in exisiting assignment and allocation policies. Your network your rules and as an LIR you can always decide to not assign addresses. > > The suggestion being made by Ahmed however does hint about changing the IPv4 assignment policy to require some form of 'IPv6 readiness' before an end-user can get any new or additional assignments, am I right ? The latter case requires the involvement of the folks from the Address Policy WG, so I please be clear which direction this should go. > > Maybe as a first step we can try and work out what the exact requirements for calling somebody 'ipv6 ready' would be. > > Grtx, > > MarcoH > > On 6 mei 2010, at 16:06, Ahmed Abu-Abed wrote: > > > This is a good policy and it should help move customers to IPv6 in an orderly manner. We are having a similar discussion on the IPv6 Forum mailing list. > > > > For validation, other than the Ripeness initiative, there are programs already in place by the IPv6 Forum that validate ISPs and web content owners for v6 readiness. If customers pass the tests they place the logo on their website and get listed on the Forum's IPv6 Enabled list. > > > > I suggest RIPE uses this resource (as well as Ripeness) for validating v6 compliance before issuing v4 address blocks. More at http://www.ipv6forum.com/ipv6_enabled/ > > > > Regards, > > Ahmed Abu-Abed > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > From: "Lubos Pinkava" > > Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 3:48 PM > > To: > > Subject: [Bulk] [ipv6-wg] internal additional IPv4 assignment policy > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> I've raised an idea concerning additional IPv4 assignments for our customers during RIPE60 beering with quite positive responses, so I would like to share it here and maybe get some additional feedback. > >> > >> We are a company running ISP/collocation business, promoting IPv6 since 2003 and already having substantial amount of IPv6 enabled customers. In our point of view, it's still pretty slow growth. > >> > >> What I indend to propose for our operations - active imediately - is this: > >> > >> - all customers requesting additional /25 (variable) shall have IPv6 assigned and asked for trying it (if not already done before) > >> - all customers requesting additional /24 (variable) must already have active v6 services running (eg. NS/MX/web site for the beginning) > >> > >> There were several other ISP's interested, each of course with own specifics - but in general, we have agreed, that this can speed up IPv6 adoption especially in collocation / infastructure area and can still go through company processes. > >> > >> If there are more people interested, we can create some best practice document backing up our work. > >> > >> > >> Any thoughts on this subject? > >> > >> > >> Lubos Pinkava > >> Casablanca INT s.r.o. > > > > -- Lubomir Pinkava CTO / technologicky reditel CASABLANCA INT Vinohradska 184 | Praha 3 | PSC 130 52 Telefon: +420 270 000 218 Email: lubos.pinkava at casablanca.cz | www.casablanca.cz From ahmed at tamkien.com Wed May 12 12:37:18 2010 From: ahmed at tamkien.com (Ahmed Abu-Abed) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 13:37:18 +0300 Subject: [ipv6-wg] test-ipv6.com In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3EB485FE1C0345C391548AB274A302DF@mTOSH> Thanks Jason, I just tried this and got a perfect score on a PC (using Freenet6 tunnel broker client on Win7); this provides much more information than the "show IPv6 host address on a web page" when testing connectivity. The scoring system is quite helpful as it can indicate how far one is from host readiness and ISP, even if there is no IPv6 stack yet on the host, and also does a good job measuring DNS readiness. Now if we can get mobile networks operators and handset vendors work on getting a 10/10 score it will be quite an IPv6 leap ! I got a 7/10 on a Nokia e51 Symbian handset, Opera Mini browser and using Orange Jordan mobile operator with HSPA+. Regards, -Ahmed -------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Fesler" Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 8:07 PM To: Subject: [ipv6-wg] test-ipv6.com > Shane Kerr suggested I post this here; that some of you may find it > useful. > > http://test-ipv6.com or > http://aaaa.test-ipv6.com > > The intent of this site is to help the user what it will mean when > publishers start publishing dual-stack. When it makes sense, the test > will be updated to indicate what the future looks like when publishers are > IPv6 only. > > The dual stack publishing case is an open question that has been discussed > between content and access providers. Measurements published by Google > indicate a number of users with IPv6 enabled, routes installed, but the > connectivity fails. In this situation, from the user's perspective, the > site is down, and the user will go to the competitor's site (Still "up", > IPv4 only). > > Followup measurements by other parties (Tore Anderson published some data; > I've seen private data by other organizations) confirm the scale of the > numbers Google has seen. > > While content providers will continue to do their own measurements > (whether publicly or privately), they won't likely be indicating to the > "broken" users what fate they are facing or how to fix it. This is where > I hope something like my site can help, in a brand-neutral way. > > Please review the FAQ; and if you have comments feel free to send them