Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-11-29 Thread Dave Taht 
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 6:45 AM Thomas Schäfer 
wrote:

> Am 23.10.19 um 15:26 schrieb Fernando Gont:
> > It's worse than that: Most IPv4 CPE devices have UPnP support, but IPv6
> > ones often lack the hooks to punch holes into the fw. SO at the end of
> > the day you get better end-to-end connectivity with IPv4 than with IPv6
>
>
> That assumes you have at least a public ipv4 address at your home router.
>
> A a lot of people (in Germany) cannot fulfill this requirement. Some of
> them hope/pray for pcp instead of UPnP. (good luck)
> On the other hand, despite most home routers have a simple firewall -
> people may change their routers. And cheap router may get an software
> update, as they got it in former time for dyndns and port forwarding...
>

The only hopes I have for innovation along the edge breaks down into people
retaining control over the software in their routers, the elimination of
binary blobs, working on improving wifi, and making ipv6 better. I wish
more ISPs realized that wifi was the
major thing keeping their market alive in light of cellphones everywhere,
and despite working on openwrt as much as I can,
don't see many ISPs making any investment into better CPE, just riding
their rental fees. Binary blobs - well, as examples, I'd
like an open source ONT so I could wedge the sch_cake algorithm into one -
or just one dsl driver - or - gasp! a cable modem. Coping with the binary
blob in just one wifi chip just took years to sort out. (
https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg615203.html )

As for public IPs,  only the gaming market, really, is left with sufficient
clout to do anything about it, and even there e2e is dying due to people
mounting ddos attacks against visible participants.

And nobody seems to know how 5G will implement IPv6.

Peering into my cloudy crystal ball, I see a whole generation not knowing
what an end to end experience is like, the online gaming
experience becoming more like farmville, and routing ssh over https.

The internet could have been so much more, and I despair.



>
>
>
> --
>
> There’s no place like ::1
>
> Thomas Schäfer (Systemverwaltung)
> Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität
> Centrum für Informations- und Sprachverarbeitung
> Oettingenstraße 67 Raum C109
> 80538 München ☎ +49/89/2180-9706  ℻ +49/89/2180-9701
>
>
>

-- 

Dave Täht
CTO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-831-205-9740

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-11-29 Thread Fernando Gont 
On 23/10/19 10:41, Carlos Morgado wrote:
> 
>> On 23 Oct 2019, at 14:26, Fernando Gont  wrote:
>>
>> On 5/10/19 13:18, Gert Doering wrote:
>> []
>>>
>>> With the way the Internet is evolving today, IPv4+NAT might just be good
>>> enough anyway.  End users want lots of TV channels, the big content 
>>> networks are providing.  Everything (including DNS) is done over HTTPS
>>> today, which is very NAT friendly.  CGN in the eyeball ISP world can 
>>> easily achieve 10:1 or 50:1 IPv4 oversubscription, and with that, we 
>>> have enough IPv4 for ever...
>>>
>>> Well, yes, end-to-end communication will be lost forever.  But since
>>> the "EVERYONE MUST HAVE A FIREWALL!" crowd broke that for the normal 
>>> household anyway, it's lost anyway.
>>
>> It's worse than that: Most IPv4 CPE devices have UPnP support, but IPv6
>> ones often lack the hooks to punch holes into the fw. SO at the end of
>> the day you get better end-to-end connectivity with IPv4 than with IPv6.
>>
>> e.g., see:
>> https://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/tip/Ensuring-P2P-apps-dont-cause-network-performance-issues-with-IPv6
>>
> 
> Isn’t this a we broke the network so we must further break the network 
> scenario ?

?


> If you remove PAT a lot of the UPnP needs go away and  can be replaced by a 
> mix of straightforward fw rules and stateful peeking like PAT residential 
> CPEs do already. 

At the end of the day, there's not much of a difference. In the IPv4
world you map external ports to internal ports. And in the IPv6 world
you need to punch holes into the firewall, even when the port is not
translated.


> Going forward there’s nothing really stoping UPnP being implemented over IPv6 
> anyway is there ? 

There isn't, indeed. But in many cases support is simply not there.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint:  31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-23 Thread Thomas Schäfer 

Am 23.10.19 um 15:26 schrieb Fernando Gont:

It's worse than that: Most IPv4 CPE devices have UPnP support, but IPv6
ones often lack the hooks to punch holes into the fw. SO at the end of
the day you get better end-to-end connectivity with IPv4 than with IPv6



That assumes you have at least a public ipv4 address at your home router.

A a lot of people (in Germany) cannot fulfill this requirement. Some of 
them hope/pray for pcp instead of UPnP. (good luck)
On the other hand, despite most home routers have a simple firewall - 
people may change their routers. And cheap router may get an software 
update, as they got it in former time for dyndns and port forwarding...





--

There’s no place like ::1

Thomas Schäfer (Systemverwaltung)
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität
Centrum für Informations- und Sprachverarbeitung
Oettingenstraße 67 Raum C109
80538 München ☎ +49/89/2180-9706  ℻ +49/89/2180-9701

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-23 Thread Fernando Gont 
On 5/10/19 21:52, Enno Rey wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> 
> two quick questions (which might be of interest for the group as well):
> 
> 
>> 
>> And, the above (combined with uneducated ISP blocking IPv6 extension headers)
> 
> do you have newer numbers than those of
> http://www.ipv6conference.ch/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/T03-Vyncke-20160616-ext-hdr_download.pdf
> 
> (or RFC 7872 which, iirc, is based on research performed earlier than your's)

I can re-run the experiment if folks would find that useful.

P.S.: Little pearl not included in the RFC: the filtering also applies
to IPsec EHs   :-o

-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint:  31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-23 Thread Carlos Morgado 


> On 23 Oct 2019, at 14:26, Fernando Gont  wrote:
> 
> On 5/10/19 13:18, Gert Doering wrote:
> []
>> 
>> With the way the Internet is evolving today, IPv4+NAT might just be good
>> enough anyway.  End users want lots of TV channels, the big content 
>> networks are providing.  Everything (including DNS) is done over HTTPS
>> today, which is very NAT friendly.  CGN in the eyeball ISP world can 
>> easily achieve 10:1 or 50:1 IPv4 oversubscription, and with that, we 
>> have enough IPv4 for ever...
>> 
>> Well, yes, end-to-end communication will be lost forever.  But since
>> the "EVERYONE MUST HAVE A FIREWALL!" crowd broke that for the normal 
>> household anyway, it's lost anyway.
> 
> It's worse than that: Most IPv4 CPE devices have UPnP support, but IPv6
> ones often lack the hooks to punch holes into the fw. SO at the end of
> the day you get better end-to-end connectivity with IPv4 than with IPv6.
> 
> e.g., see:
> https://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/tip/Ensuring-P2P-apps-dont-cause-network-performance-issues-with-IPv6
> 

Isn’t this a we broke the network so we must further break the network scenario 
? If you remove PAT a lot of the UPnP needs go away and  can be replaced by a 
mix of straightforward fw rules and stateful peeking like PAT residential CPEs 
do already. 
Going forward there’s nothing really stoping UPnP being implemented over IPv6 
anyway is there ? 

