Re: [ipv6-wg] Clear Guidance for Enterprises
Gert Doering wrote on 03/06/2023 13:33: So how do we get there? We got where we are now because there are compelling reasons to deploy ipv4, but not compelling reasons to deploy ipv6. IPv4 is the stone that rolled down the hill; ipv6 is the stone that, 25 years later, people are still trying to roll up the hill. What's surprising is that some people are still surprised that ipv6 won't roll itself up the hill after 25 years of resolutely not doing this by itself. > So, what else can we do? Supportive / constructive mandates level out the upwards slope on the ipv6 hill, a little. Destructive mandates - e.g. "governments should withdraw ipv4 services" - are more like suggestions to get out a digger and change the slope of the hill so that the boulder will roll up it. The only outcome from this sort of approach will be expense, a mixture of bemusement and rage from bystanders, and ultimate failure. Nick -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg
Re: [ipv6-wg] Clear Guidance for Enterprises
Benedikt Merkl via ipv6-wg wrote on 01/06/2023 15:25: The government still relies on their Fax machines, so not sure if that is going to happen soon. But you have my support on shutting v4 services. :) Which government service would you suggest shutting down on ipv4? The online tax submission portal? Pension services? Nick -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg
Re: [ipv6-wg] Join us for the RIPE NCC Educa::IPv6-only
Dez C wrote on 29/05/2020 09:29: What you're proposing is the end user's perspective and its fine. We're not just end users, we can influence things on a larger scale (sometimes, at least) this kinda nails it. We're not appealing to end users because ipv6 is right at the bottom of the infrastructure stack and is completely boring for the same reason that e.g. cement or paint composition are boring. Sure, nerdy types like us might get excited about it, but we need to not kid ourselves that ipv6 has any mass appeal because it doesn't. People care about cat videos; people don't care how the cat videos arrive. If we want deployment, we need to create the ability to deploy ipv6 relatively easily, so that other pressures can be effective in pushing the actual deployment (e.g. pricing / NAT / policy / etc). There are lots of ways to approach this: one of them is having online meetings about deployment challenges. It isn't the only way; it's a long-term game and online deployment meetings won't cause the protocol to be deployed instantly. But it will help. Nick
Re: [ipv6-wg] Join us for the RIPE NCC Educa::IPv6-only
Gert Doering wrote on 28/05/2020 18:35: So which battles do *you* find important to push IPv6 deployment on the content sidew? having the meetings, for starters. Then deploying ipv6 + making it available in a way that people don't even notice it's there. Nick
Re: [ipv6-wg] Join us for the RIPE NCC Educa::IPv6-only
Jens Link wrote on 28/05/2020 17:53: Maybe it would be a better idea when choosing a tool / platform to check if IPv6 is supported and too prefer those tool / platform. And tell people why the other tool wasn't chosen. Or not. You don't need to win all battles to win the war - just the important ones. This isn't one of them. Nick
Re: [ipv6-wg] Join us for the RIPE NCC Educa::IPv6-only
Nico Schottelius wrote on 28/05/2020 16:50: In a nutshell, everyone can get IPv6 anywhere. Some people would value reliable ipv4-only services as being more useful than ipv6 delivered over tunnelling hacks from third parties. But, most people don't care, in the same way that we don't care about e.g. the building materials used in our roads. Just that they work and that we can get on and do what we need to do. FWIW, I haven't had native ipv6 on my desktop for ~6 years because the service providers I use can't / won't provision it on the services I use. No, this doesn't bother me. Yes, I have v6 access via other means if I really need it. re: using Eventbrite, if it bothers people that the booking system isn't available over ipv6, then don't use it. Just bear in mind that the overall objective of wider ipv6 deployment may not be well served if you make that choice. Don't sacrifice the war to win a battle. Nick
Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv4 Flag Day
Niall O'Reilly wrote on 15/05/2020 14:00: In https://ripe80.ripe.net/archives/chat/88/ |13:23 < luna> https://ipv4flagday.net/ 13:24 < chrbre_AS206228> https://github.com/ipviolations/ipv4flagday/issues | Thanks, Luna and Christian, for pointing me at this, which is a fine idea. There doesn't seem to be any indication that the vendors named on the page have committed to this plan. Nick
Re: [ipv6-wg] RIPE80 Call for Presentations
Tim Chown wrote on 01/05/2020 10:03: I think this is spot on; IPv6 never makes it to the top of the list for most organisations. The difference is when something critical comes along that changes that. this is another way of saying: humans are often a crisis-driven species. Nick
