From training at ripe.net Mon Oct 8 11:33:20 2012 From: training at ripe.net (Training Mailbox) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 11:33:20 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] RIPE NCC Webinars - new dates Message-ID: <50729DE0.2030208@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce the launch of new dates for our Webinars for LIRs. The RIPE NCC Webinars are live, one hour online training courses that allow participants to interact with our trainers without leaving their desks. We focus on the topics and issues most important for LIRs. Register now at https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/e-learning/webinars Participation is limited to 20 people, so don't hesitate if you want to take part! If you have questions, please email. We look forward to seeing you online. Kind regards, RIPE NCC Training Services From mir at ripe.net Thu Oct 11 10:33:32 2012 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:33:32 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] New on RIPE Labs: RIPE Atlas - A Case Study of AAAA Filtering In-Reply-To: <50768445.5000106@ripe.net> References: <50768445.5000106@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5076845C.8060206@ripe.net> [apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, Following up on a question raised during RIPE 65, we used RIPE Atlas to see if we can detect significant filtering of AAAA DNS queries or replies. Please read our findings on RIPE Labs: RIPE Atlas - A Case Study of AAAA Filtering https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/ripe-atlas-case-study-of-aaaa-filtering Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From mir at ripe.net Fri Oct 12 14:23:44 2012 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:23:44 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Number of New LIRs and their IPv6 RIPEness Message-ID: <50780BD0.600@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, In Q3 2012, we observed an increase in the number of new LIRs in the RIPE NCC service region. Many of these new LIRs show 1-star IPv6 RIPEness. Read more on RIPE Labs: Number of New LIRs and their IPv6 RIPEness https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/new-lirs-and-their-ipv6-ripeness Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From ahmed at tamkien.com Tue Oct 16 13:16:33 2012 From: ahmed at tamkien.com (Ahmed Abu-Abed) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:16:33 +0300 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Soft v6CPE In-Reply-To: <50630593.5060004@ripe.net> References: <50630593.5060004@ripe.net> Message-ID: <9BE55B7388AB4C628AE414B9CC2981A0@ARAVAIO> Hello everyone, Should RIPE include Soft v6CPE in their IPv6 CPE survey ? These are basically low-cost software solutions that enable an end user to get IPv6 global connectivity from their SP's own IPv6 address block and service, but works over existing IPv4 access infrastructure and existing v4 only CPEs. Soft v6CPEs use a 'short distance' tunneling solution which is terminated at the SP premise. Similar to 6RD but doesn't require a hardware CPE, and helps in rapidly spreading v6 connectivity. The Soft v6CPE solution I have seen on PCs has a simple plug and play installation and free cost. Note that the SP has to be IPv6 ready at the core with global connectivity and install an v6 tunnel server for the solution to work; then they can issue global v6 address blocks from their allocation to customers. Regards, -Ahmed From alh-ietf at tndh.net Wed Oct 17 19:36:22 2012 From: alh-ietf at tndh.net (Tony Hain) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:36:22 -0700 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Soft v6CPE In-Reply-To: <9BE55B7388AB4C628AE414B9CC2981A0@ARAVAIO> References: <50630593.5060004@ripe.net> <9BE55B7388AB4C628AE414B9CC2981A0@ARAVAIO> Message-ID: <01d601cdac8d$ecfe08d0$c6fa1a70$@tndh.net> Arguably this is the same deployment model as PPP over voice tunneling used 15+ years ago. The fact that the customer edge moves faster than the access network is independent of the actual technologies in use. The definition of "cpe" has always been fluid, and encompasses just about anything that could be at the consumer end of the access link. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On > Behalf Of Ahmed Abu-Abed > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:17 AM > To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [ipv6-wg] Soft v6CPE > > Hello everyone, > > Should RIPE include Soft v6CPE in their IPv6 CPE survey ? > > These are basically low-cost software solutions that enable an end user to > get IPv6 global connectivity from their SP's own IPv6 address block and > service, but works over existing IPv4 access infrastructure and existing v4 > only CPEs. > > Soft v6CPEs use a 'short distance' tunneling solution which is terminated at > the SP premise. Similar to 6RD but doesn't require a hardware CPE, and helps > in rapidly spreading v6 connectivity. > > The Soft v6CPE solution I have seen on PCs has a simple plug and play > installation and free cost. Note that the SP has to be IPv6 ready at the core > with global connectivity and install an v6 tunnel server for the solution to > work; then they can issue global v6 address blocks from their allocation to > customers. > > Regards, > -Ahmed From tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk Wed Oct 17 21:27:18 2012 From: tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:27:18 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Soft v6CPE In-Reply-To: <01d601cdac8d$ecfe08d0$c6fa1a70$@tndh.net> References: <50630593.5060004@ripe.net> <9BE55B7388AB4C628AE414B9CC2981A0@ARAVAIO> <01d601cdac8d$ecfe08d0$c6fa1a70$@tndh.net> <723BF7DB-FA09-45B0-9B97-D1DAA2CAA741@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Message-ID: Well, I think what Ahmed is describing is essentially a tunnel broker. There aren't a lot of broker providers out there still, beyond sixxs and HE, or are there? Tim On 17 Oct 2012, at 18:36, "Tony Hain" wrote: > Arguably this is the same deployment model as PPP over voice tunneling used > 15+ years ago. The fact that the customer edge moves faster than the access > network is independent of the actual technologies in use. The definition of > "cpe" has always been fluid, and encompasses just about anything that could > be at the consumer end of the access link. > > Tony > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On >> Behalf Of Ahmed Abu-Abed >> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:17 AM >> To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net >> Subject: [ipv6-wg] Soft v6CPE >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> Should RIPE include Soft v6CPE in their IPv6 CPE survey ? >> >> These are basically low-cost software solutions that enable an end user to >> get IPv6 global connectivity from their SP's own IPv6 address block and >> service, but works over existing IPv4 access infrastructure and existing > v4 >> only CPEs. >> >> Soft v6CPEs use a 'short distance' tunneling solution which is terminated > at >> the SP premise. Similar to 6RD but doesn't require a hardware CPE, and > helps >> in rapidly spreading v6 connectivity. >> >> The Soft v6CPE solution I have seen on PCs has a simple plug and play >> installation and free cost. Note that the SP has to be IPv6 ready at the > core >> with global connectivity and install an v6 tunnel server for the solution > to >> work; then they can issue global v6 address blocks from their allocation > to >> customers. >> >> Regards, >> -Ahmed > > > From ahmed at tamkien.com Wed Oct 17 23:45:58 2012 From: ahmed at tamkien.com (Ahmed Abu-Abed) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:45:58 +0300 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Soft v6CPE In-Reply-To: References: <50630593.5060004@ripe.net> <9BE55B7388AB4C628AE414B9CC2981A0@ARAVAIO> <01d601cdac8d$ecfe08d0$c6fa1a70$@tndh.net> <723BF7DB-FA09-45B0-9B97-D1DAA2CAA741@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Message-ID: <9B2D960BEB83424D876686286F2E457C@ARAVAIO> It?s a tunnel broker server device (and not a pure service like HE or sixxs) hosted at the SP and terminated at the consumer, so it uses the SP resources like v6 addr block, etc. The tunnel broker server is a commercial product, while the Soft v6CPE is free. Both run on TSP protocol, RFC 5572, so it can traverse NATs easily. DS-Lite is also supported on both ends. For a demo of the above checkout the Freenet6 service, it uses the same gear and soft CPE. -Ahmed -----Original Message----- From: Tim Chown Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 10:27 PM To: Tony Hain Cc: 'Ahmed Abu-Abed' ; ipv6-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Soft v6CPE Well, I think what Ahmed is describing is essentially a tunnel broker. There aren't a lot of broker providers out there still, beyond sixxs and HE, or are there? Tim On 17 Oct 2012, at 18:36, "Tony Hain" wrote: > Arguably this is the same deployment model as PPP over voice tunneling > used > 15+ years ago. The fact that the customer edge moves faster than the > access > network is independent of the actual technologies in use. The definition > of > "cpe" has always been fluid, and encompasses just about anything that > could > be at the consumer end of the access link. > > Tony > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On >> Behalf Of Ahmed Abu-Abed >> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:17 AM >> To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net >> Subject: [ipv6-wg] Soft v6CPE >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> Should RIPE include Soft v6CPE in their IPv6 CPE survey ? >> >> These are basically low-cost software solutions that enable an end user >> to >> get IPv6 global connectivity from their SP's own IPv6 address block and >> service, but works over existing IPv4 access infrastructure and existing > v4 >> only CPEs. >> >> Soft v6CPEs use a 'short distance' tunneling solution which is terminated > at >> the SP premise. Similar to 6RD but doesn't require a hardware CPE, and > helps >> in rapidly spreading v6 connectivity. >> >> The Soft v6CPE solution I have seen on PCs has a simple plug and play >> installation and free cost. Note that the SP has to be IPv6 ready at the > core >> with global connectivity and install an v6 tunnel server for the solution > to >> work; then they can issue global v6 address blocks from their allocation > to >> customers. >> >> Regards, >> -Ahmed > > > From aprado at topnet.it Sun Oct 21 12:21:07 2012 From: aprado at topnet.it (Antonio Prado) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:21:07 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] route6: 2A00::/12 In-Reply-To: <995988419.1420427.1350763118928.JavaMail.root@merit.edu> References: <995988419.1420427.1350763118928.JavaMail.root@merit.edu> Message-ID: <5083CC93.1070002@topnet.it> [cross-posted to ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Il 20/10/12 21:58, Manish Karir ha scritto: > > Hi Antonio, > > Yes. Merit is in the process of running a large IPv6 darknet experiment. Our goal is to announce every allocated /12 (1 from each RIR) first sequentially and then together. We conducted a 1hr test announcement on wed and to the best of knowledge we did not break anything. > These announcements will each last 1 week each starting Nov 1. > Your more specific announcements in BGP should still get all your data correctly routed to you. However if you have noticed any strange behavior please let us know. > > Thanks. > -manish Manish, thanks for your kind reply. Maybe I missed some announcement e-mail here. Is there any document to read about that "large IPv6 darknet experiment" you at Merit are going to run in accordance also with RIPE NCC? (I'm aware of what Geoff Juston made at APINIC in June 2010 with 2400::/12 https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/background-radiation-in-ipv6) I was wondering if any consensus is needed before starting such a big thing that involves IPv6 production networks as well. I mean: when my route6 is not announced via BGP, it's supposed that every packet sent to it doesn't get anywhere, hopefully. OTOH, if during this experiment, for any reason (wanted or not), my prefix is no more announced, I'm afraid the /12 would attract (perhaps hijack?) those packets (actually breaking, I believe, any existent ROA for the prefix). So, just asking: what kind of packets are going to be collected and how stored, analysed and by whom? Thank you -- antonio > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Antonio Prado > To: ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de > Cc: mkarir at merit.edu > Sent: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:09:23 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: route6: 2A00::/12 > > Hello, > > just saw a new entry in RADB for 2A00::/12 and was wondering if could be > a fat-finger issue as our IPv6 prefix (a /29) actually belongs to that /12. > > route6: 2A00::/12 > descr: MERIT Network Inc. > 1000 Oakbrook Drive, Suite 200 > Ann Arbor > MI 48104, USA > origin: AS237 > mnt-by: MAINT-AS237 > remarks: This announcement is part of an RIPE approved > experiment. For additional information please > send email to mkarir at merit.edu > source: RADB > changed: ljb at merit.edu 20121017 > > Anyone aware of this experiment? > > Thank you > -- > antonio > From ripe-ml-2012 at ssd.axu.tm Mon Oct 22 09:19:35 2012 From: ripe-ml-2012 at ssd.axu.tm (Aleksi Suhonen) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:19:35 +0300 Subject: [ipv6-wg] 6a44 Message-ID: <5084F387.6090609@ssd.axu.tm> Hi, A new RFC (RFC6751) defines a new transition technology called 6a44 that (re)uses 192.88.99.0/24. As an operator of a 6to4 relay router, I'm looking for implementations of 6a44. A google search yielded nothing, so I wonder if anyone here has heard of any implementations in progress? -- Aleksi Suhonen / TREX From mkarir at merit.edu Sun Oct 21 18:17:35 2012 From: mkarir at merit.edu (Manish Karir) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:17:35 -0400 Subject: [ipv6-wg] route6: 2A00::/12 In-Reply-To: <5083CC93.1070002@topnet.it> References: <995988419.1420427.1350763118928.JavaMail.root@merit.edu> <5083CC93.1070002@topnet.it> Message-ID: Hi Antonio, Here is some related material: Internet Pollution Studies in IPv4: - 1/8 