> Thanks,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint:  31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-06 Thread Gert Doering 
Hi,

On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 10:49:02AM +0300, d...@barletford.com wrote:
> Which comes with some routing questions: how do you map the /48 with the 
> CPE?
> Is there some kind of OSPF-like protocol that allows the ONT to 
> advertise the delegated class?
> Do you add all possible routes in the router at the beginning, but then 
> end up with 100k routes in an area with 5k customers?
> Do you programmatically add the routes when activating a client? Is 
> there a standard for that?

This is no different from IPv4, effectively.

In IPv4, a client is handed "a single IPv4 address", by whatever means
(RADIUS backend, DHCP backend, local pool on the PE router, static 
routes...) and this IPv4 address is then either injected into OSPF/iBGP 
or aggregated into "network, please send me only the /23 supernet".

Same for IPv6 - depending on your gear, you either do the /48 assignment
on the PE router (BRAS) by means of "static" or "DHCPv6" or "pool", or
you involve a backend server (DHCPv6 relay, RADIUS, ...) to tell the
PE what to send where.  Then, either aggregate on the PE ("send this
/40 to me, no specific routes") or redistribute to iBGP - which depends
on network structure, aggregation boundaries, number of customers
(if you have 5k customers, just send to iBGP, and be done with it,
if you have 5m customers, you will want multiple layers of internal 
aggregation).


Since this depends on what your ISP gear can do *and* how the ISP is
generally set up (business customers with static assignments, or
only dynamic assignments for residents, ...) and how their IPv4
provisioning tools operate, the "correct" answer depends.  So it's 
not trivial to tell "this is the standard" - there are multiple, and
they all have their upsides and downsides.

As Lee said "just labour".

[..]
> The result: I asked my customer if he has enough IPv4 addresses for the 
> next 3 years. He said yes, so my recommendation was: wait for a couple 
> of years.

I think you are a bit lazy.  Nobody else will be able to tell you what
the right answer is for your customer network, because nobody *knows*
your customer network.  We can tell you what options and protocols exist,
but only you and your ISP customer know the equipment, the equipment's
capabilities, and how the existing network is operating.


If you have specific questions ("I have a PE router from vendor X, and
when I try to redistribute DHCPv6-relay into RIPng, the ethernet plugs
all fall out"), there are people here or on the more vendor-specific 
lists (https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/) which will be happy
to help.

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-06 Thread Gert Doering 
Hi,

On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 04:52:09AM +0200, Enno Rey wrote:
> > is even more frightening it forces the Internet in the hands of a 
> > couple of cloud providers and is a real ossification of the Internet
> 
> Can you elaborate on the line of argumentation here? thanks in advance
> 
> & everybody have a great Sunday

Well, the way the Internet has evolved in the past few years is (for
"95+% of everything", so those few of you that do "ssh $home" are all
on this list, but not relevant in the grand scheme)

 - all traffic is https
   - browser vendors are trying to push even DNS on https
 - all traffic is between "users" and "content providers"
 - "end-to-end" traffic is relayed via cloud services, because there is
   no end-to-end anymore (IPv6 routers ship with firewalls on-by-default,
   IPv4 routers with NAT - which can be circumvented, but every new 
   application would have to deal with it)
 - due to DoS etc., most important content is hosted by a small handful
   of very large CDNs and/or anti-ddos providers

which, taken all together, means "the Internet works nicely and smoothly
for 99% of the users, but rolling out anything *new* is near to impossible
unless you happen to be a browser vendor or major content network"

ossified...

(And the fact that it *does* work nicely and smoothly for most users 
means it's fairly hard to convince anyone that this evolution might not
be what "we" - for some definition of "we" - really want)

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-06 Thread dan 




 According to the mailing list archive, "[t]he IPv6 Working Group is
for anyone with an interest in the next generation Internet Protocol.
The activities of the WG include education and outreach, sharing
deployment experiences and discussing and fixing operational issues".
So, Jens shared his IPv6 deployment experiences ("isn't happening"),
maybe there's something the IPv6 WG can do to enforce IPv6 deployment?
BTW, at least in terms of availability v6 is the current, v4 the
legacy Internet Protocol, maybe that wording should be updated?




My experience: I was consulting with a small ISP on the opportunity to 
deploy dual stack IPv6 to the end-users. IPv6 is already functional with 
the peers.


RIPE published its recommendations: 
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-690. Basically, delegate a 
/48 for each customer and give the ONT an IP from a different pool.


Which comes with some routing questions: how do you map the /48 with the 
CPE?
Is there some kind of OSPF-like protocol that allows the ONT to 
advertise the delegated class?
Do you add all possible routes in the router at the beginning, but then 
end up with 100k routes in an area with 5k customers?
Do you programmatically add the routes when activating a client? Is 
there a standard for that?


So, at this year's MENOG, I asked the person next to the IPv6 banner 
whom I could talk to. She said she will forward all my questions to 
their IPv6 expert.
Sure enough, I got a response from the IPv6 expert: a few very polite 
paragraphs that boiled down to: "Huh?!".

And a link to this list, which for the past 8 months was comatose.

The result: I asked my customer if he has enough IPv4 addresses for the 
next 3 years. He said yes, so my recommendation was: wait for a couple 
of years.


Takeaway: If we want more IPv6 at the end-user level, we need standards 
to do that, not just some recommendations.


Best regards,
Dan Craciun

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-05 Thread Enno Rey 
Hi Eric,

two quick questions (which might be of interest for the group as well):


> 
> And, the above (combined with uneducated ISP blocking IPv6 extension headers)

do you have newer numbers than those of
http://www.ipv6conference.ch/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/T03-Vyncke-20160616-ext-hdr_download.pdf

(or RFC 7872 which, iirc, is based on research performed earlier than your's)



> is even more frightening it forces the Internet in the hands of a couple 
> of cloud providers and is a real ossification of the Internet

Can you elaborate on the line of argumentation here? thanks in advance

& everybody have a great Sunday

Enno


-- 
Enno Rey

@Enno_Insinuator
https://theinternetprotocol.blog

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-05 Thread Eric Vyncke (evyncke) via ipv6-wg 
Hello Gert,

In-line

On 05/10/2019, 20:19, "ipv6-wg on behalf of Gert Doering" 
 wrote:

%<%<--

With the way the Internet is evolving today, IPv4+NAT might just be good
enough anyway.  End users want lots of TV channels, the big content 
networks are providing.  Everything (including DNS) is done over HTTPS
today, which is very NAT friendly.  CGN in the eyeball ISP world can 
easily achieve 10:1 or 50:1 IPv4 oversubscription, and with that, we 
have enough IPv4 for ever...

Until the police declares that 1000:1 oversubscription (combine with encryption 
everywhere) makes their job impossible and enforce some limitation.

Well, yes, end-to-end communication will be lost forever.  But since
the "EVERYONE MUST HAVE A FIREWALL!" crowd broke that for the normal 
household anyway, it's lost anyway.

And, the above (combined with uneducated ISP blocking IPv6 extension headers) 
is even more frightening it forces the Internet in the hands of a couple of 
cloud providers and is a real ossification of the Internet

%<%<---

Now, I do not have any solution

-éric

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-05 Thread Carlos Friaças via ipv6-wg 




On Sat, 5 Oct 2019, Jen Linkova wrote:


On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:04 AM Enno Rey  wrote:

I support the proposal.
Once a protocol has reached mainstream deployment (as IPv6 has) a dedicated WG 
might no longer be needed. I mean, there's no IPv4 WG either, right?


