[ipv6-wg] Re: IPv4 sharing ratio (for IPv6-only deployments)

[Yannis Nikolopoulos via ipv6-wg]

Good points!

Yes, they mainly serve residential customers and AFAIK the ratio isn't 
regulated in Greece. About the heavy users, there is a mechanism in 
place (semi-automatic) to switch a MAP-E subscriber back to dual-stack 
(and vice-versa). Also, it should be noted that business customers were 
not considered for MAP-E inclusion


Cheers,
Yannis


On 10/30/24 1:36 PM, Rinse Kloek wrote:

Hi Yannis,

It all depends on your requirements and the type of customers you are 
serving. A 1:64 ratio could work very well if you mainly serve 
residential users. This ratio will provide each user with nearly 1,000 
UDP and 1,000 TCP ports, which is sufficient for about 99% of users 
(since the UDP/TCP ratio is currently around 50/50, thanks to QUIC).


The key factor is how you manage heavy users. Do they get blocked, or 
are they allocated extra ports?


Additionally, some countries may have specific legal requirements 
regarding acceptable ratios.


Rinse

On 30-10-2024 12:23, Yannis Nikolopoulos via ipv6-wg wrote:

Hello,

I was (off-line) watching Richard Patterson's presentation about Sky 
UK's MAP-T deployment. By the way, this is the kind of presentations 
we should be seeing more of in RIPE meetings.


So anyway, I was taken aback by the IPv4 sharing ratio and I had to 
do a double take. Richard mentioned that they're using 1:16 in Italy 
and 1:8 in the UK. In a similar size deployment in Greece (in my 
previous employer), a few years ago, we had decided on 1:64 (~1000 
ports per subscriber) and I'm now wondering if it is outdated or not.


Cheers,
Yannis


-
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription 
options, please visit: 
https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ipv6-wg.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account 
with the email matching your subscription before you can change your 
settings. More details at: 
https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/



-
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription 
options, please visit: 
https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ipv6-wg.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account 
with the email matching your subscription before you can change your 
settings. More details at: 
https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/


-
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, 
please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ipv6-wg.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. 
More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/

[ipv6-wg] IPv4 sharing ratio (for IPv6-only deployments)

[Yannis Nikolopoulos via ipv6-wg]

Hello,

I was (off-line) watching Richard Patterson's presentation about Sky 
UK's MAP-T deployment. By the way, this is the kind of presentations we 
should be seeing more of in RIPE meetings.


So anyway, I was taken aback by the IPv4 sharing ratio and I had to do a 
double take. Richard mentioned that they're using 1:16 in Italy and 1:8 
in the UK. In a similar size deployment in Greece (in my previous 
employer), a few years ago, we had decided on 1:64 (~1000 ports per 
subscriber) and I'm now wondering if it is outdated or not.


Cheers,
Yannis


-
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, 
please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ipv6-wg.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. 
More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/

[ipv6-wg] Re: BCP/BCOP for ipv6 deployment and filtering policy

[Yannis Nikolopoulos via ipv6-wg]

Hello,




On 10/7/24 12:46 PM, Tim Chown via ipv6-wg wrote:


Hi,

On 07/10/2024, 10:27, "Gert Doering"  wrote:

Hi Tim,

On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 09:03:57AM +, Tim Chown via ipv6-wg wrote:

> You might also want to look at RFC 4890, though that is enterprise 
focused.


That serves as a good background for understanding (and maybe for the

"enterprise side" of the ISP, namely the backend systems).

For "the ISP provides access to the Internet", I would expect my ISP to

pass IP packets back and forth,



Sure but ... no. ISPs drop/limit (as they should) many packets from/to 
subscribers, packets that are DDoS attack vectors: various UDP 
amplifications (DNS, NTP Chargen, SNMP, etc), sometimes fragments and 
you know what? ICMP(v4) also, as has been known to resurface as an 
attack vector in carpet bombing attacks. I'll be honest, I haven't seen 
much ICMPv6 used in the same fashion, but there again I haven't seen 
many IPv6-based DDoS attacks. I always believed that a sane and 
selective implementation of rfc4890 was not a bad thing, even for ISPs, 
even for their customers.


Cheers,
Yannis


and not apply heuristics on why they

would want to drop some of them, based on "enterprise needs this"...

(I'm fairly sure we agree on this, but the casual reader on the list might

not see this destinction - thus, stressing it)

Yes, very much agree, as per EHs more generally.