Pollution NANOG Presentation: http://www.merit.edu/research/pdf/2010/karir_1slash8.pdf - Follow on: NANOG Presentation: http://www.merit.edu/research/pdf/2011/Internet-Pollution-Part2.pdf - IMC Paper on Internet Pollution: http://www.merit.edu/research/pdf/2010/imc10-wustrow.pdf A recent workshop on the topic: http://www.caida.org/workshops/dust/1205/ Internet Pollution in IPv6: - Geoff Hustons work on IPv6 darknets: http://www.caida.org/workshops/dust/1205/slides/dust1205_ghuston.pdf - Details of APNICs experiment with announcing their IPv6 cover /12 route as well as analysis of results: http://www.caida.org/workshops/dust/1205/slides/dust1205_cdeccio.pdf This particular effort is an attempt to replicate the work performed by Geoff Huston at APNIC for different regions in order to understand any regional variations that might exist. In general we collect all un-wanted traffic in the darknet of our experiment. Our general experiment architecture is shown here: http://software.merit.edu/darknet Results from our analysis are presented back into the Internet operations community along with any recommendations that might emerge. Data collected is shared with researchers at the RIRs for their own analysis. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Thanks. -manish On Oct 21, 2012, at 6:21 AM, Antonio Prado wrote: > [cross-posted to ipv6-wg at ripe.net] > > Il 20/10/12 21:58, Manish Karir ha scritto: >> >> Hi Antonio, >> >> Yes. Merit is in the process of running a large IPv6 darknet experiment. Our goal is to announce every allocated /12 (1 from each RIR) first sequentially and then together. We conducted a 1hr test announcement on wed and to the best of knowledge we did not break anything. >> These announcements will each last 1 week each starting Nov 1. >> Your more specific announcements in BGP should still get all your data correctly routed to you. However if you have noticed any strange behavior please let us know. >> >> Thanks. >> -manish > > > Manish, > > thanks for your kind reply. > > Maybe I missed some announcement e-mail here. > Is there any document to read about that "large IPv6 darknet experiment" > you at Merit are going to run in accordance also with RIPE NCC? > (I'm aware of what Geoff Juston made at APINIC in June 2010 with > 2400::/12 https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/background-radiation-in-ipv6) > > I was wondering if any consensus is needed before starting such a big > thing that involves IPv6 production networks as well. > > I mean: when my route6 is not announced via BGP, it's supposed that > every packet sent to it doesn't get anywhere, hopefully. OTOH, if during > this experiment, for any reason (wanted or not), my prefix is no more > announced, I'm afraid the /12 would attract (perhaps hijack?) those > packets (actually breaking, I believe, any existent ROA for the prefix). > > So, just asking: what kind of packets are going to be collected and how > stored, analysed and by whom? > > > Thank you > -- > antonio > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Antonio Prado >> To: ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de >> Cc: mkarir at merit.edu >> Sent: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:09:23 -0400 (EDT) >> Subject: route6: 2A00::/12 >> >> Hello, >> >> just saw a new entry in RADB for 2A00::/12 and was wondering if could be >> a fat-finger issue as our IPv6 prefix (a /29) actually belongs to that /12. >> >> route6: 2A00::/12 >> descr: MERIT Network Inc. >> 1000 Oakbrook Drive, Suite 200 >> Ann Arbor >> MI 48104, USA >> origin: AS237 >> mnt-by: MAINT-AS237 >> remarks: This announcement is part of an RIPE approved >> experiment. For additional information please >> send email to mkarir at merit.edu >> source: RADB >> changed: ljb at merit.edu 20121017 >> >> Anyone aware of this experiment? >> >> Thank you >> -- >> antonio >> > From evyncke at cisco.com Mon Oct 22 17:47:25 2012 From: evyncke at cisco.com (Eric Vyncke (evyncke)) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:47:25 +0000 Subject: [ipv6-wg] 6a44 In-Reply-To: <5084F387.6090609@ssd.axu.tm> References: <5084F387.6090609@ssd.axu.tm> Message-ID: <97EB7536A2B2C549846804BBF3FD47E11189B743@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> When I see a status 'experimental', I would be reluctant to put it in production ;-) -?ric > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of > Aleksi Suhonen > Sent: lundi 22 octobre 2012 09:20 > To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [ipv6-wg] 6a44 > > Hi, > > A new RFC (RFC6751) defines a new transition technology called 6a44 that > (re)uses 192.88.99.0/24. As an operator of a 6to4 relay router, I'm looking > for implementations of 6a44. A google search yielded nothing, so I wonder if > anyone here has heard of any implementations in progress? > > > -- > Aleksi Suhonen / TREX From joao at bondis.org Thu Oct 25 20:42:26 2012 From: joao at bondis.