Actually it's exactly what I said after I became a co-chair. Our
ultimate goal should be to get rid of this group. Let' get IPv6
deployed and go home. Or to the new adventure. As you've said, we do
not have IPv4 WG.
Unfortunately we are not there yet.


Hi,

"We" as in "everyone" -- 110% agree.
And i must add: there is still a long road ahead.

Should the WG try to define new goals, or work more around some 
measurements in order to support goal evaluation...?


Carlos



--
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-05 Thread Anton Rieger 

On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 07:10:31PM +0200, Jens Link wrote:

In the IPv4 net many are scattered (right now)


This is good from a security perspective. Confuses the attacker!


Hope the exclamation mark is a ⸮(irony sign) here.
All prefixes are public and many tools exist to gather them.
For example bgp.he.net.
Security through obscurity should not be an pro or contra argument ;)

Anton

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-05 Thread Gert Doering 
Hi,

On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 06:52:25PM +0200, Jens Link wrote:
> As the feedback on (and off) this list has show there are several people
> agreeing with my arguments that further work on IPv6 is a waste of time
> and we need to prolong the live of IPv4 until we find a real successor.
> Maybe should also discuss if this successor should be defined by IETF or
> by a real standard body like the ITU.

There will not be anything else on the public Internet in our lifetime.

Either it's "IPv6" (with a infinite heavy-tail of IPv4 inside enterprise
networks, shielded via application gateways from the Internet anyway) or
"IPv4 plus NAT".

With the way the Internet is evolving today, IPv4+NAT might just be good
enough anyway.  End users want lots of TV channels, the big content 
networks are providing.  Everything (including DNS) is done over HTTPS
today, which is very NAT friendly.  CGN in the eyeball ISP world can 
easily achieve 10:1 or 50:1 IPv4 oversubscription, and with that, we 
have enough IPv4 for ever...

Well, yes, end-to-end communication will be lost forever.  But since
the "EVERYONE MUST HAVE A FIREWALL!" crowd broke that for the normal 
household anyway, it's lost anyway.


I still think IPv6 is a more reasonable way forward, but I *expect* to 
make a shitload of money by fixing people's NAT setups in the next 
decade...  ("our multi-million dollar machines can no longer work because
this network thingie broke, and we have neither config nor documentation, 
so can you please figure out which networks it's trying to connect to and 
make it work again, QUICKLY?")

*sigh*

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-05 Thread Jens Link 
Anton Rieger  writes:

> In the IPv4 net many are scattered (right now)

This is good from a security perspective. Confuses the attacker!

Jens
-- 

| Delbrueckstr. 41| 12051 Berlin, Germany   | +49-151-18721264 |
| http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jensl...@quux.de| ---  |

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-05 Thread Mirko M 
So why do not representing IPv6 in a base64 encoding?


20 chars + 3 numbers [0-255]  for the last 8 bits


organized in 4 group

10 char; 8 char;  2 char; 3 numbers


example:

CompanyNet;inMilano;hr;121

pros:

- buzzword or company name preference for choice as happened for dns name;
- network partition inside a company would use the last two base64 char + 3 
numbers (like ipv4) for a total of 20 bits of space (2^20 should be enough);
- optimized usage of bit space, no needs for /64 as minimum for a network;
- considering that it is only a representation with a well know alhorithm 
should be simple to implement.
-CIDR mechanism can work as well.

Best regards.

Mirko Mancini - Telecommunication Engineer





Da: ipv6-wg  per conto di Aled Morris via ipv6-wg 

Inviato: sabato 5 ottobre 2019, 17:51
A: Jens Link
Cc: ipv6-wg@ripe.net IPv6
Oggetto: Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 11:34, Jens Link mailto:li...@quux.de>> 
wrote:

The new successor to IPv4 should not make the same mistakes as IPv6.
[...]
- It MUST only have numbers and dots "."

Maybe we should allow IPv6 addresses to be written in dotted quad format with 
the quads not being limited to 0..255 but instead 0..4294967295

So instead of writing 2001:4860:4860:: we would write 
536954976.1214251008.0.34952 which is clearly easier to use.

bonus: your old regex ^[0-9]*\.[0-9]*\.[0-9]*\.[0-9]*$ will still work

Aled


Ottieni Outlook per Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-05 Thread Jens Link 
Jan Zorz - Go6  writes:

Jan,

> I would like to encourage you to submit a proposal to RIPE PC for a BoF
> that would discuss your topic.

This is a great idea. I will do so right after finishing this mail
 
> If you get enough like-minded people to the BoF and present the
> usefulness of more focused IPv4-enhancement work to the community at
> closing plenary - then you might get a Task Force or even a Working
> Group with a goal of discussing and extending IPv4 - well, who knows,
> right? :)

As the feedback on (and off) this list has show there are several people
agreeing with my arguments that further work on IPv6 is a waste of time
and we need to prolong the live of IPv4 until we find a real successor.
Maybe should also discuss if this successor should be defined by IETF or
by a real standard body like the ITU.

Jens
-- 

| Delbrueckstr. 41| 12051 Berlin, Germany   | +49-151-18721264 |
| http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jensl...@quux.de| ---  |

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-05 Thread Anton Rieger 

- It MUST only have numbers and dots "."



Maybe we should allow IPv6 addresses to be written in dotted quad format
with the quads not being limited to 0..255 but instead 0..4294967295

So instead of writing 2001:4860:4860:: we would write
536954976.1214251008.0.34952 which is clearly easier to use.

Why not just use the pure decimal form?
16842 -> 10.10.1.1
For IPv4 the BSD/Posix-Network stack accepts them anyway


bonus: your old regex ^[0-9]*\.[0-9]*\.[0-9]*\.[0-9]*$ will still work

bonus: regex is just: ^[0-9]*$ or even ^\d+$

But joking aside:
What I'm missing here is the beauty of IPv6 subnet topology:
Because we have so much quibbles it's easier to organize your networks:
2001:db8/64
e.g.
2001:db8:4321:7::/64

In the IPv4 net many are scattered (right now)

Anton

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-05 Thread Aled Morris via ipv6-wg 
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 11:34, Jens Link  wrote:

>
> The new successor to IPv4 should not make the same mistakes as IPv6.
>
[...]

> - It MUST only have numbers and dots "."
>

Maybe we should allow IPv6 addresses to be written in dotted quad format
with the quads not being limited to 0..255 but instead 0..4294967295

So instead of writing 2001:4860:4860:: we would write
536954976.1214251008.0.34952 which is clearly easier to use.

bonus: your old regex ^[0-9]*\.[0-9]*\.[0-9]*\.[0-9]*$ will still work

Aled

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-05 Thread Jan Zorz - Go6 

On 03/10/2019 12:34, Jens Link wrote:

Hi,

after now almost 12 years using, working and teaching[1]
IPv6 I've come to the conclusion that IPv6 is a mistake and will
not work.

Therefore the RIPE IPv6 WG should be disbanded and replaced
with a new WG that MUST investigate all possible solutions to
artificially prolong the live of IPv4 till the day a new successor
for IPv4 is created and implemented!


Dear Jens,

I would like to encourage you to submit a proposal to RIPE PC for a BoF 
that would discuss your topic. I understand that there is no real 
focused place at RIPE to discuss IPv4 right now (well, there is plenary, 
but that's more generic) and if you would like to discuss whatever you 
wish around extending IPv4 - then a BoF would be the right way to go.