Re: [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote on 07/10/2019 12:28: On 07.10.19 13:21, Job Snijders wrote: Perhaps Kai referred to the RIR system as a whole I did. "the RIR system" does not mean "only RIPE". spreading the blame out doesn't change much. The problem of ipv4 exhaustion has been under discussion since the early 1990s, and that discussion encompassed the role of the RIRs as a whole, 240/4, ipv6, the role of fairness in ip addressing policies and lots more besides. You're welcome to propose that large cdns be assigned 240/4, although I wonder about the optics and wisdom of handing out this address space exclusively to the large players, and politely declining everyone else. Nick
Re: [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Gert Doering wrote on 07/10/2019 11:56: I take a bit of offense here. We did what we could to "protect the newcomers" with the "last /22" policy, but "gone is gone" - there just is not enough v4, what else could we have done? No need to take offense - it's normal for our species to want to assign blame when we're upset, and even more normal to want to fling poo at other people to show how upset we are. It's not as if ipv4 exhaustion snuck up on everyone unnoticed. If people don't like how things were handled, then why they didn't pipe up with their suggestions while the problem was being discussed any time over the last 25 years? It seems a bit odd to start complaining at the point that the registries were scraping the last bits of address space from the bottom of the barrel. Nick
Re: [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Michel Py wrote on 06/10/2019 00:53: The war is global. Who do you think you are to tell me to take it somewhere else ? The chair of a mighty WG that has managed, in 20 years, to capture a whole 2.5% of the Internet traffic right in your own backyard at AMS-IX ? Kick me out of the mailing list, if you have the power to do so. Michel, It's not fully clear what points you're trying to make here. Is it that the RIPE Address Policy working group is responsible for global ipv6 adoption? Or that Sander is personally responsible for AMS-IX member IPv6 adoption policy? Or that Sander has any interest other than constructive discussion on RIPE working group mailing lists? This looks like a personal attack on Sander. This brings down the tone of the WG mailing lists and is terribly unnecessary. Please take this elsewhere. Nick
Re: [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Michel Py wrote on 04/10/2019 23:51: And I suppose you are aware that there were several attempts before, including the last one submitted by APNIC, and that they all have been torpedoed by the IPv6 zealots. The cost of making 240/4 usable is to update every device on the planet, including legacy ipv4 stacks. 240/4 is 16x/8. Before ARIN reached exhaustion, this would have constituted a little more than 1 year of RIR consumption. Bringing 240/4 into production won't change the principle that ipv4 address exhaustion is going to happen: the only thing it does is to move the date a couple of months down the road. There are plenty of people who are not ipv6 zealots, but who view this this as not worth it. Nothing fundamental is going to change, and the cost is very high. Nick
Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG
Jens Link wrote on 03/10/2019 11:34: - IT MUST have NAT - It MUST have Classes - IT MUST have DHCP - It MUST have ARP - It should be possible to drop ICMP the same impact as in IPv4. Many experts I talked to over the years told me that blocking ICMP has no negative impacts. - It MUST only have numbers and dots "." - There should be absolutly no reasons to use "[ ]" in URLs There's nothing wrong with a good volte-face presentation, but I'd suggest you avoid positions of opinion-dressed-up-as-sound-technical-argument. This would be relevant to your bullet points about NAT, DHCP, ARP, and the wisdom of using pseudo-in-line signalling protocols and how they should be managed. IPv6 suffers from a good deal of second system effect, and many of the "improvements" it brings to the table have in retrospect turned out to be pointless or some cases quite harmful, e.g. heavy dependence on multicast and how this scales in large networks, the complexity of ND, extension headers, the DHCP va RA debacle, the pathological antipathy of many people towards NAT and many other things. Also, in case anyone is under the mistaken impression that ipv6 is classless, you will probably want to mention that the ietf 6man working group is hopelessly divided on draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6 (of which I am a coauthor), which has ended up with the draft being blocked. Unless and until that draft - or something similar - makes it through to rfc status, IPv6 remains de facto a fully classful addressing protocol. Otherwise, I'm sure everyone can agree on your only remaining point, namely that colons are better than dots in every conceivable way. This is a sound technical position btw. I will argue the case in exchange for beer and peanuts. Nick
