From marcoh at marcoh.net Mon Nov 3 10:20:06 2014 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 10:20:06 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] RIPE 69: Test your gear and software without IPv4! Message-ID: Hello and welcome to London, This message probably only has relevance if you are visiting the RIPE 69 Meeting, But feel free to continue reading even when you are not. As you are setting up wireless you may have noticed a network called ?IPV6ONLYEXP?. This network is once again setup so you can see if your applications hold up in an environment that only provides you with an IPv6 address. The password is in the bottom of this email. Please note: This network is provided as-is and on a BEST EFFORT basis, the RIPE NCC will NOT PROVIDE SUPPORT. Of course the main functionality will be monitored and acted upon when things go wrong, but ops will be unable to help you with devices or software configuration and/or troubleshooting. The network has a NAT64 gateway attached, which means that you should be able to connect to the whole Internet, even when the service does not support IPv6 yet. This also means that some applications will be confused and complain there is no connectivity, even when there is. This is exactly why we have this setup running, you can find out for yourself what works and what doesn?t. If you find an issue, please feel free to share it on this list. Even more important however, please also file a bug report or send a notification to the creators, so they are aware and hopefully can make it work in the next release. Of course, since we have done this before, we have a few know problems: - For NAT64 to work you must make use of the resolvers as advertised by the network, these are patched to do the translations - A wide variety of Android devices will not be able to pick up the advertised DNS servers and while connected, will fail to work properly - Skype does not work! - A number of IOS apps will complain there is no network, while they actually do work, please try what happens if you ignore those pop-ups So good luck and enjoy the meeting. If you do have questions or want to chat about it, please use this list or find me or Andrew Yourtchenko on site. I would like to thank RIPE NCC, especially Menno, Razvan and Marco v T for helping out and making this possible. The password is ?iknowbesteffort?, this is different from the main meeting password :) See you in a bit in London, Marco Hogewoning From ebais at a2b-internet.com Sat Nov 8 17:00:35 2014 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 17:00:35 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] FW: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) Message-ID: <002601cffb6d$2647cb00$72d76100$@a2b-internet.com> Hi, This email is to inform the people who are subscribed on the IPv6 WG list but not on the Address Policy WG list. There is a policy proposal currently in discussion phase to Allow IPv6 Transfers. > You can find the full proposal at: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-12 > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 28 November 2014. Regards, Erik Bais -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: policy-announce-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:policy-announce-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Marco Schmidt Verzonden: donderdag 30 oktober 2014 13:43 Aan: policy-announce at ripe.net CC: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Onderwerp: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) Dear colleagues, A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-589, "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-12 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to before 28 November 2014. Regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Mon Nov 10 09:43:36 2014 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian Feurdean) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 09:43:36 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] FW: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) In-Reply-To: <002601cffb6d$2647cb00$72d76100$@a2b-internet.com> References: <002601cffb6d$2647cb00$72d76100$@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: <1415609016.607745.189058317.21AA6512@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Sat, Nov 8, 2014, at 17:00, Erik Bais wrote: > There is a policy proposal currently in discussion phase to Allow IPv6 > Transfers. > > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 November 2014. Hello, In order to get to the end of the logic (and also be a bit more in-line with the rationale of 2014-04), Shouldn't we also review the paragraph 7.1 ("IPv6 PI Assignments for LIRs") ? Or should this be done in a separate proposal ? From training at ripe.net Mon Nov 10 08:14:18 2014 From: training at ripe.net (Training Services) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 08:14:18 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] [training] RIPE NCC Training Courses January-March 2015 Message-ID: <546065CA.4020907@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, Our training team travels the RIPE NCC service region to deliver training courses to our members without any additional cost. Over the next few months, we'll be in Milan, Madrid, Munich, Podgorica, Prague, Moscow, Riga, Ramallah, Edinburgh, Copenhagen, Amsterdam. Visit the following page to register and to check which training courses we are giving in your area: https://lirportal.ripe.net/training/courses The RIPE NCC delivers the following