If you get enough like-minded people to the BoF and present the 
usefulness of more focused IPv4-enhancement work to the community at 
closing plenary - then you might get a Task Force or even a Working 
Group with a goal of discussing and extending IPv4 - well, who knows, 
right? :)


However, I have a feeling that the topic of this working group is IPv6 
and I would love to see this WG work and discussion to  be focused on 
the IPv6 topic and its charter.


My $.2 worth ;)

With best regards, Jan Zorz
(no hats ;) )

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-04 Thread Jen Linkova 
Disclaimer: this is a personal opinion, all hats off.

On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 12:52 PM Michel Py
 wrote:
> > I'm less excited to see that some people have started giving up
> > hope and telling the rest of use we shall give up to..
>
> You are fighting for your survival.

I'm not sure it's about survival at all. I could definitely survive
w/o IPv6 (or without any form of IP) but it's much more fun with it.
I'm not even sure it's a fight even. Fight sounds too romantic or too dramatic.

>Although I agree with the most recent analysis that IPv6 will not become an 
>orphan, you have to understand that the IPv4 ecosystem will survive no matter 
>what you do,

Well, I've seen DECNET and Appletalks "ecosystems" in the wild long
after most of the world forgot those words. Complete IPv4 extinction
has never been my goal, I do not really care if some isolated networks
are going to run it.

>and that a war will not be in your favor.

I do not think there is a war. People do what they need to do and
sometimes they talk about what they have experienced, just in case
others might learn smth new.

> I'm not trying to run your WG. All that I am saying is that the IPv6 zealots 
> have been a total pain in my backside, and that the FUD they have been 
> spreading for the last 20 years has come out of style.
>
> IPv4 will survive forever.

There will be a long tail indeed. Then the economics would make
dual-stack suboptimal, ex. for the very special cases almost nobody
cares about.
What you might want to keep in mind is that different networks are in
different situation re: IPv6. Some of them badly need it. Some of them
got rid of Ipv4. Some of them will need it sooner or later. Some could
probably survive forever using a single Ipv4 address.

>I can not say the same of IPv6. You have to change your tune if you want to 
>survive.

I appreciate people care about our survival. I even appreciate free advices ;)

> > Convince everyone that IPv6 is good and IPv4 shall be turned off?
>
> This is what you have to stop.

First of all please note it was listed as a question. An option. Not
necessary the best one.

>You work for Google.

In case you have not noticed there is no reference to my employer
anywhere, so I'd suggest we do not talk about whom I work for. It does
not really matter.

>Do you want to bet your career that Google is going to switch to IPv6 only ?

I'm afraid to answer your question I need to go through some legal
approval process.

> Think carefully. Think about your career. I personally know the big shots at 
> big vendor who bet their careers on IPv6 and have become irrelevant.

As I've said before, I'm deeply touched that someone in the Internet
cares about my career ;)

> You are too young to be a politician who turns their coat in the wind.

Lol, I'll take this a compliment, thank you sir!

> I say again : are you willing to bet your career on IPv6 ?

I have done it. No regrets so far.

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-04 Thread Michel Py 
> Jen Linkova wrote :
> As a co-chair I'm excited to see some discussion happening
> here, especially after the list has been quiet for a while.

As a matter of fact, it was so quiet that I forgot that I once subscribed to it.
Don't worry; I am about to unsubscribe.


> I'm less excited to see that some people have started giving up
> hope and telling the rest of use we shall give up to..

You are fighting for your survival. Although I agree with the most recent 
analysis that IPv6 will not become an orphan, you have to understand that the 
IPv4 ecosystem will survive no matter what you do, and that a war will not be 
in your favor. I do not represent the IPv4 zealots, but I have become one of 
them by economic necessity.

I'm not trying to run your WG. All that I am saying is that the IPv6 zealots 
have been a total pain in my backside, and that the FUD they have been 
spreading for the last 20 years has come out of style.

IPv4 will survive forever. I can not say the same of IPv6. You have to change 
your tune if you want to survive.


> Convince everyone that IPv6 is good and IPv4 shall be turned off?

This is what you have to stop. You work for Google. Do you want to bet your 
career that Google is going to switch to IPv6 only ?
Think carefully. Think about your career. I personally know the big shots at 
big vendor who bet their careers on IPv6 and have become irrelevant.

You are too young to be a politician who turns their coat in the wind.
I say again : are you willing to bet your career on IPv6 ?

Michel.

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-04 Thread Jen Linkova 
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 9:12 PM Joao Luis Silva Damas  wrote:
> Did you also look at the From?, because that’s not the one I expected if I 
> instinctively expanded the name to that of someone I know, like the wg 
> co-chair or so.

YeahJens, maybe before we start discussing the renaming the group
we shall first decide who of us two needs to change the name? ;)
People are getting confused...

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-04 Thread Jen Linkova 
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:04 AM Enno Rey  wrote:
> I support the proposal.
> Once a protocol has reached mainstream deployment (as IPv6 has) a dedicated 
> WG might no longer be needed. I mean, there's no IPv4 WG either, right?

Actually it's exactly what I said after I became a co-chair. Our
ultimate goal should be to get rid of this group. Let' get IPv6
deployed and go home. Or to the new adventure. As you've said, we do
not have IPv4 WG.
Unfortunately we are not there yet.

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-04 Thread Jen Linkova 
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 8:34 PM Jens Link  wrote:
> after now almost 12 years using, working and teaching[1]
> IPv6 I've come to the conclusion that IPv6 is a mistake and will
> not work.
>
> Therefore the RIPE IPv6 WG should be disbanded

I suspect that the fact that one member has lost his faith in
technology might not be a sufficient reason to close the working
group...

>and replaced
> with a new WG that MUST investigate all possible solutions to
> artificially prolong the live of IPv4 till the day a new successor
> for IPv4 is created and implemented!

AFAIR you need to have a BoF first before you can get a new working group ;-P
https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/bof

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-04 Thread Jen Linkova 
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:45 PM Blake  wrote:
> As the OP's goal seems to be XKCD standards compliance(1), perhaps it's time 
> to revive IPv10?

Well, if it's what you want to do - this list is the wrong place.

https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/get-started/
is what you probably need..

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-ipv10-11
>
> After all, it took Edison two decades to admit DC power distribution couldn't
> work, & NYC only had to wait a century more until they could decommission 
> their
> commercial DC electrical power distribution network...
> ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_currents )

I find this example irrelevant as I've seen IPv6-only networks. Oh
wait, I've deployed them...

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-04 Thread Bjoern Buerger 
* Enno Rey (e...@ernw.de) [191004 19:09]:
> they've not yet started to creep into my dreams, but let's see...)

I wouldn't want that to happen. Take your time.

> You won't be surprised though that not everybody in my daily 
> meetings shares the perspective that they're a top priority ;-).

Indeed. 

Thanks for trying anyway :-)

Bjørn

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-04 Thread Enno Rey 
Hi,

On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 04:21:12PM +0200, Bjoern Buerger wrote:
> * Jens Link (li...@quux.de) [191004 11:26]:
> > Enno Rey  writes:
> > > now back to my day job, full of #IPv6
> > 
> > So you are done with your work and Bjoern can get mail from $mailserver
> > run by your new employer?
> 
> Nope. At least all their MXes are still legacy. But 
> these changes need time. I haven't given up hope yet. 

so I'll give you guys the generic answer to that one: it's being worked on & it 
will be there at some point, but I won't be able to tell you about our progress 
in the interim.
I guess the main part here, and for the present discussion, is the "being 
worked on, will eventually be done" element.  