Tim

Gert Doering

-- NetMaster

--

have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo 
Lalla,


Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler

Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann

D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)

Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


-
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, 
please visit:https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ipv6-wg.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the 
email matching your subscription before you can change your settings.
More details at:https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
-
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, 
please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ipv6-wg.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the 
email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. 
More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/

Re: [ipv6-wg] Clear Guidance for Enterprises

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

On 5/30/23 19:06, Wilhelm Boeddinghaus wrote:

They have no time and they lack knowledge
Well, they seem to have the time to learn about and invest in 
complicated and outdated NAT solutions in order to stretch what little 
IPv4 they have. Let's produce some IPv6-only (with some proper 
transition tech at the edges) guides for them. Now that's something I 
would totally get behind :)


Regards,
Yannis

--

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

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

This is a great idea and I will definitely register. I cant help but 
wonder why there was no prior information about this, especially in 
RIPE's own IPv6 WG


cheers,
Yannis

On 5/28/20 1:37 PM, Ondřej Caletka wrote:

Dear IPv6 working group,

You are invited to join us for a deep-dive into an IPv6-only world!
We’re hosting the fourth edition of a RIPE NCC::Educa - a one day online
event, bringing together experts from around the world to take a deeper
look at topics of interest. Registration is free.

To mark the anniversary of World IPv6 Launch Day, we’re hosting the RIPE
NCC::Educa IPv6-only on Monday, 8 June from 10:00 UTC+2 onwards.

Expert presenters will talk about what it means to run IPv6-only data
centres, ISPs and enterprises, among other topics. You can view the
agenda at:
https://www.ripe.net/support/training/ripe-ncc-educa/ripe-ncc-educa-ipv6-2020

Register at:
https://www.eventbrite.nl/e/ripe-ncceduca-ipv6-only-tickets-106761053184

We hope to see you online soon!

Best regards,
Ondřej Caletka
RIPE NCC

Re: [ipv6-wg] Join us for the RIPE NCC Educa::IPv6-only

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

On 5/28/20 6:50 PM, Nico Schottelius wrote:

Jens Link  writes:


Nico Schottelius  writes:


I personally think for each IPv4 only service we should create an IPv6
only service and use that for ripe/ieee/network related events.

I once removed the A record to a wiki I run for several nerds. I won't
do that again. So much crying. And you can try for yourself: Put a link
on twitter to an IPv6 only resource and see how many people are
complaining.

You are a person of your word and I take the liberty to share the
experiment on here:

https://twitter.com/QuuxBerlin/status/1266021157469290501

(so far did not see anyone complaining)


no complaints from my IPv6-only (MAP-E) connection ;)


Everyone in our community should be able to get IPv6 anywhere, anytime.

*should*

I really don't think there is an excuse. HE.net work w/ static IPs,
IPv6VPN.ch that we provide works with any kind of nat and I'd be open to
make the latter a public service, if it was backed by more than just
ungleich.

In a nutshell, everyone can get IPv6 anywhere.

So from my point of view it's only a matter of motivation and for us -
in the network community - I'd assume that everybody is motivated to get
connected via IPv6.

Best regards,

Nico


--
Modern, affordable, Swiss Virtual Machines. Visit www.datacenterlight.ch

Re: [ipv6-wg] Its that time of the year...

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

Hi Jan,

On 12/1/19 9:16 PM, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote:

On 29/11/2019 11:47, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:
A few years back we gave LW4o6 a go. In the end, it did not work out 
very well. 


I think that you might be much happier with MAP-E as it is stateless and 
keeps NAT at the right place (CPE).


I think so too. If CPE issues do not arise, we're hoping that the BR 
performance will be satisfying.


No matter how hard you try, at the end of the day LW4o6 is still 
stateful mechanism.

Please, keep us in sync how the deployment is going.

Just out of curiosity - how many ports per CPE did you configure?


1008 ports


Cheers, Jan


cheers,
Yannis

[ipv6-wg] Its that time of the year...

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

...when we're starting to deploy yet another IPv6-only technology :)

Hello all,

as a fairly large ISP (for Greek standards at least), we've been 
affected by IPv4 exhaustion for quite some time now. A few years back we 
gave LW4o6 a go, as documented here 
https://ripe76.ripe.net/presentations/11-lw4o6-deployment-as6799.pdf . 
In the end, it did not work out very well. Quoting myself (from v6ops 
mailing list), the reasons behind that were:

"In no particular order:

1. CPE (almost OK after ~2 years and god knows how many iterations)
2. lwaftr performance (worth noting the the lwaftr is implemented as a VNF
3. vendor's reluctance to continue (much needed) dev/ment because of 
*lack of interest from other ISPs* "


Please take extra note of (3).