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Damas?=) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:42:26 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] This may be of interest to this wg Message-ID: It's a simple petition to request IPv6 support for Skype. I am not going to argue about the effectiveness of the approach, each person can do that. http://www.change.org/petitions/skype-add-ipv6-support-to-skype Joao From jan at go6.si Fri Oct 26 14:44:48 2012 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:44:48 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] route6: 2A00::/12 In-Reply-To: <5083CC93.1070002@topnet.it> References: <995988419.1420427.1350763118928.JavaMail.root@merit.edu> <5083CC93.1070002@topnet.it> Message-ID: <508A85C0.6050007@go6.si> On 10/21/12 12:21 PM, Antonio Prado wrote: > I mean: when my route6 is not announced via BGP, it's supposed that > every packet sent to it doesn't get anywhere, hopefully. Sure? In majority of cases it would go where default route is pointing :) Usually people accept default route at least from one upstream. You would be surprised, what percentage of IPv4 Internet (I suspect in IPv6 there is similar picture) runs on default routing - Randy did that experiment and can tell you the numbers ;) Cheers, Jan From training at ripe.net Mon Oct 29 11:03:19 2012 From: training at ripe.net (Training Mailbox) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:03:19 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] RIPE NCC Webinars - new dates In-Reply-To: <50729DE0.2030208@ripe.net> References: <50729DE0.2030208@ripe.net> Message-ID: <508E5467.20100@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate e-mails] Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce the launch of new dates for our Webinars for LIRs. The RIPE NCC Webinars are live, one hour online training courses that allow participants to interact with our trainers without leaving their desks. We focus on the topics and issues most important for LIRs. Register now at https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/e-learning/webinars Participation is limited to 20 people, so don't hesitate if you want to take part! If you have questions, please email . We look forward to seeing you online. Kind regards, RIPE NCC Training Services From mir at ripe.net Mon Oct 29 13:36:00 2012 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:36:00 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Counting IPv6 in the DNS In-Reply-To: <508E781B.1060407@ripe.net> References: <508E781B.1060407@ripe.net> Message-ID: <508E7830.3060005@ripe.net> [apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, Geoff Huston gave an interesting presenting at the recent NANOG meeting showing another way to measure IPv6 deployment. This time he looked at the DNS. His findings are now published on RIPE Labs: "Counting IPv6 in the DNS" https://labs.ripe.net/Members/gih/counting-ipv6-in-the-dns Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From aprado at topnet.it Tue Oct 30 08:54:09 2012 From: aprado at topnet.it (Antonio Prado) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:54:09 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] route6: 2A00::/12 In-Reply-To: <508A85C0.6050007@go6.si> References: <995988419.1420427.1350763118928.JavaMail.root@merit.edu> <5083CC93.1070002@topnet.it> <508A85C0.6050007@go6.si> Message-ID: <508F87A1.1030909@topnet.it> Hi Jan, On 10/26/12 2:44 PM, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > Sure? In majority of cases it would go where default route is pointing :) Anyway, it shouldn't :) > Usually people accept default route at least from one upstream. You > would be surprised, what percentage of IPv4 Internet (I suspect in IPv6 > there is similar picture) runs on default routing - Randy did that > experiment and can tell you the numbers ;) I remember those slides: unfortunately the percentage is high, but it's not how DFZ is supposed to be, v4 or v6. Back to the topic, I see that no one else cares for what traffic this experiment is going to attract, if it's just noise or legitimate packets. Thanks -- antonio From ipepelnjak at gmail.com Tue Oct 30 13:44:41 2012 From: ipepelnjak at gmail.com (Ivan Pepelnjak) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:44:41 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] route6: 2A00::/12 In-Reply-To: <508F87A1.1030909@topnet.it> References: <995988419.1420427.1350763118928.JavaMail.root@merit.edu> <5083CC93.1070002@topnet.it> <508A85C0.6050007@go6.si> <508F87A1.1030909@topnet.it> Message-ID: <00e501cdb69c$55f33cd0$01d9b670$@com> The way I understand how Internet works today, the "legitimate