On a personal note let me state that Bjoern's mail capabilities are rly present 
in my scheme of things (they've not yet started to creep into my dreams, but 
let's see...). You won't be surprised though that not everybody in my daily 
meetings shares the perspective that they're a top priority ;-). Still rest 
assured that many smart people over here work hard on things aligned with the 
IPv6 WG's objectives. #itstimeforIPv6
Also, in all seriousness, feel free to let me know on any channel incl. f2f in 
Rotterdam what you think we/I should prioritize on, or where things don't work, 
IPv6-wise. Chris thankfully continues to organize the IPv6 Practitioners' 
Dinner so that might be an occasion, too. 

everybody have a great weekend

Enno


-- 
Enno Rey

Twitter:@Enno_Insinuator

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-04 Thread Jim Reid 



> On 4 Oct 2019, at 15:31, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
> 
> 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.

Because beer and peanuts would be at stake, I'll be happy to claim that at 
signs are better than colons. FWIW I agree "colons are better than dots in 
every conceivable way".

Since we're entertaining bad ideas and non-sequiturs on this thread, it's only 
fair to add another one. :-)

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-04 Thread Nick Hilliard 

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] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-04 Thread Bjoern Buerger 
* Jens Link (li...@quux.de) [191004 11:26]:
> Enno Rey  writes:
> > now back to my day job, full of #IPv6
> 
> So you are done with your work and Bjoern can get mail from $mailserver
> run by your new employer?

Nope. At least all their MXes are still legacy. But 
these changes need time. I haven't given up hope yet. 

On the bright side:
One of the german universities has added IPv6 to their 
MXes a few weeks before. And since yesterday it really 
started working.

Now listen and repeat:

If you deploy IPv6 on your Mailservers: PLEASE check 
your setup from an IPv6-only site! If your Spamfilter 
depends on Legacy IP, it WILL break. If your DNS depends
on Legacy IP, it WILL BREAK. If your outgoing MX 
depends on Legacy IP, it WILL break. 

Bjørn

P.S: I know. This looks like preaching to the converted. 
But the sad truth is: To my current experience, even IPv6
professionals seem to fail on these simple checks. I will
never understand, why. If you run Dualstack, also do a 
FULL check on both protocolls and don't rely on IPv4.

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-04 Thread Bjoern Buerger 
Am Thu, 03 Oct 2019 schrieb Gert Doering:
> I could use an expert that explains to me this click-and-paste stuff
> with modern browsers... 

Uuuuh, Ooooh. Let's roll out 100% IPv6 globally first. 
That's low hanging fruit, compared to that click-and-paste stuff ;-)

bbu

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-04 Thread Jens Link 
Enno Rey  writes:

> Hi,
>
> I support the proposal.  Once a protocol has reached mainstream
> deployment (as IPv6 has) a dedicated WG might no longer be needed. I
> mean, there's no IPv4 WG either, right?
>
> now back to my day job, full of #IPv6

So you are done with your work and Bjoern can get mail from $mailserver
run by your new employer?
 
Jens
-- 

| Delbrueckstr. 41| 12051 Berlin, Germany   | +49-151-18721264 |
| http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jensl...@quux.de| ---  |

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-04 Thread Jens Link 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond  writes:

> Dear Jens,
>
> you're right. I also think that TCP-IP is unable to cope with today's
> Internet traffic and we should use a modern protocol like X.25: the
> problem with IPv6 is not the v6 part, it's the IP.  Kindest regards,

Back to OSI? I like that! Protocol designed by a real standard body,
not some random people from the internet that reach decisions by
humming.

Jens
-- 

| Delbrueckstr. 41| 12051 Berlin, Germany   | +49-151-18721264 |
| http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jensl...@quux.de| ---  |

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-04 Thread Jens Link 
Riccardo Gori  writes:

>>> 1. WHY should it have NAT
>> NATs are good. They provide security.
>
> Are you sure you are about networking?

People believer this so it must be true.I wont question the believes and
wisdom of thousands of networking experts.

Jens
-- 

| Delbrueckstr. 41| 12051 Berlin, Germany   | +49-151-18721264 |
| http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jensl...@quux.de| ---  |

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-04 Thread Carlos Friaças via ipv6-wg 



On Fri, 4 Oct 2019, Alexander Koeppe wrote:




Am 04.10.2019 um 00:22 schrieb Kai 'wusel' Siering :


  So, why not make ripe.net v6-only by 2020-01-01, as RIPE NCC's IPv4 pool 
will have run dry by then anyway?



The fact the pool runs dry doesn't mean IPv4 packets will stop flowing.

It only means growth of public address usage through the exclusive usage 
of IPv4 becomes more difficult and possibly more expensive.


The "scarcity age" of IPv4 in the RIPE service region started back in 
September 2012. More than 7 years ago. Everyone should have deployed IPv6 
by now, but that didn't really happen.


Carlos





I like this idea.

 

This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or 
otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the
intended recipient, you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose 
the contents to any other person. If you have received
this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the 
message and any attachment from your system. Merck
KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and any of its subsidiaries do not accept liability 
for any omissions or errors in this message which may
arise as a result of E-Mail-transmission or for damages resulting from any 
unauthorized changes of the content of this message and
any attachment thereto. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and any of its 
subsidiaries do not guarantee that this message is free of
viruses and does not accept liability for any damages caused by any virus 
transmitted therewith.

 

Click http://www.merckgroup.com/disclaimer to access the German, French, 
Spanish and Portuguese versions of this disclaimer.

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-04 Thread Alexander Koeppe 


Am 04.10.2019 um 00:22 schrieb Kai 'wusel' Siering 
mailto:wusel...@uu.org>>:


So, why not make ripe.net v6-only by 2020-01-01, as RIPE NCC's 
IPv4 pool will have run dry by then anyway?



I like this idea.



This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or 
otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you 
must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to any other 
person. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the 
sender immediately and delete the message and any attachment from your system. 
Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and any of its subsidiaries do not accept 
liability for any omissions or errors in this message which may arise as a 
result of E-Mail-transmission or for damages resulting from any unauthorized 
changes of the content of this message and any attachment thereto. Merck KGaA, 
Darmstadt, Germany and any of its subsidiaries do not guarantee that this 
message is free of viruses and does not accept liability for any damages caused 
by any virus transmitted therewith.



Click http://www.merckgroup.com/disclaimer to access the German, French, 
Spanish and Portuguese versions of this disclaimer.

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Riccardo Gori 

Hello Jen Link,

Il 03/10/2019 13:55, Jens Link ha scritto:

Uros Gaber  writes:


1. WHY should it have NAT

NATs are good. They provide security.

Are you sure you are about networking?



2. What do you understand under class, IPv4 "Classes" are just defined
subnet groups (simply put)

Things need names. Numbers are hard to remember. We have Class-A for /8,
Class-B for /16 and Class-C for /24. We need names for the others as
well.
  

3. AFAIK DHCPv6 is defined in RFC (3319,3646,4704,5007,6221,6355,6939,8415)

But it's DHCPv6. Not DHCP! It works differently. And Android does not
support it. Enterprise Customers want DHCP!
  