In any case, being the optimists we are, and having supportive mgmt, we 
decided (once more) against burying ourselves deeper into CGN. This time 
we're going with MAP-E (which incidentally was our first choice), mainly 
because we understand it and our MAP BR vendor does too :) .


So, as I already mentioned, we're just about to deploy it commercially. 
We've tested with 2 CPE vendors sucessfully and we're just ironing out 
some provisioning details before launching. Deployment will be gradual 
of course and very very cautious.


Unofficially, we are aware of a couple of similar trials from other ISPs 
and we'd love to hear about people who have already deployed such 
technologies (IPv6-only with IPv4aas) or are thinking about doing so. 
After all, that is exactly what this WG is about :)


thanks for reading,
Yannis

Re: [ipv6-wg] [official] What Shall This WG Do

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

On 10/5/19 5:20 AM, Jen Linkova wrote:

Hello, dear IPv[0-9] enthusiasts, supporters and zealots,
The current WG charter is available on
https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ipv6


IMHO, the charter (apart from the outdated first sentence :) is fine, we 
just should be doing more of the activities mentioned in it.


cheers,
Yannis


Please read it and let's discuss if anything should be changed there.

Re: [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

On 10/8/19 8:28 AM, Jen Linkova wrote:

Dear WG, I apologise for coming late to the party, a long weekend to blame..

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:53 AM Michel Py
 wrote:

If you want a war that is your choice, but please go and fight it somewhere 
else. RIPE
mailing lists are a place to be constructive and, as Job said, excellent to 
each other.


Read the rest of my posts. I did not start the war. I did not start this thread.
There are two ways to lose a war : lack of funds, and lack of courage. I have 
both.

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.


[with my co-chair hat on]

Michel,
I understand that you might be upset with the current state of
affairs. However I believe the whole discussion would be much more
productive
we we refrain from personal and/or provocative remarks.


*especially* provocative remarks. I haven't seen such toxicity in 
anyone's messages in this list. This rhetoric is alien to this list (and 
community I believe and hope). Please, take it some place where its 
tolerated, not here





Please be respectful to the WG participants, it would be highly appreciated.

Thank you.

Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 WG chair election

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

+1 for Ray from me :)

On 9/18/19 12:04 PM, Gert Doering wrote:

Hi,

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 04:37:39AM +, Jetten Raymond wrote:

However, I'm very willing to stand for re-election, and serve another term as 
IPv6 WG co-chair, which I hope you all find a good idea.


Sounds like a good idea indeed!  *support* :-)

gert

Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 Implementation for an ISP

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

Alessandro,

it doesn't sound like a case of "would like to use IPv6" but rather 
"have to use IPv6" . Apart from several RFCs already mentioned, there 
are pretty decent implementation guides available in all major vendors' 
sites. If you have no prior experience with IPv6, you need to invest 
some time for understanding/experimenting.


Implementations in most (not all) network devices has matured and you 
should be able to avoid a lot of pitfalls by merely following BCP 
documents available (ARIN, APNIC, RIPE have published such documents). 
Also, look for presentations  (RIPE, NANOG etc) from ISPs describing 
their efforts in transitioning towards IPv6, you should be able to find 
plenty...


As a final note, it seems to me that you should be looking into 
"IPv6-only with IPv4aaS". As already mentioned, and depending on your 
service offerings, MAP-(E/T), LW4o6, DSlite and 464XLAT are all viable 
options


cheers,
Yannis

On 3/11/19 6:41 PM, Alessandro Valenza wrote:

Hello,

this is the first time I write in this mailing list.

I have a question for you.

I’m working for an ISP that obtained IPv4 (/22) and IPv6 (/29). I would 
like to use IPv6. Could you suggest me some documents and some manuals 
useful to implement IPv6, but avoiding problems for our customers?


In particular, I would like to avoid compatibility problems with VoIP 
PBXs, network printers, alarm systems, etc ...


In Italy only few ISPs provide IPv6 addresses and we would like to try 
to reverse this negative trend compared to the rest of Europe.


I hope you can help me understanding the advantages and opportunities in 
investing in the direction of IPv6.


