From jan at go6.si Tue Apr 3 09:51:54 2012 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:51:54 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 SIM cards at RIPE64 Message-ID: <4F7AAC1A.9030106@go6.si> Dear IPv6 WG :) For those who are attending RIPE64 meeting in Ljubljana: We just got confirmation from Simobil, one of mobile operators that deployed IPv6 in their mobile network, that they will provide 100 SIM cards for RIPE64 attendees. The cards will be pre-provisioned with IPv6 APN and IPv6 traffic for free. Of course, don't misuse them as they might throttle you if they see any abuse or misuse. For those, who will need also to make phone calls and SMS-es or IPv4 traffic, 5EUR vouchers will be available. Official announcement will go out on a general mailing list, just wante to give you heads-up :) So, fellow IPv6-ers, bring your IPv6 capable devices and enjoy the "IPv6 is in the air" feeling during the RIPE64 meeting in Ljubljana. FYI: Nokia phones works, Android 4 phones usually works, etc... See you in less than two weeks, Jan Zorz, Go6.si From jan at go6.si Fri Apr 6 09:07:18 2012 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:07:18 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Preview of the final RIPE-501bis. Message-ID: <4F7E9626.7090801@go6.si> Dear IPv6 WG. After long and exhausting IETF week, where we met with some great experts from the industry and did some sanity checks and corrected some mistakes and misunderstandings in the RIPE-501-replacement document, we are issuing next (9th) version of the draft, that is in our opinion really final one. I mean it. Last one. There was lot's of time, efforts and work put into this document and I think we are done. This replacement document is also meant as a some kind of input or initial template for EU IPv6 profile, so we wanted it to be very solid and accurate. Thanks to all of you involved, you know who you are (you are all in Acknowledgements section ;) ) and thnx to this WG and their co-chairs for support, help and all good comments. We already set the last version to RIPE-NCC for grammar checks and conversion into HTML in order to appear in RIPE Documents section as a draft, but meantime, we are publishing the last version also in PDF in order for you, community, to read it prior to RIPE64 meeting. http://go6.si/docs/Requirements-for-IPv6-in-ICT-equipment-v.9.pdf Please, those of you who are interested and have time, read it and express you r opinions and possible comments. Rumor has it, that we'll have "review" period over the RIPE64 meeting and Last call shortly after that. As this is not an official PDP, we can also propose chairs to change the procedure, if there is any need for that. Track of the progress and different versions of the draft can be found at: http://go6.si/ripe501bis/ Cheers from co-authors: Merike, Sander and Jan From david.kessens at nsn.com Tue Apr 10 07:37:47 2012 From: david.kessens at nsn.com (David Kessens) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 22:37:47 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Preview of the final RIPE-501bis. In-Reply-To: <4F7E9626.7090801@go6.si> References: <4F7E9626.7090801@go6.si> Message-ID: <20120410053747.GC3705@nsn.com> Jan, With all due respect, but you are confusing our working group: On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 09:07:18AM +0200, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > > Please, those of you who are interested and have time, read it and > express you r opinions and possible comments. Rumor has it, that > we'll have "review" period over the RIPE64 meeting and Last call > shortly after that. As this is not an official PDP, we can also > propose chairs to change the procedure, if there is any need for > that. Please do not mix the PDP process and document approval process. These two things have nothing to do with each other. This document is a RIPE document. It is not a RIPE policy and does not need to go through the PDP process. All we need to do to get a RIPE document published is to reach consensus among the (working) group that wishes to publish a document. The ipv6 working group chairs will do a formal Last Call to confirm consensus when we feel the document is ready for publication. There is no magic here: if we hear from a significant number of people (which includes the authors) that we have reached this point and we see that the document has stabilized, we will issue such a Last Call. David Kessens cochair of the ipv6 working group --- From jan at pragma.si Tue Apr 10 09:31:41 2012 From: jan at pragma.si (Jan Zorz) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:31:41 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Preview of the final RIPE-501bis. In-Reply-To: <20120410053747.GC3705@nsn.com> References: <4F7E9626.7090801@go6.si> <20120410053747.GC3705@nsn.com> Message-ID: <4F83E1DD.60000@pragma.si> On 4/10/12 7:37 AM, David Kessens wrote: > > Jan, > > With all due respect, but you are confusing our working group: > > On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 09:07:18AM +0200, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: >> >> Please, those of you who are interested and have time, read it and >> express you r opinions and possible comments. Rumor has it, that >> we'll have "review" period over the RIPE64 meeting and Last call >> shortly after that. As this is not an official PDP, we can also >> propose chairs to change the procedure, if there is any need for >> that. > > Please do not mix the PDP process and document approval process. > > These two things have nothing to do with each other. This document is a RIPE > document. It is not a RIPE policy and does not need to go through the PDP > process. > > All we need to do to get a RIPE document published is to reach consensus > among the (working) group that wishes to publish a document. The ipv6 > working group chairs will do a formal Last Call to confirm consensus when we > feel the document is ready for publication. There is no magic here: if we > hear from a significant number of people (which includes the authors) that > we have reached this point and we see that the document has stabilized, we > will issue such a Last Call. > > David Kessens > cochair of the ipv6 working group > --- > ack. So, if we ask at the WG meeting in Ljubljana if they want it published and community says yes - we publish it? Actually, I think we are done with babysitting the doc :) Cheers, Jan From fgont at si6networks.com Tue Apr 10 14:15:21 2012 From: fgont at si6networks.com (Fernando Gont) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:15:21 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 stable privacy addresses Message-ID: <4F842459.5030409@si6networks.com> Folks, We've posted a revision of our IETF Internet-Draft entitled "A method for Generating Stable Privacy-Enhanced Addresses with IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)". The document is available at: The abstract of the document is: ---- cut here ---- This document specifies a method for generating IPv6 Interface Identifiers to be used with IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC), such that addresses configured using this method are stable within each subnet, but the Interface Identifier changes when hosts move from one network to another. The aforementioned method is meant to be an alternative to generating Interface Identifiers based on IEEE identifiers, such that the benefits of stable addresses can be achieved without sacrificing the privacy of users. ---- cut here ---- Interested in IPv6 security? -- Follow us on Twitter: @SI6Networks Interested in discussing IPv6 security topics? -- Join the ipv6hackers@ mailing-list at: Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont at si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From david.kessens at nsn.com Tue Apr 10 21:11:25 2012 From: david.kessens at nsn.com (David Kessens) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:11:25 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Preview of the final RIPE-501bis. In-Reply-To: <4F83E1DD.60000@pragma.si> References: <4F7E9626.7090801@go6.si> <20120410053747.GC3705@nsn.com> <4F83E1DD.60000@pragma.si> Message-ID: <20120410191125.GG3705@nsn.com> Jan, On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 09:31:41AM +0200, Jan Zorz wrote: > > So, if we ask at the WG meeting in Ljubljana if they want it > published and community says yes - we publish it? Anybody can ask the working group anything, but we as wg chairs would like to issue a formal Last Call on the mailing list to make sure everybody including people not at the meeting have a last chance to see if all comments were implemented correctly and whether there are no serious issues left that need to be addressed. Having said this, I believe we should definitely ask our participants at the meeting whether this document is ready for Last Call and has reached the "good enough" stage. Comments on the mailing list from people who have reviewed the latest version are obviously welcome as well. David Kessens --- From jan at go6.si Wed Apr 11 12:11:05 2012 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:11:05 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Slovenian IPv6 study for government - now available in English language Message-ID: <4F8558B9.1070900@go6.si> Dear @IPv6 WG Long time promised Slo IPv6 study, done for our government in 2010 is now available in English language. The authors did a revision and added few changes just in order to make document more "current". All in all, many things that we wrote is 2010 still holds. You can download the PDF from following page: http://go6.si/en/2012/04/slovenian-ipv6-study-english-version/ In the doc there are 11 key questions from governmental point of view and many answers to them. Hope that this work can help some governments in their way towards IPv6. See you all in few days, Jan Zorz Go6 Institute. From fgont at si6networks.com Mon Apr 16 14:36:38 2012 From: fgont at si6networks.com (Fernando Gont) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:36:38 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Slides for "Recent Advances in IPv6 Security" at Hackito Ergo Sum 2012 Message-ID: <4F8C1256.4090804@si6networks.com> Folks, The slides for my presentation entitled "Recent Advances in IPv6 Security" at Hackito Ergo Sum 2012 (http://2012.hackitoergosum.org/) are available at: The same slides are available in other formats at: Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont at si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From shane at isc.org Wed Apr 18 10:21:16 2012 From: shane at isc.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:21:16 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Fw: WG Review: sunset4 (sunset4) Message-ID: <20120418102116.201c5757@shane-eeepc.home.time-travellers.org> All, FYI, the IETF may be starting some (more) work of interest to IPv6 folks. Perhaps this will inspire us to change the IPv6 working group to the IPv4 CGN/NAT working group. ;) Cheers, -- Shane Begin forwarded message: Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:41:57 -0700 From: IESG Secretary To: IETF Announcement List Subject: WG Review: sunset4 (sunset4) A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Internet Area. The IESG has not made any determination as yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by Tuesday, April 24, 2012. sunset4 (sunset4) ----------------------------------------- Status: Proposed Working Group Last Updated: 2012-04-13 Chairs: TBD Internet Area Directors: Ralph Droms Brian Haberman Internet