6. Dots and colon, what's the difference?

I have do change my regex.


7. Use DNS to resolve - no [] needed then.

DNS is to hard, to complex and fails to often. And in enterprise
networks it probably done by another team.
   

[5] what does the script have to do with network layer?

The script was just an example for software breaking when you implement
something that looks completely different like IPv4. I this case the
script is parsing log files and netflow data and we are back to the
regex.

Jens


 __
Riccardo

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Kai 'wusel' Siering 
Am 03.10.19 um 17:11 schrieb Tim Chown:
>> On 3 Oct 2019, at 16:02, Jens Link  wrote:
>>
>> Tim Chown  writes:
>>
>>> (Surprised we’re having this conversation in 2019, as the final fumes of
>>> IPv4 address space disappear from Europe…)
>> If you had told me 10 or even 5 years ago that I would be having the
>> conversation in 2019 I would have laughed at you. Now it's a very sad
>> situation. IPv4 has won.

Well, the source for "new" IPv4 addresses is finally drying out in the RIPE 
region, so I do not agree with "IPv4 has won"; it lived an amazing life so far 
and is, since several years, transitioning into it's evening of life. I 
wouldn't bet on a date when IPv4 in the public Internet will be shut down, 
though. Not even a decade, to be honest ...

>> I had a discussion over lunch about v6 yesterday (which is part of the
>> reason I started this today) and all I heard "but that is different
>> then IPv4. I don't like this!" 
>
> There will always be a legacy tail. The dinosaurs can wallow in their swamp.

Some of those dinosauers are still in their diapers, though.

> Those who deploy v6 will benefit from it. Others will feel the heat of not 
> moving; here in the UK it’s Sky and BT who have between them ~10M households 
> on IPv6.  That’s not failure.

No, it's a start; over here in Germany, most mobile operators give you RFC6890 
or RFC1918 addresses, still. Cable operators hand out DS (-Lite, mostly) for 
consumers, (semi-) fixed IPv4 (no DS) for commercial clients. FritzVPN, the VPN 
solution of popular CPE maker AVM, still fails completely with IPv6, both as 
transport and as payload. All in all, it's more failure than success (and even 
progress is fscking slow; Vodafone is allegedly starting somethings like 
DS-lite on mobile these days, o2 on mobiles uses public v6 a long time already 
— for VoLTE, but not data). But then it's Germany, where anything IP is Neuland 
anyway.

> New communities will benefit. For example, the largest science experiments 
> are now migrating to IPv6, e.g., CERN and WLCG is 70% there, SKA will use it.

But will they go the whole way, i. e. make their stuff accessible from the 
outside, including informational webservers and other infrastructure (DNS, MX), 
v6-only? Until much used resources go v6-only, there's no chance in hell that 
"[o]thers will feel the heat of not moving", as everyone still makes everything 
available via v4.

So, why not make ripe.net v6-only by 2020-01-01, as RIPE NCC's IPv4 pool will 
have run dry by then anyway?



Am 03.10.19 um 13:11 schrieb Joao Luis Silva Damas:
> On 3 Oct 2019, at 12:58, Uros Gaber mailto:u...@ub330.net>> 
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jens,
>>
>> Wow, first I had to look at today's date, I thought this was a April Fools 
>> joke mail.
>
> Did you also look at the From?, because that’s not the one I expected if I 
> instinctively expanded the name to that of someone I know, like the wg 
> co-chair or so.

Well, off-topic, but more noteworthy, the RIPE NCC mailservers are, as of 
today, still running Exim 4.92.2, remotely exploitable according to 
CVE-2019-16928.



Am 03.10.19 um 12:34 schrieb Jens Link:
> Hi,
>
> after now almost 12 years using, working and teaching[1]
> IPv6 I've come to the conclusion that IPv6 is a mistake and will
> not work.
According to the mailing list archive, "[t]he IPv6 Working Group is for anyone 
with an interest in the next generation Internet Protocol. The activities of 
the WG include education and outreach, sharing deployment experiences and 
discussing and fixing operational issues". So, Jens shared his IPv6 deployment 
experiences ("isn't happening"), maybe there's something the IPv6 WG can do to 
enforce IPv6 deployment? BTW, at least in terms of availability v6 is the 
current, v4 the legacy Internet Protocol, maybe that wording should be updated?

Regards,
-kai

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Enno Rey 
Hi,

I support the proposal.
Once a protocol has reached mainstream deployment (as IPv6 has) a dedicated WG 
might no longer be needed. I mean, there's no IPv4 WG either, right?

now back to my day job, full of #IPv6

cheers

Enno



-- 
Enno Rey

Cell: +49 173 6745902
Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Aled Morris via ipv6-wg 
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 17:28, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond  wrote:

> you're right. I also think that TCP-IP is unable to cope with today's
> Internet traffic and we should use a modern protocol like X.25: the problem
> with IPv6 is not the v6 part, it's the IP.
>


Surely the fix is IPv4 over HTTPS (IOH)

Aled

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond 
Dear Jens,

you're right. I also think that TCP-IP is unable to cope with today's
Internet traffic and we should use a modern protocol like X.25: the
problem with IPv6 is not the v6 part, it's the IP.
Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 03/10/2019 11:34, Jens Link wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after now almost 12 years using, working and teaching[1]
> IPv6 I've come to the conclusion that IPv6 is a mistake and will
> not work.
>
> Therefore the RIPE IPv6 WG should be disbanded and replaced
> with a new WG that MUST investigate all possible solutions to
> artificially prolong the live of IPv4 till the day a new successor
> for IPv4 is created and implemented!
>
> Some great ideas[2] are already proposed, some of them already
> implemented:
>
> - Use of NAT
> - Use of the first Class-A network 0.0.0.0[3]
> - Use of parts of localhost Class-A network 127.0.0.0
> - Use of (parts) of Class-D address space (multicast)
> - Use of Class-E address space (future use)
> - Using part of the UDP / TCP port range as extension for the
>   address.
>
> Some of the reserved address spaces could also be used. E.g. nobody
> is using 192.0.2.0/24 for documentation anyway.
>
> It should also be investigated to take back legacy IPv4 resources,
> although the "owners" of these resources might already selling
> them on the open market.
>
> It MUST also be considered not filtering on Class-C[4] bounderies
> but going for something smaller like /26 or /27 in the global routing
> table. Also new Class Designations for these prefixes MUST be created.
>
> The new successor to IPv4 should not make the same mistakes as IPv6.
>
> - 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
>
> Probably the best way to proceed is to just add one or two octets to the
> address.
>
> One of the reasons for the above is that there are so is so many good
> documentation already written about IPv4! And people already know about
> IPv4! Why waste this knowledge and experience? There is also plenty of
> good software out there that can't work with IPv6[5] Change is bad!
> People don't want to learn!
>
> IPv4! MUST! NOT! DIE!
>
> Jens
>
> [1] at least trying to teach, as one can see from the great number of
> people actually using IPv6 with little success
>
> [2] https://netdevconf.info/0x13/session.html?talk-ipv4-unicast-expansions
>
> [3] 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=96125bf9985a
>
> [4] a Class-C network is the equivalent of an /24. I was told by experts
> that the definition of some bit set in the first octet of an IPv4
> address is complete and utter nonsense
>
> [5] like a 20 year old shell script that is so important for $university
> that it would be hard for them to implement IPv6!
>  
>

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Tim Chown 
> On 3 Oct 2019, at 16:02, Jens Link  wrote:
> 
> Tim Chown  writes:
> 
>> (Surprised we’re having this conversation in 2019, as the final fumes of
>> IPv4 address space disappear from Europe…)
> 
> If you had told me 10 or even 5 years ago that I would be having the
> conversation in 2019 I would have laughed at you. Now it's a very sad
> situation. IPv4 has won.
> 
> I had a discussion over lunch about v6 yesterday (which is part of the
> reason I started this today) and all I heard "but that is different
> then IPv4. I don't like this!" 