Kind regards

Alessandro

Alessandro Valenza​
Ufficio TLC



Tel:*0571 1738257* 
Fax:*0571542536* 

*www.enegan.it* 

CONFIDENZIALITÀ
​Questo messaggio, inclusi gli eventuali allegati, è indirizzato solo ai 
destinatari e può contenere informazioni riservate
​e confidenziali.​    Se avete ricevuto il messaggio senza esserne un 
destinatario, o un suo rappresentante autorizzato, la
​presente comunicazione vale come formale divieto di diffusione del 
contenuto del messaggio.​Se avete ricevuto il ​messaggio
​per errore,  siete pregati di cancellarlo, assieme a tutti gli 
allegati, dal vostro sistema e di informare

​immediatamente il mittente.

[ipv6-wg] IPv6 transition mechanisms used around the world

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

Hello all,

this probably hasn't been posted here so for everyone's info, there's a 
google spreadsheet created by IETF's Lee Howard, with information about 
transition mechanisms used by ISPs around the world. Obviously, anyone 
can edit and the more people add info, the more meaningful and useful it 
can become


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ksOoWOaRdRyjZnjLSikHf4O5L1OUTNOO_7NK9vcVApc/edit?usp=sharing

cheers,
Yannis

Re: [ipv6-wg] Y.IPv6RefModel is out of scope for the ITU

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

(a bit late to the party...)

+1 to Jim
+1 to Nick

On 05/27/2018 03:01 PM, Jim Reid wrote:

On 26 May 2018, at 12:51, Nick Hilliard  wrote:

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.

ABSOLUTELY! Well said Nick.

IMO this point is far more important than commenting on the contents of 
Y.IPv6RefModel. I hope the WG realises that.

At this point however, that crystal clear statement should come from the WG 
because they’re the ones that SG20 has asked to comment on the document.

If the RIR community wants to say something similar, they would probably use a 
different path: presumably a Liaison Statement from the NRO to ITU-T. As would 
ISOC, IETF/IAB, etc if they decided to comment on ITU mission creep into 
matters that are out of scope.

Re: [ipv6-wg] Chair *selection*

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

I also support Jen!

On 05/07/2018 05:52 PM, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote:
On 07/05/2018 09:48, Jim Reid wrote:> However I can't and won't vote for 
her. RIPE selects WG chairs. We don't elect them.


Exactly ;)

BTW, big +1 for Jen, please continue doing a great job!

Cheers, Jan

Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 WG Agenda (RIPE76)

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

Dear Ray,

our presentation has been approved for Tuesday's Plenary session 
(https://ripe76.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/plenary/) . I was merely 
pointing out that it could be of interest for ipv6-wg :)


On 05/07/2018 08:19 AM, Jetten Raymond wrote:

Hello Yannis,

Thank you for your comment,

as you can see on the agenda:

https://ripe76.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ipv6-wg/

we are full booked at the moment.

I will keep this in my mind if any changes occur.

Rgds,

Ray


For Internal Use Only

-Original Message-
From: ipv6-wg [mailto:ipv6-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Yannis Nikolopoulos
Sent: 4. toukokuuta 2018 14:02
To: ipv6-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 WG Agenda (RIPE76)

Hi,

our (OTE Greece) presentation (plenary) might also be of interest to our
WG: Towards IPv6 Only: A large scale lw4o6 deployment (rfc7596) for
broadband users @AS6799

On a side note, 2 lw4o6-related presentations at the same RIPE meeting?
That makes me happy

cheers,
Yannis

On 04/27/2018 03:19 AM, Jen Linkova wrote:

Hello,

The draft agenda for Ipv6 WG sessions at RIPE76 has been published:
https://ripe76.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ipv6-wg/

Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 WG Agenda (RIPE76)

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

Hi,

our (OTE Greece) presentation (plenary) might also be of interest to our 
WG: Towards IPv6 Only: A large scale lw4o6 deployment (rfc7596) for 
broadband users @AS6799


On a side note, 2 lw4o6-related presentations at the same RIPE meeting? 
That makes me happy


cheers,
Yannis

On 04/27/2018 03:19 AM, Jen Linkova wrote:

Hello,

The draft agenda for Ipv6 WG sessions at RIPE76 has been published:
https://ripe76.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ipv6-wg/

Re: [ipv6-wg] Looking for a secon opinion on using ULA along with GUA for residential access

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

On 10/31/2017 01:00 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:

Hello,


 From my point of view, if ULA is enabled:
  - it allows the client's LAN to stay IPv6-enabled even when the
  internet connection is down. It is a simpler version compared to the
  use of link-locals.


for me, it's just the point above. It's nice to have.
regards,
Yannis

Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 Radius Attributes

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

Hi,

can't say I remember them all by heart, but have you checked 
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/sec_usr_aaa/configuration/15-sy/sec-usr-aaa-15-sy-book/ip6-aaa-support.html#GUID-B039F9A5-2783-470D-96DC-1D24E04ADFE9 
? (first link on my google search)


On 10/16/2017 10:33 AM, Shahin Gharghi wrote:

Dear all,

Do you have any idea how many IPv6 Radius Attributes are supported by Cisco?
I need to send Framed-IPv6-Prefix (Attr 97) to radius server or find a 
way to send assigned IPv6 of PPPoE connection(both SLAAC and DHCPv6) to 
radius server.



--
Shahin Gharghi

Re: [ipv6-wg] Version 6 of IPv6 prefix delegations BCOP is out

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

Hello again and thank you for the effort,

just a few more comments


Executive Summary, b2: The benefit is not clear. "Differentiate..., even 
if it increases complexity". I would expect something along the lines 
of: "Differentiate..., even if it increases complexity, because of this 
and that benefit"


Chapter 3, third paragraph: "This may be immediate in terms of other 
networks or content providers...". We might want to rewrite this as 
"This may have an immediate impact, like when other networks or content 
providers..."


Chapter 4, first paragraph: "At this point, the IPv4 scarcity needs to 
be reconsidered because the abundance of IPv6 addresses enables 
numbering decisions to be taken differently." . Its not the scarcity 
that needs to be reconsidered, its the numbering decisions due to that 
scarcity.


4.1.2: "Finally, certain hardware in the ISP infrastructure may consume 
resources when using numbered links. This is a very specific situation 
that you may need to consider." As a more general comment, I feel that 
this BCOP is lacking examples that make the points "relatable"


4.2.1: "This is probably the most practical and pragmatic way..." 
Desired it may be, pragmatic it certainly isn't



cheers,

Yannis


On 08/08/2017 12:01 PM, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote:

Dear RIPE IPv6 WG,

We received offline some good and valuable comments from MarcoH,
addressed them and issued the version 6 of the document draft.

https://sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v6.pdf

Please, read and comment, if you think that we need to carry on with
editing this document. If not, I would like to see if we can reach a
consensus to move forward and ask RIPE staff to do the language check
and publish this document as RIPE BCP.

Any comments? Suggestions?

For v6_pd_BCOP co-authors team, Jan Žorž

Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

Carlos, Jordi,

thank you both for the heads up (I'm a little behind on the policy 
mailing list)



On 04/12/2017 01:28 AM, Carlos Friacas wrote:



Hi Yanis, All,


On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:


Hi Yanis,

That sounds surprising, but in any case, a few weeks ago, a new 
policy proposal to facilitate this has been approved. I think is 
already implemented or it will a matter of a few days, so you should 
not have any problem at all to justify an allocation for 1.6 millions 
of customers or even much more, with a /48.


i.e. this message... (if the estimation was correct, the 
announcement will happen very soon!)


===
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:04:06
From: Marco Schmidt 
To: address-policy...@ripe.net
Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 Proposal Accepted (Synchronising 
the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies)


Dear colleagues,

Consensus has been reached on 2016-05,
"Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies".

This policy change matches the subsequent IPv6 allocation requirements
with the initial allocation requirements. In addition to the existing
justification based on past utilisation, it is now also possible to
document new needs, including the number of users, the extent of the 
organisation's

infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical structuring of
the organisation, the segmentation of infrastructure for security and
the planned longevity of the allocation.

You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-05

The new RIPE Document is ripe-684 and is available at:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-684

We estimate that this proposal will take around two weeks to fully 
implement.


We will send another announcement once the implementation is complete
and the new procedures are in place.

Thank you to everyone who provided input.

Kind regards,

Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC
===


Cheers,
Carlos




Regards,
Jordi


-Mensaje original-
De: ipv6-wg  en nombre de Yannis 
Nikolopoulos 

Responder a: 
Fecha: martes, 11 de abril de 2017, 11:24
Para: Mikael Abrahamsson 
CC: Jan Zorz - Go6 , "ipv6-wg@ripe.net" 
Asunto: Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available 
for comments and suggestions


   On 04/11/2017 11:57 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
   > On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:
   >
   >> 3.2.2: /48 for all is most practical & most pragmatic? How many 
/32 we
   >> need to burn for our end users? We have ~1.6M residential users 
and

   >> our /29 is definitely not enough. Is RIPE onboard with that?
   >
   > Yes. /48 per site is ok as per all IETF and RIPE documents I am 
aware of.