training courses: - LIR Training Course - RIPE Database Training Course - Basic IPv6 Training Course - Advanced IPv6 Training Course - Routing Security Training Course - DNSSEC Training Course The RIPE NCC delivers the following tailor-made workshops: - Measurements Tools Workshop - Introduction to BGP For more information visit: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/courses With kind regards, Rumy Spratley-Kanis Training Services Manager From ebais at a2b-internet.com Mon Nov 10 15:28:25 2014 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:28:25 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] FW: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) In-Reply-To: <1415609016.607745.189058317.21AA6512@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <002601cffb6d$2647cb00$72d76100$@a2b-internet.com> <1415609016.607745.189058317.21AA6512@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <02af01cffcf2$96cc4b90$c464e2b0$@a2b-internet.com> Hi Radu, Could you provide insight in what you want to review ? That particular section is more in line with the policy proposal 2014-04 and not the proposal to allow IPv6 transfers. No problem to discuss it, but we need to change the subject in that case in order to keep this discussion clean. Regards, Erik Bais -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Radu-Adrian Feurdean [mailto:ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net] Verzonden: maandag 10 november 2014 9:44 Aan: Erik Bais; ipv6-wg at ripe.net CC: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [ipv6-wg] FW: [policy-announce] 2014-12 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv6 Transfers) On Sat, Nov 8, 2014, at 17:00, Erik Bais wrote: > There is a policy proposal currently in discussion phase to Allow IPv6 > Transfers. > > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > before 28 November 2014. Hello, In order to get to the end of the logic (and also be a bit more in-line with the rationale of 2014-04), Shouldn't we also review the paragraph 7.1 ("IPv6 PI Assignments for LIRs") ? Or should this be done in a separate proposal ? From ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net Tue Nov 11 15:03:38 2014 From: ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net (Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 15:03:38 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] 2014-04, 2014-12 and wording of the IPv6 address policy In-Reply-To: <02af01cffcf2$96cc4b90$c464e2b0$@a2b-internet.com> References: <002601cffb6d$2647cb00$72d76100$@a2b-internet.com> <1415609016.607745.189058317.21AA6512@webmail.messagingengine.com> <02af01cffcf2$96cc4b90$c464e2b0$@a2b-internet.com> Message-ID: <1415714618.1677409.189621005.1C579680@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014, at 15:28, Erik Bais wrote: > Could you provide insight in what you want to review ? > > That particular section is more in line with the policy proposal 2014-04 and > not the proposal to allow IPv6 transfers. My point relates to section 7.1 of the current IPv6 address policy. It lets people understand that if someone got an IPv6 PI some time ago (before becoming LIR), they will have issues getting anything else IPv6-related (and possibly IPv4-related) unless they renumber (or play administrative games with the NCC or have really unique requirements - which is always subject to debate). Just as a reminder, re-numbering live networks may be much more complicated than it seems on paper (like in "try to get the address of a business-critical system changed when more than 50% of higher management doesn't know much about IT"). Paragraph 2 should be re-worded : from "must do this IF that" to "IF that THEN must do this". Makes things more readable. Paragraph 3 should be probably relaxed (?? removed entirely ??). Probably re-ordering paragraphs (1, 3, 2) would also make things easier to read and understand. Relation to 2014-12 : Not much. It updates concerned text (without much relation to proposal's subject either). May probably clarify some cases of LIR consolidation. Relation to 2014-04 : Half redundant with 2014-04 (which will probably go live before we sort out this issue). > No problem to discuss it, but we need to change the subject in that case > in order to keep this discussion clean. Done :) -- Radu From furry13 at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 20:21:30 2014 From: furry13 at gmail.com (Jen Linkova) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:21:30 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] In-Reply-To: <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> References: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Aleksi Suhonen wrote: >> Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need >> two different wg for addressing? Because IPv6 WG is not for addressing. IPv6 is not 'IPv4 with bigger address space'. >the day we start treat IPv6 as normal >> IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. I have no objection to *this* statement, so I'd expect that all discussions related to IPv[4,6] address policy are happening in this mailing list, while IPv6 WG discusses technical aspects of IPv6 deployment. > In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about > address policy. Exactly. >In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for > IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. I strongly disagree. Shall I read it as a proposal to shut down IPv6 WG as well? I'd object to say the least. There are a lot of topics to discuss on IPv6 WG which do not