There will always be a legacy tail. The dinosaurs can wallow in their swamp.

Those who deploy v6 will benefit from it. Others will feel the heat of not 
moving; here in the UK it’s Sky and BT who have between them ~10M households on 
IPv6.  That’s not failure.

New communities will benefit. For example, the largest science experiments are 
now migrating to IPv6, e.g., CERN and WLCG is 70% there, SKA will use it.  

Tim

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Jens Link 
Tim Chown  writes:

> (Surprised we’re having this conversation in 2019, as the final fumes of
> IPv4 address space disappear from Europe…)

If you had told me 10 or even 5 years ago that I would be having the
conversation in 2019 I would have laughed at you. Now it's a very sad
situation. IPv4 has won.

I had a discussion over lunch about v6 yesterday (which is part of the
reason I started this today) and all I heard "but that is different
then IPv4. I don't like this!" 
 
Jens
-- 

| Delbrueckstr. 41| 12051 Berlin, Germany   | +49-151-18721264 |
| http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jensl...@quux.de| ---  |

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Jens Link 
Carlos Friaças via ipv6-wg  writes:

> CIDR.
> People that thought that terminology to students over the years really
> fumbled...

years ago? It's till taught. Did a entry level Juniper Certification
some time ago and they asked which Class 10.10.10.10 belongs to. Sure
CIDR turned 26 last month but hey.
 
>> But it's DHCPv6. Not DHCP! It works differently. And Android does not
>> support it. Enterprise Customers want DHCP!
>
> Is it unfixable...?

The Android side? No. Use google. You should find a discussion with a couple
thousand posting on this topic. On the Enterprise side? I wouldn't bet
on it.

>>> 6. Dots and colon, what's the difference?
>>
>> I have do change my regex.
>
> The world is all about changes :-)

"I've been working in the IT buissnes for 25 years and nothing has
changed!" - I heared this more then once.

> No, it's really the most robust planetary system. It can suffer attacks
> (it did, it does) but is still pretty much does the job.

People remember wired problems with DNS and people don't understand
DNS. 

"I need to put the IP into my DNS Server" - The guy meant 
%systemroot%\sytem32\drivers\etc\hosts

>> And in enterprise
>> networks it probably done by another team.
>
> So? Teams inside the same organisation are supposed to speak :-)

Supposed is the right word.  In theory yes, in reality most often not.
 
Jens
-- 

| Delbrueckstr. 41| 12051 Berlin, Germany   | +49-151-18721264 |
| http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jensl...@quux.de| ---  |

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Eric Vyncke (evyncke) via ipv6-wg 
Beside the part of sending SMTP email over IPv6...

Jens, what did you drink this lunch time? It seems to be good :-)

I take your email as a good joke: see the amount of replies !

-éric

On 03/10/2019, 12:35, "ipv6-wg on behalf of Jens Link" 
 wrote:

Hi,

after now almost 12 years using, working and teaching[1]
IPv6 I've come to the conclusion that IPv6 is a mistake and will
not work.

Therefore the RIPE IPv6 WG should be disbanded and replaced
with a new WG that MUST investigate all possible solutions to
artificially prolong the live of IPv4 till the day a new successor
for IPv4 is created and implemented!

Some great ideas[2] are already proposed, some of them already
implemented:

- Use of NAT
- Use of the first Class-A network 0.0.0.0[3]
- Use of parts of localhost Class-A network 127.0.0.0
- Use of (parts) of Class-D address space (multicast)
- Use of Class-E address space (future use)
- Using part of the UDP / TCP port range as extension for the
  address.

Some of the reserved address spaces could also be used. E.g. nobody
is using 192.0.2.0/24 for documentation anyway.

It should also be investigated to take back legacy IPv4 resources,
although the "owners" of these resources might already selling
them on the open market.

It MUST also be considered not filtering on Class-C[4] bounderies
but going for something smaller like /26 or /27 in the global routing
table. Also new Class Designations for these prefixes MUST be created.

The new successor to IPv4 should not make the same mistakes as IPv6.

- 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

Probably the best way to proceed is to just add one or two octets to the
address.

One of the reasons for the above is that there are so is so many good
documentation already written about IPv4! And people already know about
IPv4! Why waste this knowledge and experience? There is also plenty of
good software out there that can't work with IPv6[5] Change is bad!
People don't want to learn!

IPv4! MUST! NOT! DIE!

Jens

[1] at least trying to teach, as one can see from the great number of
people actually using IPv6 with little success

[2] https://netdevconf.info/0x13/session.html?talk-ipv4-unicast-expansions

[3] 
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=96125bf9985a

[4] a Class-C network is the equivalent of an /24. I was told by experts
that the definition of some bit set in the first octet of an IPv4
address is complete and utter nonsense

[5] like a 20 year old shell script that is so important for $university
that it would be hard for them to implement IPv6!

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN 
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019, at 12:34, Jens Link wrote:
> after now almost 12 years using, working and teaching[1]
> IPv6 I've come to the conclusion that IPv6 is a mistake and will
> not work.
.
> IPv4! MUST! NOT! DIE!

Did "someone" had a look at the wrong page in the calendar (we're Oct 03, not 
Apr 01), or did time travel just happen for the first time ( for a duration of 
N+0.5 years, round trip) ?

Anyway, waiting to see the related presentation at RIPE79 *IPv6* working group 
(unless the agenda has been shuffled these last days).

-- 
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Валерий Солдатов 
Hello,
Classes "A" "B" "C" mean not only  /8  /16 /24 but '0' '0' '0', '1' '0' '0', 
'1' '1' '0'  in first 3 bits... 

:-)

__
Валерий Солдатов, ЗАО Бэст-Телеком

- Исходное сообщение -----
От: "Jens Link" 
Кому: ipv6-wg@ripe.net
Отправленные: Четверг, 3 Октябрь 2019 г 14:55:32
Тема: Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

...

> 2. What do you understand under class, IPv4 "Classes" are just defined
> subnet groups (simply put)

Things need names. Numbers are hard to remember. We have Class-A for /8,
Class-B for /16 and Class-C for /24. We need names for the others as
well.

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Tim Chown 
On 3 Oct 2019, at 13:30, Carlos Friaças via ipv6-wg 
mailto:ipv6-wg@ripe.net>> wrote:

The real issue is not that IPv6 "doesn't work", the real issue is some people 
insist in rejecting it (i.e. those mentioned above, just to name a few).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v26BAlfWBm8

(Surprised we’re having this conversation in 2019, as the final fumes of IPv4 
address space disappear from Europe…)

Tim

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Carlos Friaças via ipv6-wg 



On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, Jens Link wrote:


Carlos Friaças via ipv6-wg  writes:


Hi,
(Respectfully)

IPv6 _is_ working.


github, stackexchange, twitter, amazon.com

As a small test: Try to see if you can get all the packages needed for
Linux from Scratch on an IPv6 only host (with out any form of NAT /
proxy). There was as presentation at RIPE about this some time ago and I
guess not much has changed.