   >
   > So if your /29 is too small for your customer base, go get 
another one.

   > I know ISPs who returned their /29 before they even started serious
   > deployment, and received larger space. I encourage people to do 
just this.

   >

   That's great to hear but when we upgraded our /32 to a /29 
(~2011), this
   was not the case unfortunately (meaning that RIPE would not accept 
our

   long term addressing plan as a reason enough to get multiple /29s






**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged 
or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the 
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be 
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the 
contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

On 04/11/2017 11:57 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:


3.2.2: /48 for all is most practical & most pragmatic? How many /32 we
need to burn for our end users? We have ~1.6M residential users and
our /29 is definitely not enough. Is RIPE onboard with that?


Yes. /48 per site is ok as per all IETF and RIPE documents I am aware of.

So if your /29 is too small for your customer base, go get another one.
I know ISPs who returned their /29 before they even started serious
deployment, and received larger space. I encourage people to do just this.



That's great to hear but when we upgraded our /32 to a /29 (~2011), this 
was not the case unfortunately (meaning that RIPE would not accept our 
long term addressing plan as a reason enough to get multiple /29s

Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

Hello,

a few (late) comments:

3.1.1: When exactly is this a good idea and why reference an old 
draft?(We have 6164)
3.1.4 ULA: Since numerous problems may be caused by this approach, I 
believe that more than one should be mentioned
3.2.1: users not being able to use all 4 hex digits can lead to 
erroneous allocations outside of /56? This sounds a bit stretched
3.2.1: which mechanisms use a default /48 prefix size? Could you please 
elaborate a bit?
3.2.2: /48 for all is most practical & most pragmatic? How many /32 we 
need to burn for our end users? We have ~1.6M residential users and our 
/29 is definitely not enough. Is RIPE onboard with that?
4.2. even though I generally agree that dynamic assignments have more 
disadvantages (than benefits), the need to have a logging system is 
usually not one of them, as most (if not all) ISPs have that covered 
long before IPv6 (e.g. RADIUS accounting)


As more general final comment, I believe that such a document would 
definitely benefit operators just starting out


cheers,
Yannis

On 03/27/2017 04:32 PM, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote:

Dear RIPE IPv6 WG,

As promised at last RIPE meeting in Madrid, we produced a first draft of
"Best Current Operational Practice for operators: IPv6 prefix assignment
for end-users - static (stable) or dynamic (non-stable) and what size to
choose."

The aim of this document is to document the best current operational
practice on what size of IPv6 prefix ISPs should assign/delegate to
their customers and should they delegate it in a stable, static way or
should it change over time.

Please find the PDF attached and also accessible at:

https://www.sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v1.pdf

We are submitting this document to RIPE IPv6 WG (here) to check the
technical validity of the document and also get consensus on it. We are
also submitting it to RIPE BCOP TF to check if this is a
real best operational practice and get consensus on it there.

Please, read the document and send back comments to this mailing list.
All feedback is more than welcome.

On behalf of co-authors, Jan Ε½orΕΎ

P.S: This document is not intended to document what practices may
be in future and what they might look like, but to reflect the best
methods of implementing IPv6 at the time of publication. Updates to this
document will be published to reflect changes in best current practices
where there are developments in standards and implementations.

Re: [ipv6-wg] ipv6-wg: SixXS is shutting down

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

For me, SixXS has been a part of the IPv6 culture. Thank you very much 
for providing this invaluable service!


On 03/23/2017 08:03 PM, Pim van Pelt wrote:

Colleagues of RIPE's IPv6 working group,

In 1999, Jeroen and I started SixXS, a project which aimed to provide
IPv6 connectivity to users who wanted to learn about the network
protocol and gain experience operating IPv6 networks. Our vision was
to facilitate migration to IPv6 in content and access providers.

We were able to provide IPv6 to 50’000+ individual users and companies
in 140+ countries, using servers hosted at 40+ Internet providers in
30+ countries. We are incredibly proud of what we’ve accomplished
together, and how many people have gotten to know all about IPv6 due
to our combined efforts.

