From mawatari at jpix.ad.jp Sun Jan 4 04:25:14 2015 From: mawatari at jpix.ad.jp (MAWATARI Masataka) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 12:25:14 +0900 Subject: [ipv6-wg] JANOG 35 meeting agenda (Re: IPv6 survey (JANOG 35 IPv6 session)) In-Reply-To: <20141226135309.46DE.8FE1F57E@jpix.ad.jp> References: <20141226135309.46DE.8FE1F57E@jpix.ad.jp> Message-ID: <20150104122514.6067.8FE1F57E@jpix.ad.jp> Hi all, JANOG 35 meeting will hold in Shizuoka City, Japan on January 14-16, 2015, hosted by Fujinokuni Information Network Organization. JANOG 35 meeting agenda is available at the following site. http://www.janog.gr.jp/en/index.php?JANOG35_Meeting%2FJANOG35_Program_Contents Registration close: (close registration soon!) Conference: January 8, 2015 3:00 [UTC] Banquet: January 5, 2015 3:00 [UTC] https://regist.e-side.co.jp/product_info.php?products_id=500&language=en The survey will remain open until 14:59 Fri 9 Jan [UTC] for the IPv6 session. https://www.janog.gr.jp/meeting/janog35/program/ipv6/ipv6_form_en/ Thank you for your cooperation! * On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 13:53:10 +0900 * MAWATARI Masataka wrote: > Hi all, > > > JANOG will have a session "Why don't we want to deploy IPv6?" in > JANOG 35 meeting next month. It will focus on IPv6 deployment > of the contents providers in Japan. > > To help us make this session better, we carry out a questionnaire > survey to the service providers. > > It would be great if you could fill out the following form: > https://www.janog.gr.jp/meeting/janog35/program/ipv6/ipv6_form_en/ > > Your co-operation will be appreciated. > We will make a good use out of the survey information in order to > improve this session. > > > We'll update you with more details about JANOG 35 meeting through > the following page. > http://www.janog.gr.jp/en/index.php?JANOG35_Meeting > > > Happy Holidays! -- Japan Internet Exchange MAWATARI Masataka From wanderch at cht.com.tw Mon Jan 5 08:07:26 2015 From: wanderch at cht.com.tw (=?big5?B?qvS4Vbx3?=) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 07:07:26 +0000 Subject: [ipv6-wg] We suggest that RIPE-554bis CPE equipment requires RFC 7084 and CE-Router Logo. Thank you! Message-ID: <1018D9C2C9F8B94BB03CF138A5D397F27F0BE0C3@mbs5.app.corp.cht.com.tw> Hello Sir: We suggest that RIPE-554bis CPE equipment requires RFC 7084 and CE-Router Logo. (https://www.ipv6ready.org/?page=documents&tag=phase-2-cpe ) CE-Router Logo are developed by US UNH-IOL, CableLab and Taiwan CHT-TL. CE-Router Logo Conformance Test Software is developed by CHT-TL IPv6 Testing Lab. The URL is as follows: http://interop.ipv6.org.tw/CERouter/ Thank you very much! Best Regards, Wan-Der Chiou at CHT-TL IPv6 Testing Lab. http://interop.ipv6.org.tw/English/index.php Requirements for CPE equipment Mandatory support: ? RFC6204 (Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers) * => RFC7084 and requires CE-Router Logo [../images/IPv6_CE_Router1.png] Please be advised that this email message (including any attachments) contains confidential information and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message and all attachments from your system and do not further collect, process, or use them. Chunghwa Telecom and all its subsidiaries and associated companies shall not be liable for the improper or incomplete transmission of the information contained in this email nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your system. If you are the intended recipient, please protect the confidential and/or personal information contained in this email with due care. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution of this message in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. Also, please self-inspect attachments and hyperlinks contained in this email to ensure the information security and to protect personal information. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 2474 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From ot at cisco.com Mon Jan 5 09:02:45 2015 From: ot at cisco.com (Ole Troan) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 09:02:45 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] We suggest that RIPE-554bis CPE equipment requires RFC 7084 and CE-Router Logo. Thank you! In-Reply-To: <1018D9C2C9F8B94BB03CF138A5D397F27F0BE0C3@mbs5.app.corp.cht.com.tw> References: <1018D9C2C9F8B94BB03CF138A5D397F27F0BE0C3@mbs5.app.corp.cht.com.tw> Message-ID: <1A289C79-2452-453A-A3BC-42FA51B2B4E3@cisco.com> > > ?? RFC6204 (Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers) * => > RFC7084 and requires CE-Router Logo the delta between 6204 and 7084 is largely the addition of the 6rd and DS-lite. since 7084 was published quite a lot has happened on new mechanisms for IPv4 address sharing. e.g. MAP. I would think 554bis should take those into account as well. cheers, Ole From mir at ripe.net Tue Jan 6 14:59:38 2015 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 14:59:38 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] New on RIPE Labs: IPv4 and IPv6 Tweets on a Map Message-ID: <54ABEA4A.80404@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, We looked at tweets mentioning IPv4 and IPv6 and how they appear on a map over time. It's great to see that IPv6-related tweets are more popular. Find more information on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/visualising-ipv4-ipv6-tweets If you have any questions or suggestions, please let us know. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From jan at go6.si Tue Jan 6 20:25:22 2015 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 20:25:22 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] We suggest that RIPE-554bis CPE equipment requires RFC 7084 and CE-Router Logo. Thank you! In-Reply-To: <1A289C79-2452-453A-A3BC-42FA51B2B4E3@cisco.com> References: <1018D9C2C9F8B94BB03CF138A5D397F27F0BE0C3@mbs5.app.corp.cht.com.tw> <1A289C79-2452-453A-A3BC-42FA51B2B4E3@cisco.com> Message-ID: <54AC36A2.5080101@go6.si> On 05/01/15 09:02, Ole Troan wrote: >> >> ?? RFC6204 (Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge >> Routers) * => RFC7084 and requires CE-Router Logo > > the delta between 6204 and 7084 is largely the addition of the 6rd > and DS-lite. since 7084 was published quite a lot has happened on new > mechanisms for IPv4 address sharing. e.g. MAP. I would think 554bis > should take those into account as well. Hi Yes, indeed... What I also hear from some operators that deployed IPv6 is that 464XLAT (CLAT part) would be a great idea to put it in CPE, so they can get rid of IPv4 in the access... :) We are already accumulating ideas and suggestions for 554bis, so when we get started we'll let you (and the community at large) know so we can chat and go through the suggestions. Cheers and thnx, Jan From swmike at swm.pp.se Wed Jan 7 11:15:29 2015 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 11:15:29 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ipv6-wg] We suggest that RIPE-554bis CPE equipment requires RFC 7084 and CE-Router Logo. Thank you! In-Reply-To: <1A289C79-2452-453A-A3BC-42FA51B2B4E3@cisco.com> References: <1018D9C2C9F8B94BB03CF138A5D397F27F0BE0C3@mbs5.app.corp.cht.com.tw> <1A289C79-2452-453A-A3BC-42FA51B2B4E3@cisco.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Jan 2015, Ole Troan wrote: >> >> ?? RFC6204 (Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers) * => >> RFC7084 and requires CE-Router Logo > > the delta between 6204 and 7084 is largely the addition of the 6rd and DS-lite. > since 7084 was published quite a lot has happened on new mechanisms for IPv4 address sharing. e.g. MAP. I would think 554bis should take those into account as well. This is an interesting discussion. MAP and LW4o6 would be interesting mechanisms to require support for, absolutely. I am not sure how much of the control plane for these mechanisms that are actually done and in published RFCs yet, but will look into it! It's hard to require support for something that might not be 100% done and deployable using available RFCs, even though there are multiple implementations of these already. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From evyncke at cisco.com Wed Jan 7 11:36:12 2015 From: evyncke at cisco.com (Eric Vyncke (evyncke)) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 10:36:12 +0000 Subject: [ipv6-wg] We suggest that RIPE-554bis CPE equipment requires RFC 7084 and CE-Router Logo. Thank you! In-Reply-To: References: <1018D9C2C9F8B94BB03CF138A5D397F27F0BE0C3@mbs5.app.corp.cht.com.tw> <1A289C79-2452-453A-A3BC-42FA51B2B4E3@cisco.com> Message-ID: OTOH talking about DS-lite & co, my view of RIPE-554 is that it is really useful for SMB or larger enterprises to specify what they have to acquire. And, I am unsure about the use case of MAP, 6RD,. . . technologies for this kind of organizations. SP buying large quantities of ?managed? CPE should know by now about 6RD, MAP, ? :-) so they do not need RIPE-554 (even if it still useful for part of their networks) Residential subscribers should indeed only rely on IPv6-ready CPE logo. -?ric On 7/01/15 11:15, "Mikael Abrahamsson" wrote: >On Mon, 5 Jan 2015, Ole Troan wrote: > >>> >>> ?? RFC6204 (Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers) * >>>=> >>> RFC7084 and requires CE-Router Logo >> >> the delta between 6204 and 7084 is largely the addition of the 6rd and >>DS-lite. >> since 7084 was published quite a lot has happened on new mechanisms for >>IPv4 address sharing. e.g. MAP. I would think 554bis should take those >>into account as well. > >This is an interesting discussion. MAP and LW4o6 would be interesting >mechanisms to require support for, absolutely. I am not sure how much of >the control plane for these mechanisms that are actually done and in >published RFCs yet, but will look into it! > >It's hard to require support for something that might not be 100% done >and >deployable using available RFCs, even though there are multiple >implementations of these already. > >-- >Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From ot at cisco.com Wed Jan 7 11:38:59 2015 From: ot at cisco.com (Ole Troan) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 11:38:59 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] We suggest that RIPE-554bis CPE equipment requires RFC 7084 and CE-Router Logo. Thank you! In-Reply-To: References: <1018D9C2C9F8B94BB03CF138A5D397F27F0BE0C3@mbs5.app.corp.cht.com.tw> <1A289C79-2452-453A-A3BC-42FA51B2B4E3@cisco.com> Message-ID: >>> ?? RFC6204 (Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers) * => >>> RFC7084 and requires CE-Router Logo >> >> the delta between 6204 and 7084 is largely the addition of the 6rd and DS-lite. >> since 7084 was published quite a lot has happened on new mechanisms for IPv4 address sharing. e.g. MAP. I would think 554bis should take those into account as well. > > This is an interesting discussion. MAP and LW4o6 would be interesting mechanisms to require support for, absolutely. I am not sure how much of the control plane for these mechanisms that are actually done and in published RFCs yet, but will look into it! > > It's hard to require support for something that might not be 100% done and deployable using available RFCs, even though there are multiple implementations of these already. the MAP and LW4o6 document series are stable and should be published as RFCs real soon now. all are at "Approved - announcement to be sent". https://datatracker.ietf.org/images/iesg-draft-state-diagram.png there are at least eight IETF solutions (L2TP, DS-lite, 464XLAT, Public 4over6, Lightweight 4over6, 4rd, MAP-T, MAP-E) to the same problem (IPv4 or shared IPv4 over IPv6). it's going to be interesting to figure out how 554bis should deal with that. cheers, Ole From wanderch at cht.com.tw Thu Jan 8 02:59:51 2015 From: wanderch at cht.com.tw (=?utf-8?B?6YKx6JCs5b63?=) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 01:59:51 +0000 Subject: [ipv6-wg] We suggest that RIPE-554bis CPE equipment requires RFC 7084 and CE-Router Logo. Thank you! In-Reply-To: References: <1018D9C2C9F8B94BB03CF138A5D397F27F0BE0C3@mbs5.app.corp.cht.com.tw> <1A289C79-2452-453A-A3BC-42FA51B2B4E3@cisco.com> Message-ID: <1018D9C2C9F8B94BB03CF138A5D397F27F0BE889@mbs5.app.corp.cht.com.tw> Hello, Both IPv6 Ready Logo and CE-Router Logo do not test any transition technology. ISP operators and Vendors can buy commercial test equipments such as Ixia, Spirent to test 6RD, DS-Lite and MAP. RIPE-554bis can suggest some transition technology, but it is optional. Thank you! Best Regards, Wan-Der Chiou -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg [mailto:ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Eric Vyncke (evyncke) Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 6:36 PM To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net Subject: [Marketing Mail] Re: [ipv6-wg] We suggest that