belong to address policy. Anyway, I'm surprised to see a discussion about shutting down a mailing list happening in *another* mailing list. If community feels like 'there is nothing to discuss in IPv6 WG mailing list anymore' (which does not seem to be a case as I can see from the replies to your message), it should be discussed there. I'm adding ipv6-wg@ to Cc: so people are aware of this discussion, however from my point of view we've seen enough support to keep IPv6 list untouched. -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry From zsako at iszt.hu Thu Nov 13 10:31:33 2014 From: zsako at iszt.hu (Janos Zsako) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:31:33 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] In-Reply-To: References: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> Message-ID: <54647A75.90203@iszt.hu> I agree (keep the IPv6 list untouched). Janos 2014.11.12. 20:21 keltez?ssel, Jen Linkova ?rta: > I'm adding ipv6-wg@ to Cc: so people are aware of this discussion, > however from my point of view we've seen enough support to keep IPv6 > list untouched. From bs at stepladder-it.com Thu Nov 13 11:33:47 2014 From: bs at stepladder-it.com (Benedikt Stockebrand) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:33:47 +0000 Subject: [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] In-Reply-To: (Jen Linkova's message of "Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:21:30 +0100") References: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> Message-ID: <87a93vl790.fsf@stepladder-it.com> Hi folks, Jen Linkova writes: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Aleksi Suhonen wrote: > [...] >>In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list for >> IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. > [...] > There are a lot of topics to discuss on IPv6 WG which do not belong to > address policy. I fully agree with Jen here. If I take a look at last week's IPv6 WG session in London (agenda and video at https://ripe69.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ipv6-wg/) I don't see *anything* there actually related to address policy. @Aleksi: Maybe you could explain *why* you "think that a separate mailing list for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness" at this point? > Anyway, I'm surprised to see a discussion about shutting down a > mailing list happening in *another* mailing list. > [...] I also consider this approach rather rude, but I guess we should still try to keep such matters of style separate from the actual topic at hand. In any case, discussion on shutting down the IPv6 WG mailing list obviously doesn't belong on the address policy WG list; it would be a decision to be made in the IPv6 working group. That said, if I was more involved with the address policy WG, I'd also expect to get involved if someone proposed to dump some other WG discussions into "my" mailing list. If you want to see something similar (albeit "backwards") having happened in the past, take a look at the IETF V6OPS WG mailing list before they forked SUNSET4. > I'm adding ipv6-wg@ to Cc: so people are aware of this discussion, Thank you, Jen! As far as I'm concerned, I do archive the address policy WG, but I don't generally follow it. And I've got a strong impression that there are others who actively monitor the IPv6 list but don't even archive the address policy list. > however from my point of view we've seen enough support to keep IPv6 > list untouched. So do I. \begin{wg-chair-mode} To deal with this question properly I suggest we follow a two step approach: - First we see *on the IPv6 WG mailing list*---and please set the rcpt accordingly---if there is some sort of consensus to propose a merger with the address policy WG list. - If that consensus is actually reached, then as the second step the address policy WG should decide if they actually agree with our (IPv6) discussions moving there. I haven't had time to talk about this with Jen and Dave directly, but as far as I'm concerned if there is no further discussion on this on the IPv6 mailing list, I'll consider that as consensus with Jen's statement and assume the question settled. \end{wg-chair-mode} Cheers, Benedikt -- Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT Training+Consulting Dipl.-Inform. http://www.stepladder-it.com/ Business Grade IPv6 --- Consulting, Training, Projects BIVBlog---Benedikt's IT Video Blog: http://www.stepladder-it.com/bivblog/ From Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl Thu Nov 13 13:44:02 2014 From: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl (Piotr Strzyzewski) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:44:02 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] In-Reply-To: <54647A75.90203@iszt.hu> References: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> <54647A75.90203@iszt.hu> Message-ID: <20141113124402.GE12394@hydra.ck.polsl.pl> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:31:33AM +0100, Janos Zsako wrote: > I agree (keep the IPv6 list untouched). +1 Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzy?ewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Thu Nov 13 13:53:21 2014 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 13:53:21 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] In-Reply-To: <87a93vl790.fsf@stepladder-it.com> References: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> <87a93vl790.fsf@stepladder-it.com> Message-ID: <5464A9C1.7030204@CC.UniVie.ac.at> [ trimmed everything, but ipv6-wg to keep the noise down ] Benedikt Stockebrand wrote: > Hi folks, > > Jen Linkova writes: [...