to > me. The site will automatically show a survey form if you have results I > don't fully understand; if you see it pop up, please fill it out with > contact details in case I need to ask more questions. I've seen lots of > crazy things so far! > > Note: This is a side project of mine, not an employer's. As such, > resources are limited. Please don't post this to slashdot - I'm not > appropriately resourced for it (both for hardware and finances). > > -- > Jason Fesler, email/jabber resume: http://jfesler.com > "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; > set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." > From us at sweet-sorrow.com Wed May 12 12:50:55 2010 From: us at sweet-sorrow.com (Ragnar Belial Us) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 12:50:55 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] test-ipv6.com In-Reply-To: <3EB485FE1C0345C391548AB274A302DF@mTOSH> References: <3EB485FE1C0345C391548AB274A302DF@mTOSH> Message-ID: > > From: "Jason Fesler" > Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 8:07 PM > > To: > Subject: [ipv6-wg] test-ipv6.com > > > Shane Kerr suggested I post this here; that some of you may find it >> useful. >> >> http://test-ipv6.com or >> http://aaaa.test-ipv6.com >> >> The intent of this site is to help the user what it will mean when >> publishers start publishing dual-stack. When it makes sense, the test will >> be updated to indicate what the future looks like when publishers are IPv6 >> only. >> >> The dual stack publishing case is an open question that has been discussed >> between content and access providers. Measurements published by Google >> indicate a number of users with IPv6 enabled, routes installed, but the >> connectivity fails. In this situation, from the user's perspective, the >> site is down, and the user will go to the competitor's site (Still "up", >> IPv4 only). >> >> Followup measurements by other parties (Tore Anderson published some data; >> I've seen private data by other organizations) confirm the scale of the >> numbers Google has seen. >> >> While content providers will continue to do their own measurements >> (whether publicly or privately), they won't likely be indicating to the >> "broken" users what fate they are facing or how to fix it. This is where I >> hope something like my site can help, in a brand-neutral way. >> >> Please review the FAQ; and if you have comments feel free to send them to >> me. The site will automatically show a survey form if you have results I >> don't fully understand; if you see it pop up, please fill it out with >> contact details in case I need to ask more questions. I've seen lots of >> crazy things so far! >> >> Note: This is a side project of mine, not an employer's. As such, >> resources are limited. Please don't post this to slashdot - I'm not >> appropriately resourced for it (both for hardware and finances). >> >> -- >> Jason Fesler, email/jabber resume: http://jfesler.com >> "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; >> set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." >> >> > I have to agree, this is very useful and I thank the people who thought of it... Ragnar Belial Us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dez at otenet.gr Wed May 12 15:04:17 2010 From: dez at otenet.gr (Dez) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 16:04:17 +0300 Subject: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 CPEs Message-ID: <4BEAA751.9010706@otenet.gr> Following up on Marco's very informative presentation about IPv6 CPEs I was wondering if any of the CPEs mentioned, were tested with 2 ppp sessions (a v4 and a v6 one) at the same time. I know we've tried this setup with the ciscos (87x,88x) and I was curious to find out if other CPEs support that (and how easy it is to configure) and if anyone has tried this setup regards, Yannis From marcoh at marcoh.net Wed May 12 15:29:28 2010 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 15:29:28 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 CPEs In-Reply-To: <4BEAA751.9010706@otenet.gr> References: <4BEAA751.9010706@otenet.gr> Message-ID: <78DA6E76-4AEF-49CC-B69B-839E4074AD63@marcoh.net> On May 12, 2010, at 3:04 PM, Dez wrote: > Following up on Marco's very informative presentation about IPv6 CPEs I was wondering if any of the CPEs mentioned, were tested with 2 ppp sessions (a v4 and a v6 one) at the same time. > > I know we've tried this setup with the ciscos (87x,88x) and I was curious to find out if other CPEs support that (and how easy it is to configure) and if anyone has tried this setup Speedtouch is preparing to support it, like I said in my presentation unfortunately they haven't posted a release date. Marco From Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com Fri May 14 10:46:36 2010 From: Jamie.Stallwood at imerja.com (Jamie Stallwood) Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 09:46:36 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] test-ipv6.com References: Message-ID: <7B640CC73C18D94F83479A1D0B9A1404030528FC@bhw-srv-dc1.imerja.com> Hi Jason, I got 10/10 on my dual-stack PC at home :) After enabling RADVD on my network (bridging through my WLAN), my Nokia E52 phone with wifi got 10/10 too. With RADVD enabled, my Vista PC used the autoconfigure address to connect outbound, overriding the static IPv6 address that it had; I had to use netsh to fix this! The same phone on O2 network (UK) got a big