RIPE-554bis CPE equipment requires RFC 7084 and CE-Router Logo. Thank you! OTOH talking about DS-lite & co, my view of RIPE-554 is that it is really useful for SMB or larger enterprises to specify what they have to acquire. And, I am unsure about the use case of MAP, 6RD,. . . technologies for this kind of organizations. SP buying large quantities of ?managed? CPE should know by now about 6RD, MAP, ? :-) so they do not need RIPE-554 (even if it still useful for part of their networks) Residential subscribers should indeed only rely on IPv6-ready CPE logo. -?ric On 7/01/15 11:15, "Mikael Abrahamsson" wrote: >On Mon, 5 Jan 2015, Ole Troan wrote: > >>> >>> ?? RFC6204 (Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers) * >>>=> >>> RFC7084 and requires CE-Router Logo >> >> the delta between 6204 and 7084 is largely the addition of the 6rd >>and DS-lite. >> since 7084 was published quite a lot has happened on new mechanisms >>for >>IPv4 address sharing. e.g. MAP. I would think 554bis should take those >>into account as well. > >This is an interesting discussion. MAP and LW4o6 would be interesting >mechanisms to require support for, absolutely. I am not sure how much >of the control plane for these mechanisms that are actually done and in >published RFCs yet, but will look into it! > >It's hard to require support for something that might not be 100% done >and deployable using available RFCs, even though there are multiple >implementations of these already. > >-- >Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se ?????????????????????,???????,???????????????,???????.???????,?????????????????????,?????????,????????????????????,????????????????. Please be advised that this email message (including any attachments) contains confidential information and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message and all attachments from your system and do not further collect, process, or use them. Chunghwa Telecom and all its subsidiaries and associated companies shall not be liable for the improper or incomplete transmission of the information contained in this email nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your system. If you are the intended recipient, please protect the confidential and/or personal information contained in this email with due care. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution of this message in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. Also, please self-inspect attachments and hyperlinks contained in this email to ensure the information security and to protect personal information. From jan at go6.si Fri Jan 9 09:22:49 2015 From: jan at go6.si (Jan Zorz @ go6.si) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 09:22:49 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] We suggest that RIPE-554bis CPE equipment requires RFC 7084 and CE-Router Logo. Thank you! In-Reply-To: References: <1018D9C2C9F8B94BB03CF138A5D397F27F0BE0C3@mbs5.app.corp.cht.com.tw> <1A289C79-2452-453A-A3BC-42FA51B2B4E3@cisco.com> Message-ID: <54AF8FD9.4040405@go6.si> On 07/01/15 11:38, Ole Troan wrote: > there are at least eight IETF solutions (L2TP, DS-lite, 464XLAT, > Public 4over6, Lightweight 4over6, 4rd, MAP-T, MAP-E) to the same > problem (IPv4 or shared IPv4 over IPv6). it's going to be interesting > to figure out how 554bis should deal with that. Hi, my first thought would be to put them in Optional section? :) What do you think or suggest? Cheers, Jan From wanderch at cht.com.tw Fri Jan 9 09:39:02 2015 From: wanderch at cht.com.tw (=?utf-8?B?6YKx6JCs5b63?=) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 08:39:02 +0000 Subject: [ipv6-wg] [Marketing Mail] Re: We suggest that RIPE-554bis CPE equipment requires RFC 7084 and CE-Router Logo. Thank you! In-Reply-To: <54AF8FD9.4040405@go6.si> References: <1018D9C2C9F8B94BB03CF138A5D397F27F0BE0C3@mbs5.app.corp.cht.com.tw> <1A289C79-2452-453A-A3BC-42FA51B2B4E3@cisco.com> <54AF8FD9.4040405@go6.si> Message-ID: <1018D9C2C9F8B94BB03CF138A5D397F27F0BEE24@mbs5.app.corp.cht.com.tw> Hello, CPE requires dual-stack. I suggest that all transition techs put into CPE equipment spec Optional section. Thank you! Best Regards. Wan-Der Chiou -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg [mailto:ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jan Zorz @ go6.si Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 4:23 PM To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net Subject: [Marketing Mail] Re: [ipv6-wg] We suggest that RIPE-554bis CPE equipment requires RFC 7084 and CE-Router Logo. Thank you! On 07/01/15 11:38, Ole Troan wrote: > there are at least eight IETF solutions (L2TP, DS-lite, 464XLAT, > Public 4over6, Lightweight 4over6, 4rd, MAP-T, MAP-E) to the same > problem (IPv4 or shared IPv4 over IPv6). it's going to be interesting > to figure out how 554bis should deal with that. Hi, my first thought would be to put them in Optional section? :) What do you think or suggest? Cheers, Jan ?????????????????????,???????,???????????????,???????.???????,?????????????????????,?????????,????????????????????,????????????????. Please be advised that this email message (including any attachments) contains confidential information and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message and all attachments from your system and do not further collect, process, or use them. Chunghwa Telecom and all its subsidiaries and associated companies shall not be liable for the improper or incomplete transmission of the information contained in this email nor for any delay in its receipt or damage to your system. If you are the intended recipient, please protect the confidential and/or personal information contained in this email with due care. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution of this message in whole or in part is strictly prohibited. Also, please self-inspect attachments and hyperlinks contained in this email to ensure the information security and to protect personal information. From merike at doubleshotsecurity.com Fri Jan 9 09:27:15 2015 From: merike at doubleshotsecurity.com (Merike Kaeo) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 00:27:15 -0800 Subject: [ipv6-wg] We suggest that RIPE-554bis CPE equipment requires RFC 7084 and CE-Router Logo. Thank you! In-Reply-To: <54AF8FD9.4040405@go6.si> References: <1018D9C2C9F8B94BB03CF138A5D397F27F0BE0C3@mbs5.app.corp.cht.com.tw> <1A289C79-2452-453A-A3BC-42FA51B2B4E3@cisco.com> <54AF8FD9.4040405@go6.si> Message-ID: On Jan 9, 2015, at 12:22 AM, "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" wrote: > On 07/01/15 11:38, Ole Troan wrote: >> there are at least eight IETF solutions (L2TP, DS-lite, 464XLAT, >> Public 4over6, Lightweight 4over6, 4rd, MAP-T, MAP-E) to the same >> problem (IPv4 or shared IPv4 over IPv6). it's going to be interesting >> to figure out how 554bis should deal with that. > > Hi, > > my first thought would be to put them in Optional section? :) I would agree with this since all the options were developed for varying use cases and I'm not sure there's definitive subset we want to recommend. - merike > > What do you think or suggest? > > Cheers, Jan > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From wilhelm at boeddinghaus.de Fri Jan 9 09:57:15 2015 From: wilhelm at boeddinghaus.de (Wilhelm Boeddinghaus) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 09:57:15 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] We suggest that RIPE-554bis CPE equipment requires RFC 7084 and CE-Router Logo. Thank you! In-Reply-To: <54AF8FD9.4040405@go6.si> References: <1018D9C2C9F8B94BB03CF138A5D397F27F0BE0C3@mbs5.app.corp.cht.com.tw> <1A289C79-2452-453A-A3BC-42FA51B2B4E3@cisco.com> <54AF8FD9.4040405@go6.si> Message-ID: <54AF97EB.2090008@boeddinghaus.de> Am 09.01.2015 um 09:22 schrieb Jan Zorz @ go6.si: > On 07/01/15 11:38, Ole Troan wrote: >> there are at least eight IETF solutions (L2TP, DS-lite, 464XLAT, >> Public 4over6, Lightweight 4over6, 4rd, MAP-T, MAP-E) to the same >> problem (IPv4 or shared IPv4 over IPv6). it's going to be interesting >> to figure out how 554bis should deal with that. > > Hi, > > my first thought would be to put them in Optional section? :) > > What do you think or suggest? > > Cheers, Jan > Hi, Yes, put them in the optional section. I don't think many vendors want to implement all of them in their CPE routers. If we put too many technologies in the "mandatory" section, the vendors will ignore the document and it becomes useless. Cheers, Wilhelm From mawatari at jpix.ad.jp Fri Jan 9 10:02:14 2015 From: mawatari at jpix.ad.jp (MAWATARI Masataka) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 