We have completed a retrospective and rationale document, which
details our experience developing and operating the SixXS tunnelbroker
over the last 18 years. We have worked through our plans with the many
dedicated ISPs that have been involved:
https://www.sixxs.net/sunset/

We have reached out to users recently, giving them 6 weeks to make
alternative plans. We have chosen a somewhat symbolic date of
2017-06-06 to turn down the SixXS service. Our website will remain as
a tombstone.

Please feel free to pass this along to any group or list you feel
would benefit from it, and reach out to  or to myself
directly  if you have thoughts you’d like to share
between now and then.


Kindest Regards,
Pim van Pelt and Jeroen Massar (SixXS founders)

Re: [ipv6-wg] Chair selection: call for candidates

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

+1 for Raymond


On 10/19/2016 02:33 PM, Mike Simkins wrote:

Supported

Mike Simkins ▪ Technical Architect ▪ Service Design & Realisation - Network
▪ Sungard Availability Services
Lighterman House, 3 Clove Crescent, London E14 2BB ▪
mike.simk...@sungardas.com ▪ www.sungardas.com

CONFIDENTIALITY:  This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain
confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized
disclosure or use is prohibited.  If you received this e-mail in error,
please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system.


-Original Message-
From: ipv6-wg [mailto:ipv6-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jetten Raymond
Sent: 18 October 2016 12:33
To: ipv6-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Chair selection: call for candidates

Hi all,



Since there is not too much of a queue, i would like to announce that I am
available as a candidate.



Rgds,



Ray



-Original Message-

From: ipv6-wg [mailto:ipv6-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Anna Wilson

Sent: 17. lokakuuta 2016 13:39

To: ipv6-wg@ripe.net

Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Chair selection: call for candidates



Reminder: the closing date is Friday.



Best regards,

Anna



On 15/09/2016 13:48, Anna Wilson wrote:


Hello all,
The working group selected Jen, Benedikt and myself as co-chairs at
RIPE69 in November 2014. At RIPE70, we adopted this procedure for
replacing chairs:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ripe.net_ripe_mail_archives_ipv6-2Dwg_2015-2DMay_002615.html&d=DQIGaQ&c=gYbc-GKV5BQa9zrq1GFCVg&r=S1PZn0PYDDYtiCW2fix2C1ZHo8KzLAckyehxqI4wl20&m=WcK-_wi0C1mSsA9hh9xeSPhlg-NIZSDupQfSrSrhMlw&s=iDP8UFFQrj9uMQiqfN9QizlVWyTJ8csFlHcqVYwWgqY&e=
This provides for a three year term. Since all three of us were selected
at the same meeting, our terms would expire simultaneously in late 2017.
To encourage continuity, I plan to step down next month at RIPE73.
We therefore call for candidates for the post of IPv6 working group
chair. If you would like to stand for selection, please announce so to
the mailing list. The closing date for candidates is 23:59 UTC on Friday
21st October 2016. (The Friday before the RIPE73 meeting.)
As per the procedure, the selection itself will take place during the
working group session at RIPE73.
Best regards,
Anna

Re: [ipv6-wg] [members-discuss] manufacturers of routers and IPV6

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

hi,

we've been doing this for the past 6-7 years, sometimes successfully, 
other times not so much :)


cheers,
Yannis

On 07/23/2016 12:18 PM, Куприянов Роман wrote:

Dear colleagues.

Is there any possibility of the community affect the router manufacturer to 
implement the required functionality for the
implementation of IPV6?


--
Best regards,
Kupriyanov Roman   (ru.enigma)

Re: [ipv6-wg] RIPE72 IPv6 WG: call for presentations

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

Hello all,

the list has been awfully quiet lately... I see that there are 2 slots 
for the WG but I couldn't find the programme


On 01/27/2016 05:53 PM, Jen Linkova wrote:

Dear IPv6 Enthusiasts ;)

I know that 23 of May 2016 when RIPE72 will start looks so away but we
(IPv6 WG Chairs) like to plan ahead!

If you would like to present at IPv6 WG session or just have any
suggestions on the agenda (what we should or should not be talking
about) - please email ipv6-wg-cha...@ripe.net

 From presenters we need the following information:
- a tentative title of your talk;
- short summary
- how much time you need (I'd recommend allowing 5 mins for questions).

For the last few meetings we filled all the agenda slots quite earlier
and unfortunately had to reject a number of interesting talks because
they were submitted too late.