fat zero. Kind regards Jamie Stallwood -- Jamie Stallwood Security Specialist Imerja Ltd M: 07795 840385 jamie.stallwood at imerja.com NIC: uk.imerja.JS7259-RIPE -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jason Fesler Sent: 11 May 2010 18:08 To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net Subject: [ipv6-wg] test-ipv6.com Shane Kerr suggested I post this here; that some of you may find it useful. http://test-ipv6.com or http://aaaa.test-ipv6.com The intent of this site is to help the user what it will mean when publishers start publishing dual-stack. When it makes sense, the test will be updated to indicate what the future looks like when publishers are IPv6 only. The dual stack publishing case is an open question that has been discussed between content and access providers. Measurements published by Google indicate a number of users with IPv6 enabled, routes installed, but the connectivity fails. In this situation, from the user's perspective, the site is down, and the user will go to the competitor's site (Still "up", IPv4 only). Followup measurements by other parties (Tore Anderson published some data; I've seen private data by other organizations) confirm the scale of the numbers Google has seen. While content providers will continue to do their own measurements (whether publicly or privately), they won't likely be indicating to the "broken" users what fate they are facing or how to fix it. This is where I hope something like my site can help, in a brand-neutral way. Please review the FAQ; and if you have comments feel free to send them to me. The site will automatically show a survey form if you have results I don't fully understand; if you see it pop up, please fill it out with contact details in case I need to ask more questions. I've seen lots of crazy things so far! Note: This is a side project of mine, not an employer's. As such, resources are limited. Please don't post this to slashdot - I'm not appropriately resourced for it (both for hardware and finances). -- Jason Fesler, email/jabber resume: http://jfesler.com "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." -- Imerja Limited Tel: 0870 8611488 | Fax: 0870 8611489 | 24x7 ISOC: 0870 8611490 | Web: www.imerja.com Registered Office: Paragon House, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG Registered in England and Wales No. 5180119 VAT Registered No. 845 0647 22 ISO Registered Firm No. GB2001527 This email is confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s) you should not use, copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it, since to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by email reply and delete it from your system. E-mail messages are not secure and attachments could contain software viruses which may damage your system. Whilst every reasonable precaution has been taken to minimise this risk, Imerja Limited cannot accept any liability for any damage sustained as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Imerja Limited unless otherwise stated. From shane at time-travellers.org Wed May 19 07:38:18 2010 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 13:38:18 +0800 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Today's xkcd Message-ID: <1274247498.2901.1842.camel@shane-asus-laptop> http://xkcd.com/742/ I think I'm going to have nightmares... -- Shane From andreas.rudel at telecity.com Wed May 19 09:13:03 2010 From: andreas.rudel at telecity.com (andreas.rudel at telecity.com) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 09:13:03 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Today's xkcd In-Reply-To: <1274247498.2901.1842.camel@shane-asus-laptop> References: <1274247498.2901.1842.camel@shane-asus-laptop> Message-ID: To make this work for [ipv6-wg] it should have read fc00::/7 ;) Cheers Andreas -- Andreas R?del - IT Services Specialist TelecityGroup Netherlands B.V. H.J.E. Wenckebachweg 127, Amsterdam, 1096 AM, Netherlands T: +31 (0)20 480 44 10 M: +31 (0)6 57 31 44 88 F: +31 (0)20 480 44 21 www.telecitygroup.nl TelecityGroup - Driving leadership, innovation and environmental responsibility for the data centre industry. ? Early adopter of the EU Code of Conduct for data centres and Member of The Green Grid ? A FTSE techMARK, FTSE4Good and FTSE 250 Index company No binding contract will be made between an employee of TelecityGroup and a third party either verbally or by email, until a written document has been signed on behalf of TelecityGroup. -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Shane Kerr Sent: woensdag 19 mei 2010 7:38 To: ipv6-wg Subject: [ipv6-wg] Today's xkcd http://xkcd.com/742/ I think I'm going to have nightmares... -- Shane From spz at serpens.de Wed May 19 10:50:22 2010 From: spz at serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 10:50:22 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Today's xkcd In-Reply-To: <1274247498.2901.1842.camel@shane-asus-laptop> References: <1274247498.2901.1842.camel@shane-asus-laptop> Message-ID: <20100519085021.GB23124@serpens.de> Thus wrote Shane Kerr (shane at time-travellers.org): > http://xkcd.com/742/ > > I think I'm going to have nightmares... Heh. There is still DECnet Out There (tm), too, you know? ;-) The miracles of "too business-critical to touch" ... regards, spz -- spz at serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler) From joao at bondis.org Wed May 19 11:30:44 2010 From: joao at bondis.