packets" would be either TCP SYN packets or DNS queries. What am I missing? Ivan > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf > Of Antonio Prado > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 8:54 AM > To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net > Cc: Jan Zorz @ go6.si > Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] route6: 2A00::/12 > > Hi Jan, > > On 10/26/12 2:44 PM, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > > Sure? In majority of cases it would go where default route is pointing > > :) > > Anyway, it shouldn't :) > > > Usually people accept default route at least from one upstream. You > > would be surprised, what percentage of IPv4 Internet (I suspect in > > IPv6 there is similar picture) runs on default routing - Randy did > > that experiment and can tell you the numbers ;) > > I remember those slides: unfortunately the percentage is high, but it's > not how DFZ is supposed to be, v4 or v6. > > Back to the topic, I see that no one else cares for what traffic this > experiment is going to attract, if it's just noise or legitimate packets. > > Thanks > -- > antonio > From jan at go6.si Tue Oct 30 15:17:24 2012 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:17:24 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] route6: 2A00::/12 In-Reply-To: <508F87A1.1030909@topnet.it> References: <995988419.1420427.1350763118928.JavaMail.root@merit.edu> <5083CC93.1070002@topnet.it> <508A85C0.6050007@go6.si> <508F87A1.1030909@topnet.it> Message-ID: <508FE174.60407@go6.si> On 10/30/12 8:54 AM, Antonio Prado wrote: > Hi Jan, > > On 10/26/12 2:44 PM, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: >> Sure? In majority of cases it would go where default route is pointing :) > > Anyway, it shouldn't :) In theory there is no difference between theory and reality. In reality, there is :) > >> Usually people accept default route at least from one upstream. You >> would be surprised, what percentage of IPv4 Internet (I suspect in IPv6 >> there is similar picture) runs on default routing - Randy did that >> experiment and can tell you the numbers ;) > > I remember those slides: unfortunately the percentage is high, but it's > not how DFZ is supposed to be, v4 or v6. Supposed to be. Agree :) Any idea how to solve that "routing misbehavior"? > > Back to the topic, I see that no one else cares for what traffic this > experiment is going to attract, if it's just noise or legitimate packets. I think this discussion was well in the topic as this issue can have considerable impact on the result of the experiment. Actually, this can drive the results in any direction. Cheers, Jan From jan at go6.si Tue Oct 30 15:19:30 2012 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:19:30 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] route6: 2A00::/12 In-Reply-To: <00e501cdb69c$55f33cd0$01d9b670$@com> References: <995988419.1420427.1350763118928.JavaMail.root@merit.edu> <5083CC93.1070002@topnet.it> <508A85C0.6050007@go6.si> <508F87A1.1030909@topnet.it> <00e501cdb69c$55f33cd0$01d9b670$@com> Message-ID: <508FE1F2.8020109@go6.si> On 10/30/12 1:44 PM, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote: > The way I understand how Internet works today, the "legitimate > packets" would be either TCP SYN packets or DNS queries. > > What am I missing? Legitimate packets are all packets with clearly marked protocol version in the header and at least source and destination address and a remaining header structure that fits the specification :) Cheers, Jan From matjaz at go6.si Tue Oct 30 15:44:03 2012 From: matjaz at go6.si (=?utf-8?Q?Matja=C5=BE_Straus_Isteni=C4=8D?=) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:44:03 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] route6: 2A00::/12 In-Reply-To: <508FE1F2.8020109@go6.si> References: <995988419.1420427.1350763118928.JavaMail.root@merit.edu> <5083CC93.1070002@topnet.it> <508A85C0.6050007@go6.si> <508F87A1.1030909@topnet.it> <00e501cdb69c$55f33cd0$01d9b670$@com> <508FE1F2.8020109@go6.si> Message-ID: <624EBBC0-A047-4AD5-9D34-9EADA7244308@go6.si> On 30. okt. 2012, at 15:19, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > On 10/30/12 1:44 PM, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote: >> The way I understand how Internet works today, the "legitimate >> packets" would be either TCP SYN packets or DNS queries. >> >> What am I missing? > > Legitimate packets are all packets with clearly marked protocol version in the header and at least source and destination address and a remaining header structure that fits the specific > ation :) > > Cheers, Jan Hi Jan, I think Ivan was referring to the great majority of the "legitimate packets" nowadays, which would probably need only two bits for the destination port ;-) > Cheers, Matja?