So don't be shy! If you *might* be able to present but not sure yet -
also let us know.

Re: [ipv6-wg] [ipv6-wg-chair] ipv6 deployment startup

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

Hello,

MAP-(E/T) and lw4o6, both recently standardized, should also be considered.

cheers,
Yannis

On 09/15/2015 11:43 AM, Jen Linkova wrote:

Hi Nadim,

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Nadim Houeiss  wrote:

looking to start the deployment of ipv6 only network for a new part in my
network , i need to have info about wish solution will be the best to be
used for NAT64 techniques for new ipv6 only end users will be able to reach
ipv4 different services and web servers on the web.


As far as I know most network vendors (Cisco, Juniper etc) support
NAT64 on their equipment.
However don't forget that you'd need DNS64 as well, so I'd suggest to
check if the DNS solution you are using currently supports DNS64.

 From my experience the main issue is not choosing a vendor for NAT64
but dealing with broken applications:
- applications which assume than "no IPv4 address" means "no Internet
connectivity" and not even trying to establish any connections if the
device does not receive Ipv4 address;
- applications which are using IPv4 literals;
- applications which ask for "A" DNS RR only, so DNS64 does not help
etc.


looking forward for your reply,


BTW I'm removing ipv-wg-chairs@ (as it is just an alias which is used
to reach RIPE IPv6 Working group chairs) and adding RIPE IPv6 mailing
list.

Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 martian filter-set

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

hello Job,

thanks for the update :)

On 07/09/2015 02:38 PM, Job Snijders wrote:

On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 02:23:15PM +0300, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:

I'm not sure if people are using the fltr-martian-v6 filter set
maintained by Job Snijders:

filter-set: fltr-martian-v6
descr:  Current IPv6 martians
mp-filter:  {
 ::/8^+,  # loopback, unspecified, v4-mapped
 0200::/7^+,  # Reserved by IETF [RFC4048]
 2001::/32^-, # Teredo prefix [RFC4380]
 2001:db8::/32^+, # NON-ROUTABLE range to be used for
documentation purpose [RFC3849]
 2002::/16^-, # 6to4 prefix [RFC3068]
 3ffe::/16^+, # used for the 6bone but was returned
[RFC5156]
 5f00::/8^+,  # used for the 6bone but was returned
[RFC5156]
 fc00::/7^+,  # Unique Local Unicast [RFC4193]
 fe80::/10^+, # Link Local Unicast [RFC4291]
 fec0::/10^+, # Reserved by IETF [RFC3879]
 ff00::/8^+   # Multicast [RFC4291]
 }

I'm trying to figure out why prefixes like 0200::/7 or 0400::/6 are not
included in this list


0200::/7 was already there.


Any ideas?


The answer is simple:

 Vurt:~ job$ whois fltr-martian-v6 | grep manual
 remarks:this object is manually maintained

I've just updated it, manually :-)

Kind regards,

Job

[ipv6-wg] IPv6 martian filter-set

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

Hello,

I'm not sure if people are using the fltr-martian-v6 filter set 
maintained by Job Snijders:


filter-set: fltr-martian-v6
descr:  Current IPv6 martians
mp-filter:  {
::/8^+,  # loopback, unspecified, v4-mapped
0200::/7^+,  # Reserved by IETF [RFC4048]
2001::/32^-, # Teredo prefix [RFC4380]
2001:db8::/32^+, # NON-ROUTABLE range to be used for 
documentation purpose [RFC3849]

2002::/16^-, # 6to4 prefix [RFC3068]
3ffe::/16^+, # used for the 6bone but was returned 
[RFC5156]
5f00::/8^+,  # used for the 6bone but was returned 
[RFC5156]

fc00::/7^+,  # Unique Local Unicast [RFC4193]
fe80::/10^+, # Link Local Unicast [RFC4291]
fec0::/10^+, # Reserved by IETF [RFC3879]
ff00::/8^+   # Multicast [RFC4291]
}

I'm trying to figure out why prefixes like 0200::/7 or 0400::/6 are not 
included in this list


Any ideas?

cheers,
Yannis

Re: [ipv6-wg] Chair replacement procedure for ipv6-wg

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

On 04/30/2015 11:11 AM, Dave Wilson wrote:


For clarity, here's the text again with the introduction so edited.

Best regards,
Dave


seems fine to me :)

Re: [ipv6-wg] [address-policy-wg] [Merging ipv6 and address policy mailing lists]

[Yannis Nikolopoulos]

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