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Damas?=) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 11:30:44 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Today's xkcd In-Reply-To: <20100519085021.GB23124@serpens.de> References: <1274247498.2901.1842.camel@shane-asus-laptop> <20100519085021.GB23124@serpens.de> Message-ID: yes, but the scary story that gets told around the campfire is the one about a world of NATs ;) Joao On 19 May 2010, at 10:50, S.P.Zeidler wrote: > Thus wrote Shane Kerr (shane at time-travellers.org): > >> http://xkcd.com/742/ >> >> I think I'm going to have nightmares... > > Heh. There is still DECnet Out There (tm), too, you know? ;-) > The miracles of "too business-critical to touch" ... > > regards, > spz > -- > spz at serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler) > From sesse at google.com Wed May 19 11:30:48 2010 From: sesse at google.com (Steinar H. Gunderson) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 11:30:48 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Today's xkcd In-Reply-To: References: <1274247498.2901.1842.camel@shane-asus-laptop> Message-ID: Den 19. mai 2010 09.13 skrev f?lgende: > To make this work for [ipv6-wg] it should have read fc00::/7 ;) Read the alt-text ;-) /* Steinar */ -- Software Engineer, Google Switzerland From peter at digitalinfrastructures.nl Tue May 25 08:27:33 2010 From: peter at digitalinfrastructures.nl (Peter van Eijk) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 08:27:33 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Address space analysis Message-ID: <001401cafbd3$5d46c230$17d44690$@nl> Hello all, You might be interested in my circleid post: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100524_the_digital_divide_on_ip_addresses/ The version on http://www.petersgriddle.net also has an embedded spreadsheet. Regards Peter van Eijk, +31 6 2268 4939, peter @ digitalinfrastructures.nl From ahmed at tamkien.com Sat May 29 11:41:22 2010 From: ahmed at tamkien.com (Ahmed Abu-Abed) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 12:41:22 +0300 Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> Message-ID: <9EB46152BC884311B26FE99115BB6892@mTOSH> Hi Mirjam, One suggestion, which should increase awareness on the good Ripeness initiative and its importance, is to measure on a country basis the IPv4 rate of consumption, or v4's 'Witherness' , and this can use historical data that RIPE has already. For example, the number v4 addresses being reserved per year on a country basis can be presented over the past 5 year period, and LIRs can use this data to know when v6 readiness has to happen. Regards, -Ahmed -------------------------------------------------- From: "Mirjam Kuehne" Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 6:30 PM To: Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs > Dear colleagues, > > We looked at the "IPv6 ripeness" of all LIRs in the RIPE NCC service > region. This was initially created to adjust our IPv6 training course > depending on the country we are in. However, we felt this might also be > valuable in a bigger context. > > Please find the results and methodology on RIPE Labs: > > http://labs.ripe.net/content/ipv6-ripeness > > We would be interested to hear what you think about this idea in general > and if you have any suggestions on how to modify or improve this. > > Kind Regards, > Mirjam K?hne > RIPE NCC > From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat May 29 11:50:44 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 12:50:44 +0300 Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <9EB46152BC884311B26FE99115BB6892@mTOSH> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> <9EB46152BC884311B26FE99115BB6892@mTOSH> Message-ID: On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Ahmed Abu-Abed wrote: > Hi Mirjam, > > One suggestion, which should increase awareness on the good Ripeness > initiative and its importance, is to measure on a country basis the IPv4 > rate of consumption, or v4's 'Witherness' , and this can use historical data > that RIPE has already. For example, the number v4 addresses being reserved > per year on a country basis can be presented over the past 5 year period, > and LIRs can use this data to know when v6 readiness has to happen. IIRC, there is no "reservation per country" in IPv4 (or v6). It's one pool, not one pool of adddresses per country. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel From fm at st-kilda.org Sat May 29 11:58:32 2010 From: fm at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 10:58:32 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] "IPv6 Ripeness" measurements on RIPE Labs In-Reply-To: <9EB46152BC884311B26FE99115BB6892@mTOSH> References: <4BD85494.60604@ripe.net> <9EB46152BC884311B26FE99115BB6892@mTOSH> Message-ID: <47190287-E91F-48C6-868D-05F6262C45D5@st-kilda.org> Hi On 29 May 2010, at 10:41, Ahmed Abu-Abed wrote: > and LIRs can use this data to know when v6 readiness has to happen. Are you suggesting that v6 readiness doesn't have to happen now ? > For example, the number v4 addresses being reserved per year on a > country basis can be presented over the past 5 year period I am not sure why the per country is relevant - each country will have a mix of ISPs with varying sizes and growth patterns, it does not appear to be a good metric to group data points with. Although I do accept that it may be a good metric in the ITU world:-) Cheers f