Area Advisor: Area Advisors: OPS: TSV: RTG: Mailing Lists: Description of Working Group: The IETF is committed to the deployment of IPv6 to ensure the evolution of the Internet. However, the IPv4-only components of the Internet must continue to operate as much as possible during the transition from IPv4 to IPv6. The Working Group will standardize technologies that facilitate the graceful sunsetting of the IPv4 Internet in the context of the exhaustion of IPv4 address space while IPv6 is deployed. These technologies will likely be less optimal than equivalent technologies for IPv6-only and dual-stack networks. The Working Group works only on IPv4 protocols to facilitate IPv4 sunsetting. The Working Group may work on fixing security bugs in existing IPv4-specific protocols but is not chartered to add new security functionality to those protocols. The working group will provide a single venue for the consideration of IPv4 sunsetting, while ensuring that any such technologies do not impede the deployment of IPv6 and do not duplicate functions and capabilities already available in existing technologies. Therefore, along the lines of draft-george-ipv6-support, before the working group adopts any technology, it must: 1) describe the problem to be solved and show that there is widespread demand for a solution 2) demonstrate that the problem can not be solved with existing technologies 3) provide a description of the proposed solution along with the impact on current IPv4-only use and its ability to promote the deployment of IPv6 These steps will likely be described in the form of a use case and requirements document. Only after the above mentioned steps have been completed and the results accepted by the community will the IETF consider adding new work items to the Working Group charter. This new work may include protocol specifications. The work spans over multiple IETF areas including as Internet, Operations, Transport and Routing. Therefore, cross-area coordination and support is essential and required. Any work on IPv4 to IPv6 transition methods is out of scope. The initial work items are: * Review current CGN documents, including requirements for standardization, and determine is CGN is a suitable sunsetting technology to become a work item * Gap analysis of IPv4 features to facilitate IPv4 sunsetting Milestones 2012-09 Complete review of CGN and, if necessary, propose CGN work items 2013-06 Send gap analysis on IPv4 sunsetting to IESG From marcoh at marcoh.net Wed Apr 18 21:26:52 2012 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:26:52 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] RIPE 64 Working Group session Message-ID: Hi all, This is to remind you that the IPv6 Working Group will meet here in Ljubljana, tomorrow Thursday the 19th. We have 2 sessions, starting at 11:00 after the first coffee break in the main room. With a lunch break in between we continue at 14:00 in the same room for the second half. The agenda is posted to the website and available via https://ripe64.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ipv6-wg/ We hope to see you all there. In case you couldn't make it to Slovenia, as always these sessions will be broadcasted and recorded for the archives. For remote participants feedback channels using IRC/Jabber will be available. More information can be found on the RIPE 64 meeting website, the stream is available via https://ripe64.ripe.net/live/ (Grant Union Hall). In case you want to join remote, Slovenian local time is UTC +0200. See you tomorrow, Marco, David and Shane From david.kessens at nsn.com Fri Apr 20 12:00:08 2012 From: david.kessens at nsn.com (David Kessens) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 03:00:08 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Last Call for publication of RIPE-501bis (reply by 20120426) Message-ID: <20120420100008.GC2059@nsn.com> In the IPv6 working session at the RIPE meeting in Slovenia, we discussed: http://go6.si/docs/Requirements-for-IPv6-in-ICT-equipment-v.9.pdf The meeting participants felt that the document is now ready for publication. Therefore, I would like to give everybody a final chance to bring up major issues that must be resolved before publication. Please comment by Thu 20120426 if you have major issues that require a delay in publication. We will ask the RIPE NCC to publish the document after the Last Call ends if no serious issues are uncovered by that date. The RIPE NCC will do an editorial pass for spelling, grammar and minor issues before it will publish the document. Feel free to contact the working group chairs directly if you find anything minor that doesn't need working group review and we will make sure that it gets fixed in the final document. Thanks, David, Shane & Marco --- From pk at DENIC.DE Thu Apr 26 15:04:40 2012 From: pk at DENIC.DE (Peter Koch) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:04:40 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Last Call for publication of RIPE-501bis (reply by 20120426) In-Reply-To: <20120420100008.GC2059@nsn.com> References: <20120420100008.GC2059@nsn.com> Message-ID: <20120426130440.GB441@x27.adm.denic.de> > http://go6.si/docs/Requirements-for-IPv6-in-ICT-equipment-v.9.pdf really good and comprehensive list. Two remarks, the weight of which to be determined by the authors: 1) I'm missing RFCs 2671 and 3226 ("Do support EDNS0 and do it right") in the list of requirements for mobile nodes. RFC 3596 is present, though. Usually the former are mandatory but I have no idea what special size considerations might have applied here. 2) Since all other devices are required to support EDNS0 with "large enough" payloads, the requirements list for CPEs should probably contain RFC 5625, so the CPEs do not get in the way of all those compliant gear on both sides. -Peter