} >>There are a lot of topics to discuss on IPv6 WG which do not belong to >>address policy. > > I fully agree with Jen here. So do I, strongly [...] > That said, if I was more involved with the address policy WG, I'd also > expect to get involved if someone proposed to dump some other WG > discussions into "my" mailing list. Also donning my (past) DB-WG hat for a minute, there's always the possibility to include an item like "input from other WGs or TFs" into the WG Meeting's draft agenda. I have done that for years, and it worked quite OK (for the most recent time in London, receiving input from Routing. So, *that*is no reason in my books to talk about dismantling a useful and active WG. No rocket science here, just a tad of looking across the fence :-) [...] > As far as I'm concerned, I do archive the address policy WG, but I don't > generally follow it. And I've got a strong impression that there are > others who actively monitor the IPv6 list but don't even archive the > address policy list. Just fwiw, all of the WGs' mailing lists are archived at the NCC's website >>however from my point of view we've seen enough support to keep IPv6 >>list untouched. I think so. Regards, Wilfried. > So do I. > > \begin{wg-chair-mode} > To deal with this question properly I suggest we follow a two step > approach: > > - First we see *on the IPv6 WG mailing list*---and please set the rcpt > accordingly---if there is some sort of consensus to propose a merger > with the address policy WG list. > > - If that consensus is actually reached, then as the second step the > address policy WG should decide if they actually agree with our (IPv6) > discussions moving there. > > I haven't had time to talk about this with Jen and Dave directly, but as > far as I'm concerned if there is no further discussion on this on the > IPv6 mailing list, I'll consider that as consensus with Jen's statement > and assume the question settled. > \end{wg-chair-mode} > > > Cheers, > > Benedikt > From gert at space.net Thu Nov 13 14:21:45 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:21:45 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] In-Reply-To: <5464A9C1.7030204@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> <87a93vl790.fsf@stepladder-it.com> <5464A9C1.7030204@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <20141113132145.GV31092@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 01:53:21PM +0100, Wilfried Woeber wrote: > [...] > > That said, if I was more involved with the address policy WG, I'd also > > expect to get involved if someone proposed to dump some other WG > > discussions into "my" mailing list. > > Also donning my (past) DB-WG hat for a minute, there's always the possibility > to include an item like "input from other WGs or TFs" into the WG Meeting's > draft agenda. I have done that for years, and it worked quite OK (for the > most recent time in London, receiving input from Routing. So, *that*is no > reason in my books to talk about dismantling a useful and active WG. > > No rocket science here, just a tad of looking across the fence :-) Fully agree. And, to come back to where this whole thread started - while IPv6 WG doesn't *do* policy by charter, there are people in the IPv6 WG who are interested in IPv6 address policy, but do not regularily follow the AP WG list. Which is why Erik threw the ball over the fence "you might be interested in this, so here's a notification so you don't miss it". And, speaking as a member of the IPv6 community, I do not think the idea to dismantle the IPv6 WG (or it's list) has much merit - there are still operational technical challenges to IPv6, and it's thus useful to have a WG focusing on these. AP will take care of addressing challenges (and if AP does policy things that do not work out operationally, they listen). Gert Doering -- some relevant hats -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alexsaroyan at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 17:01:04 2014 From: alexsaroyan at gmail.com (Alex Saroyan) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:01:04 +0400 Subject: [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] Message-ID: <9qf7c9vunkb3ifvgi7w742lx.1415894464345@email.android.com> +1 don't merge. Regards /Alex Saroyan Gert Doering wrote: >Hi, > >On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 01:53:21PM +0100, Wilfried Woeber wrote: >> [...] >> > That said, if I was more involved with the address policy WG, I'd also >> > expect to get involved if someone proposed to dump some other WG >> > discussions into "my" mailing list. >> >> Also donning my (past) DB-WG hat for a minute, there's always the possibility >> to include an item like "input from other WGs or TFs" into the WG Meeting's >> draft agenda. I have done that for years, and it worked quite OK (for the >> most recent time in London, receiving input from Routing. So, *that*is no >> reason in my books to talk about dismantling a useful and active WG. >> >> No rocket science here, just a tad of looking across the fence :-) > >Fully agree. And, to come back to where this whole thread started - while >IPv6 WG doesn't *do* policy by charter, there are people in the IPv6 WG >who are interested in IPv6 address policy, but do not regularily follow >the AP WG list. Which is why Erik threw the ball over the fence "you >might be interested in this, so here's a notification so you don't miss it". > > >And, speaking as a member of the IPv6 community, I do not think the idea >to dismantle