18:02:14 +0900 Subject: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 survey (JANOG 35 IPv6 session) In-Reply-To: <20141226135309.46DE.8FE1F57E@jpix.ad.jp> References: <20141226135309.46DE.8FE1F57E@jpix.ad.jp> Message-ID: <20150109180213.1349.8FE1F57E@jpix.ad.jp> Just a reminder. (Sorry for dup.) The fill-out deadline of the survey is 14:59 Fri 9 Jan [UTC]. https://www.janog.gr.jp/meeting/janog35/program/ipv6/ipv6_form_en/ Looking forward to hearing from you! Thanks in advance. Masataka, * On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 13:53:10 +0900 * MAWATARI Masataka wrote: > Hi all, > > > JANOG will have a session "Why don't we want to deploy IPv6?" in > JANOG 35 meeting next month. It will focus on IPv6 deployment > of the contents providers in Japan. > > To help us make this session better, we carry out a questionnaire > survey to the service providers. > > It would be great if you could fill out the following form: > https://www.janog.gr.jp/meeting/janog35/program/ipv6/ipv6_form_en/ > > Your co-operation will be appreciated. > We will make a good use out of the survey information in order to > improve this session. > > > We'll update you with more details about JANOG 35 meeting through > the following page. > http://www.janog.gr.jp/en/index.php?JANOG35_Meeting > > > Happy Holidays! -- Japan Internet Exchange MAWATARI Masataka From bs at stepladder-it.com Sun Jan 18 10:30:12 2015 From: bs at stepladder-it.com (Benedikt Stockebrand) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:30:12 +0000 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Call for Presentations Message-ID: <87bnlwtp0b.fsf@stepladder-it.com> Hi folks, since the call for presentations for the plenary sessions of RIPE 70 on May 18--22 in Amsterdam (https://ripe69.ripe.net) is already out (see https://ripe70.ripe.net/submit-topic/submission-form/) we'd like to ask anyone interested in doing "anything" (presentation or whatever else, I'll just write "presentation" from here on) during the working group session to send us your proposal. A couple of notes about the procedure: - There is no formal submission mechanism as with the plenary/program committee. Just drop a mail to ipv6-wg-chairs at ripe.net and if we have any questions we'll contact you. - We're interested in pretty much anything related to IPv6, including deployment, operation, further development and whatever you think might be of interest to the working group. - If you're unsure about proposing your presentation to the plenary or the IPv6 working group, I suggest you submit it to the plenary through the link mentioned above and send us an e-mail in parallel; that way we have a better chance to make sure that topics too esoteric for the plenary may actually find their niche in the working group, rather than being lost forever. - What we do need are: - Your name and (at least) e-mail address - The (preliminary) title of your presentation - A (preliminary) abstract (a paragraph or two) - A short bio of yours - The time you roughly expect to need <=== IMPORTANT:-) - Whatever questions you have - We need to have an idea how much time we need for the working group session, so we can request an additional time slot from the NCC if needed. So please, send us at least a preliminary draft as soon as possible; you can always polish your proposal up afterwards. - And, as Filiz pointed out in the call for presentations for the plenary: "Please also note that speakers do not receive any extra reduction or funding towards the meeting fee at the RIPE Meetings." Cheers, Benedikt (with blessings from Jen and Dave) -- 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 shane at time-travellers.org Mon Jan 19 11:01:33 2015 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:01:33 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] New on RIPE Labs: IPv4 and IPv6 Tweets on a Map In-Reply-To: <54ABEA4A.80404@ripe.net> References: <54ABEA4A.80404@ripe.net> Message-ID: <20150119110133.5c19c0a4@vulcan> All, On Tue, 06 Jan 2015 14:59:38 +0100 Mirjam Kuehne wrote: > We looked at tweets mentioning IPv4 and IPv6 and how they appear on a > map over time. It's great to see that IPv6-related tweets are more > popular. Find more information on RIPE Labs: > > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/visualising-ipv4-ipv6-tweets > > If you have any questions or suggestions, please let us know. Sadly twitter itself doesn't appear to support IPv6 yet (at least for their web stuff): $ host -t aaaa twitter.com twitter.com has no AAAA record $ host -t aaaa www.twitter.com www.twitter.com is an alias for twitter.com. Cheers, -- Shane From dave.wilson at heanet.ie Mon Jan 19 18:54:34 2015 From: dave.wilson at heanet.ie (Dave Wilson) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 17:54:34 +0000 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Last Call: "IPv6 Troubleshooting for Residential ISP Helpdesks" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54BD44DA.4080708@heanet.ie> Hello all, Following the discussion in London and subsequent call to the list, we seem to have consensus on this. We will ask the RIPE NCC to publish the document. Best regards, Dave On 02/12/2014 11:33, Jen Linkova wrote: > Hello, > > At IPv6 WG session in London, we discussed the most recent version of > the "IPv6 Troubleshooting for Residential ISP Helpdesks" document. The > proposed plan of action was to reach the consensus on the technical > details of the document and then publish it (as combined IPv6 WG and > BCOP TF effort). > > This email announces the working group last call for the "IPv6 > Troubleshooting for Residential ISP Helpdesks" document. Please read > the most recent version of it: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/tf/bcop/ipv6-troubleshooting-for-residential-isp-helpdesks > > and provide your comments to the list *until 23:59 Fri Dec 19th 2014*. > > Thanks! > -- Dave Wilson, Project Manager web: www.heanet.ie HEAnet Ltd, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 tel: +353-1-660-9040 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 fax: +353-1-660-3666 From emile.aben at ripe.net Wed Jan 21 12:00:52 2015 From: emile.aben at ripe.net (Emile Aben) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 12:00:52 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] New on RIPE Labs: IPv4 and IPv6 Tweets on a Map In-Reply-To: <20150119110133.5c19c0a4@vulcan> References: <54ABEA4A.80404@ripe.net> <20150119110133.5c19c0a4@vulcan> Message-ID: <54BF86E4.2080603@ripe.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 19/01/15 11:01, Shane Kerr wrote: > All, > > On Tue, 06 Jan 2015 14:59:38 +0100 Mirjam Kuehne > wrote: > >> We looked at tweets mentioning IPv4 and IPv6 and how they appear >> on a map over time. It's great to see that IPv6-related tweets >> are more popular. Find more information on RIPE Labs: >> >> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/visualising-ipv4-ipv6-tweets >> >> >> If you have any questions or suggestions, please let us know. > > Sadly twitter itself doesn't appear to support IPv6 yet (at least > for their web stuff): > > $ host -t aaaa twitter.com twitter.com has no AAAA record $ host -t > aaaa www.twitter.com www.twitter.com is an alias for twitter.com. Nothing in Alexa 1M list that resolves to the Twitter AS seems to have IPv6. They do have 3 IPv6 prefixes visible in routing though: https://stat.ripe.net/widget/routing-status#w.resource=AS13414 I'd be very curious if these are just 'stakes in the ground' or if these get some actual use. I haven't seen any recent IPv6 plans from Twitter (quick search only found: http://www.networkworld.com/article/2189085/lan-wan/many--name--sites-sitting-out-today-s-world-ipv6-launch.html ), and a quick asking around got me nothing. I also didn't find any recent request to @twittereng to support #IPv6 that got any traction, so I just posted one ( https://twitter.com/meileaben/status/557854531401568258 ), maybe that can bring it to their attention? cheers, Emile -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUv4bkAAoJEKxthF6wloMO6K4QAIDEu7pdkmFeUSzlrVPN/+x9 Vzc1H/+x/vG7LetBqH+ckO+p5iO2SnQX9Wq6IfYBRycU4NXXDKd1ThpHMiwg1d+r mS/LUl0tQNy3SmCRYgSxfGlTTatPtcyT/2cHd4QDRpWSUMGcDIGljqoLgNoU1dPC ftVZjJvGQUTjllEVhkqpntnGp17nCc//8CtzgmH4Bmys4VCkeaLkwSnaWjm53rg3 cGyhR7K7lMBOdKVimHlkGXS8aPHj810r9CIkR3KoOzRLdTtpr8hzt/7alWo4VYau zoheIL1Yt11fKR3MWuCt9sDjSE6nU4p54YX9NHO6HNfjAQWnBmxY72yOwX+N6Jhr igvRKr6a2aMyZ3ZmAzIzFSuEGvQoEdvQVSeScfSF72hA+WWqL4Qus5wmRUDk8AqH DSt2zedGLslpmGZApbvWuUhDA9e5oFJxNAI6fLpvzu66+81RPwqu4VvnE6ANXkvr