Re: [ipv6-wg] Report from ITU Study Group 20 meeting 3-13 December 2018 in Wuxi, China
Jim Reid wrote on 14/12/2018 10:58: On 14 Dec 2018, at 07:23, de Brün, Markus wrote: As I understood, there will be a new version of the draft. That depends on the original author. He has not updated Y.IPv6RefModel, the ITU draft document, for two years and so far has not taken account of *any* of the feedback from the WG. I will be very surprised if that situation changes. Addressing the comments from the WG would pretty much mean throwing away the current draft and starting all over again from scratch. More to the point, the work on Y.IPv6RefModel should stop because the subject matter is out of scope for the ITU. Nick
[ipv6-wg] Y.IPv6RefModel is out of scope for the ITU
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ipv6-wg wrote on 26/05/2018 12:16: I already said this before, but "... in running such networks vis [via] the RIR policy making fora." is wrong. Stepping back a bit, what we're discussing here is not whether address assignment / allocation models should be dealt with by the RIRs or the IETF, but whether they are in scope for the ITU. The answer to this is that all aspects of IP number resource management are resoundingly out of scope for the ITU. This includes all IP number resource assignment and allocation issues, all addressing models, and by direct implication, the SG20 work on the Y.IPv6RefModel work item. There needs to be a crystal clear statement from the RIR community that this entire exercise is wildly out of scope for the ITU, that SG20 needs to cease and desist from reaching into areas outside their competence, and that the Y.IPv6RefModel work item needs to end, immediately and permanently. Nick
Re: [ipv6-wg] comments on Y.Pv6RefModel
In addition to agreeing to all of what you wrote: Jim Reid wrote: 1) The document is very poor. [I’m being uncharacteristically diplomatic.] It contains lots of errors. The proposed addressing plans are just wrong. "Arbitrary" would be a more appropriate term than "just wrong" in this context. There is no objective basis for carving ipv6 site allocations into the 5 categories specified. It is one way of doing things, but there are many others and there is no fundamental basis for the ITU to recommend this model over any other. Tying ipv4 and ipv6 allocation strategies together is bizarre and in my experience, pointless to the degree of being self-destructive. IPv4 suffers from potentially crippling shortages and address allocation optimisation requirements for ipv4 bear no relation to sensible and relevant optimisation strategies for ipv6. Is is extraordinary to see the two conflated in a document like this. > It would be a*huge* mistake for anyone to adopt these and much, much > worse if SG20 recommends them for global adoption. SG20 should > abandon this fundamentally flawed document. Work on it simply has to > stop. It's not good enough to shout at the ITU and say it's out of scope - as Antonio noted, this work is going to go ahead at the ITU whether it makes sense or not. Probably the RIR / NRO community needs to examine this problem itself and either come up with a series of recommendations or non-recommendations. Nick
Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions
Ondřej Caletka wrote: > Funny story: between 2007 and 2008 O2 Czech Republic offered a new ADSL > plan called Internet ADSL Start. On contrary to other plans this one > didn't have a data limit but instead was charged per number of minutes > on-line. Marketing department probably wanted to reuse old billing > systems from the era of dial-up. yeah, KPN did this in NL at around the same time. I know of one case where someone only noticed after their bank account had been drained of all its cash as a result of background windows chatter traffic. Fortunately, the service was discontinued in short order after KPN realised what a completely bone-headed idea it was. Nick
Re: [ipv6-wg] Fwd: [Bp_ixps] IXPs & IPv6
Michael Oghia wrote: > Thanks Nick. Sad to hear, but hopefully we can change that. you're misunderstanding completely! It means that ipv6 is considered to be of the same importance as ipv4 in the ixp world from the point of view of passing production traffic over the ixp fabric. As far as the IXP world is concerned, this is an excellent situation to be in. Nick
Re: [ipv6-wg] Fwd: [Bp_ixps] IXPs & IPv6
> Does anyone knows of recent updates or statements on the IPv6-readines > of IXPs? Other than that IPv6 readiness has been a complete non-issue for years in the IXP community, I can't think of anything new to add to the euro-ix statement since 2011. Nick