the IPv6 WG (or it's list) has much merit - there are still >operational technical challenges to IPv6, and it's thus useful to have >a WG focusing on these. AP will take care of addressing challenges (and >if AP does policy things that do not work out operationally, they listen). > >Gert Doering > -- some relevant hats >-- >have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > >SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard >Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann >D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) >Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 From alex.semenyaka at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 17:09:29 2014 From: alex.semenyaka at gmail.com (Alex Semenyaka) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:09:29 +0300 Subject: [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] In-Reply-To: <9qf7c9vunkb3ifvgi7w742lx.1415894464345@email.android.com> References: <9qf7c9vunkb3ifvgi7w742lx.1415894464345@email.android.com> Message-ID: Definitely +1 to Jen 2014-11-13 19:01 GMT+03:00 Alex Saroyan : > +1 don't merge. > > Regards > /Alex Saroyan > > Gert Doering wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 01:53:21PM +0100, Wilfried Woeber wrote: > >> [...] > >> > That said, if I was more involved with the address policy WG, I'd also > >> > expect to get involved if someone proposed to dump some other WG > >> > discussions into "my" mailing list. > >> > >> Also donning my (past) DB-WG hat for a minute, there's always the > possibility > >> to include an item like "input from other WGs or TFs" into the WG > Meeting's > >> draft agenda. I have done that for years, and it worked quite OK (for > the > >> most recent time in London, receiving input from Routing. So, *that*is > no > >> reason in my books to talk about dismantling a useful and active WG. > >> > >> No rocket science here, just a tad of looking across the fence :-) > > > >Fully agree. And, to come back to where this whole thread started - while > >IPv6 WG doesn't *do* policy by charter, there are people in the IPv6 WG > >who are interested in IPv6 address policy, but do not regularily follow > >the AP WG list. Which is why Erik threw the ball over the fence "you > >might be interested in this, so here's a notification so you don't miss > it". > > > > > >And, speaking as a member of the IPv6 community, I do not think the idea > >to dismantle the IPv6 WG (or it's list) has much merit - there are still > >operational technical challenges to IPv6, and it's thus useful to have > >a WG focusing on these. AP will take care of addressing challenges (and > >if AP does policy things that do not work out operationally, they listen). > > > >Gert Doering > > -- some relevant hats > >-- > >have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > > >SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > >Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. > Grundner-Culemann > >D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > >Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > -- Alex Semenyaka -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dez at otenet.gr Mon Nov 24 15:23:08 2014 From: dez at otenet.gr (Yannis Nikolopoulos) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:23:08 +0200 Subject: [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists] In-Reply-To: <546327AF.9020503@boeddinghaus.de> References: <7A8B2B4B-D828-4CC1-9DAA-9FE380ABFE69@anytimechinese.com> <54630CF2.10203@ssd.axu.tm> <546327AF.9020503@boeddinghaus.de> Message-ID: <54733F4C.2010801@otenet.gr> hello, a rather late reply On 11/12/2014 11:26 AM, Wilhelm Boeddinghaus wrote: > Am 12.11.2014 um 08:32 schrieb Aleksi Suhonen: >> Hello, >> >> On 11/09/2014 06:06 PM, Lu wrote: >>> Should we put address policy wh together with IPv6 wg? Why we need >>> two different wg for addressing?the day we start treat IPv6 as normal >>> IP address is the day we really in a world of v6. >> >> In theory, the IPv6 working group and mailing lists are not only about >> address policy. In practice, I do think that a separate mailing list >> for IPv6 at RIPE has outlived its usefulness. In essence, I support >> this proposal. sorry, but this just doesn't make sense. RIPE's IPv6 WG is about promoting IPv6 adoption and there's definitely a long way to go... http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/ipv6 > Hi, > > But > please let the forum for technical discussion about IPv6 untouched. We > will need that for the next 10 years until we all have as much > experience with IPv6 as we have with IPv4 today. +1 regards, Yannis > Regards, > > Wilhelm From marcoh at marcoh.net Tue Nov 25 20:57:55 2014 From: marcoh at marcoh.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 23:57:55 +0400 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Short report on Saudi IPv6 Task Force meeting Message-ID: <6170DC40-9E0B-4511-9D34-CDEC2041DF0D@marcoh.net> Hello, As part of my day job I was close by in the region and the opportunity to visit the 16th meeting of the Saudi Arabian IPv6 Task Force. Still a lot of nice stuff going on down there with a steady progress towards deployment of IPv6. Not only in the more traditional telecoms and connectivity sector, but also with a strong focus on getting the users in other sectors on board such as the banks and the oil industry. A short report can be found on RIPE Labs https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_hogewoning/16th-meeting-of-the-saudi-arabian-ipv6-task-force Cheers, Marco (who still has an interest in the topic)