ozfhdF99OKrx+67KKTlg0L7VcEw/f59zeCR446HbqKpB9iNR1O1gLTWoCRhOjtIz 5B/wO7Lfwo5cL+cZ/zY8d/pJvElOgNUdTfEYinbWlBgCvZWTnVSuMDeIQqZguFSM /YLayeOgScUkhEoSMRJxHQBmvEu9OxO8lohcDXUC/p5FLChb/WNif2KEEu7nuj/+ RvdifqNzYQ8zHGUlpfGH =kpTE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nick at ripe.net Wed Jan 21 15:41:07 2015 From: nick at ripe.net (Nick Hyrka) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:41:07 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Last Call: "IPv6 Troubleshooting for Residential ISP Helpdesks" In-Reply-To: <54BD44DA.4080708@heanet.ie> References: <54BD44DA.4080708@heanet.ie> Message-ID: <54BFBA83.7030902@ripe.net> Hi Dave, Thanks for this. To get moving, we just need confirmation on the latest version of the text. - Nick On 19/01/15 18:54, Dave Wilson wrote: > Hello all, > > Following the discussion in London and subsequent call to the list, we > seem to have consensus on this. We will ask the RIPE NCC to publish the > document. > > Best regards, > Dave > > On 02/12/2014 11:33, Jen Linkova wrote: >> Hello, >> >> At IPv6 WG session in London, we discussed the most recent version of >> the "IPv6 Troubleshooting for Residential ISP Helpdesks" document. The >> proposed plan of action was to reach the consensus on the technical >> details of the document and then publish it (as combined IPv6 WG and >> BCOP TF effort). >> >> This email announces the working group last call for the "IPv6 >> Troubleshooting for Residential ISP Helpdesks" document. Please read >> the most recent version of it: >> >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/tf/bcop/ipv6-troubleshooting-for-residential-isp-helpdesks >> >> and provide your comments to the list *until 23:59 Fri Dec 19th 2014*. >> >> Thanks! >> > From dave.wilson at heanet.ie Wed Jan 21 15:41:59 2015 From: dave.wilson at heanet.ie (Dave Wilson) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:41:59 +0000 Subject: [ipv6-wg] Last Call: "IPv6 Troubleshooting for Residential ISP Helpdesks" In-Reply-To: <54BFBA83.7030902@ripe.net> References: <54BD44DA.4080708@heanet.ie> <54BFBA83.7030902@ripe.net> Message-ID: <54BFBAB7.3040902@heanet.ie> Cheers, Nick. I've asked Jan to do this - he may mail you directly but if not I'll let you know. Cheers, Dave On 21/01/2015 14:41, Nick Hyrka wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Thanks for this. To get moving, we just need confirmation on the latest > version of the text. > > - Nick > > > On 19/01/15 18:54, Dave Wilson wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> Following the discussion in London and subsequent call to the list, we >> seem to have consensus on this. We will ask the RIPE NCC to publish the >> document. >> >> Best regards, >> Dave >> >> On 02/12/2014 11:33, Jen Linkova wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> At IPv6 WG session in London, we discussed the most recent version of >>> the "IPv6 Troubleshooting for Residential ISP Helpdesks" document. The >>> proposed plan of action was to reach the consensus on the technical >>> details of the document and then publish it (as combined IPv6 WG and >>> BCOP TF effort). >>> >>> This email announces the working group last call for the "IPv6 >>> Troubleshooting for Residential ISP Helpdesks" document. Please read >>> the most recent version of it: >>> >>> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/tf/bcop/ipv6-troubleshooting-for-residential-isp-helpdesks >>> >>> and provide your comments to the list *until 23:59 Fri Dec 19th 2014*. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >> > -- Dave Wilson, Project Manager web: www.heanet.ie HEAnet Ltd, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 tel: +353-1-660-9040 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 fax: +353-1-660-3666 From training at ripe.net Mon Jan 26 10:57:36 2015 From: training at ripe.net (Training Services) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:57:36 +0100 Subject: [ipv6-wg] [training] RIPE NCC Webinars Message-ID: <54C60F90.9010505@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC Training Services Department invites you to register for our Webinars. The RIPE NCC Webinars are live and take only one hour. You can interact with our trainers without leaving your desk. 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