If that doesn't work _now_, it will be fixed at some point.

"IPv6-only" is different than "IPv6".

If you go through the threads, the claim that some IPv4 will be needed is 
repeated many times.


The real issue is not that IPv6 "doesn't work", the real issue is some 
people insist in rejecting it (i.e. those mentioned above, just to name a 
few).





Cloudflare is using it.


Ah I forgot that in my original mail: They break IPv6. Had to disable my
IPv6 VPN tunnel in order to access sites hosted by CF. I hate clicking
that I'm not a robot and pretty sure that installing an anti virus
software will not help. That was when I was still actively using IPv6.


I don't work for Cloudflare, so i hope some from Cloudflare can comment 
:-)



Cheers,
Carlos





Jens
--

| Delbrueckstr. 41| 12051 Berlin, Germany   | +49-151-18721264 |
| http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jensl...@quux.de| ---  |

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Gert Doering 
Hi,

On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 02:17:24PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> You need to listen to the experts here
> 
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v26BA

I could use an expert that explains to me this click-and-paste stuff
with modern browsers... anyway, the correct video is

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v26BAlfWBm8

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Jens Link 
Uros Gaber  writes:

> On 3 Oct 2019, at 14:03, Job Snijders  wrote:

>> Even worse, delivering email over ipv6 to the mail giants is a far
>> worse experience than via ipv4. More emails arrive when you
>> disable ipv6 on your mail servers.

> I would say the same experience as long as the server and supported
> services are configured correctly.

If you google correctly you'll find many people compiling about google
not accepting mail via IPv6. Therefore not many people do SMTP via
IPv6. Or if they do they have an extra (v4 only) transport in their
outgoing SMTP server. ==> Runing Dualstack is more work.
 
Jens
-- 

| Delbrueckstr. 41| 12051 Berlin, Germany   | +49-151-18721264 |
| http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jensl...@quux.de| ---  |

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Gert Doering 
Hi,

On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 01:03:07PM +0100, Carlos Friaças via ipv6-wg wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, Jens Link wrote:
> 
> > Uros Gaber  writes:
> >
> >> 1. WHY should it have NAT
> >
> > NATs are good. They provide security.
> No, they provide "Translation". Not the same thing.

You need to listen to the experts here

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v26BA

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Gert Doering 
Hi,

On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 01:53:47PM +0200, Alex Le Heux wrote:
> Perhaps the IETF can start working on IPv4bis. Something with, say, 128 bit 
> addresses, fixed-size subnets and heavier use of multicast instead of 
> broadcast.

Surely global multicast could replace routing?

That would be great for all those poor BGP-table-entry challenged routers!

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Jens Link 
Carlos Friaças via ipv6-wg  writes:

> Hi,
> (Respectfully)
>
> IPv6 _is_ working.

github, stackexchange, twitter, amazon.com

As a small test: Try to see if you can get all the packages needed for
Linux from Scratch on an IPv6 only host (with out any form of NAT /
proxy). There was as presentation at RIPE about this some time ago and I
guess not much has changed.

> Cloudflare is using it.

Ah I forgot that in my original mail: They break IPv6. Had to disable my
IPv6 VPN tunnel in order to access sites hosted by CF. I hate clicking
that I'm not a robot and pretty sure that installing an anti virus
software will not help. That was when I was still actively using IPv6.
 
Jens
-- 

| Delbrueckstr. 41| 12051 Berlin, Germany   | +49-151-18721264 |
| http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jensl...@quux.de| ---  |

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Job Snijders 
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 13:57 Jens Link  wrote:

> Andreas Härpfer  writes:
>
> >> On 3. Oct 2019, at 13:16, Antonio Prado via ipv6-wg 
> wrote:
>
> > No worries, looking at the headers and seeing that nearly all
> > received-by mail hops in the original mail use IPv6 addresses
> > -- and considering that IPv6 doesn't work anyway -- the whole
> > email obviously must have been a complete and utter illusion …
>
> Thanks for noticing. A new mail server setup is on my todo list, running
> a dual stack system is too much work to ipv6 will go away.



Even worse, delivering email over ipv6 to the mail giants is a far worse
experience than via ipv4. More emails arrive when you disable ipv6 on your
mail servers.

Kind regards,

Job

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Carlos Friaças via ipv6-wg 




Hi,


On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, Jens Link wrote:


Uros Gaber  writes:


1. WHY should it have NAT


NATs are good. They provide security.


No, they provide "Translation". Not the same thing.



2. What do you understand under class, IPv4 "Classes" are just defined
subnet groups (simply put)


Things need names. Numbers are hard to remember. We have Class-A for /8,
Class-B for /16 and Class-C for /24. We need names for the others as
well.


CIDR.
People that thought that terminology to students over the years really 
fumbled...





3. AFAIK DHCPv6 is defined in RFC (3319,3646,4704,5007,6221,6355,6939,8415)


But it's DHCPv6. Not DHCP! It works differently. And Android does not
support it. Enterprise Customers want DHCP!


Is it unfixable...?




6. Dots and colon, what's the difference?


I have do change my regex.


The world is all about changes :-)




7. Use DNS to resolve - no [] needed then.


DNS is to hard, to complex and fails to often.


No, it's really the most robust planetary system. It can suffer attacks 
(it did, it does) but is still pretty much does the job.





And in enterprise
networks it probably done by another team.


So? Teams inside the same organisation are supposed to speak :-)


Cheers,
Carlos

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Jens Link 
Andreas Härpfer  writes:

>> On 3. Oct 2019, at 13:16, Antonio Prado via ipv6-wg  wrote:


> No worries, looking at the headers and seeing that nearly all
> received-by mail hops in the original mail use IPv6 addresses
> -- and considering that IPv6 doesn't work anyway -- the whole
> email obviously must have been a complete and utter illusion … 

Thanks for noticing. A new mail server setup is on my todo list, running
a dual stack system is too much work to ipv6 will go away.

Jens
-- 

| Delbrueckstr. 41| 12051 Berlin, Germany   | +49-151-18721264 |
| http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jensl...@quux.de| ---  |

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Jens Link 
Uros Gaber  writes:

> 1. WHY should it have NAT

NATs are good. They provide security.

> 2. What do you understand under class, IPv4 "Classes" are just defined
> subnet groups (simply put)

Things need names. Numbers are hard to remember. We have Class-A for /8,
Class-B for /16 and Class-C for /24. We need names for the others as
well.
 
> 3. AFAIK DHCPv6 is defined in RFC (3319,3646,4704,5007,6221,6355,6939,8415)

But it's DHCPv6. Not DHCP! It works differently. And Android does not
support it. Enterprise Customers want DHCP!
 
> 6. Dots and colon, what's the difference?

I have do change my regex. 

> 7. Use DNS to resolve - no [] needed then.

DNS is to hard, to complex and fails to often. And in enterprise
networks it probably done by another team.
  
> [5] what does the script have to do with network layer?

The script was just an example for software breaking when you implement
something that looks completely different like IPv4. I this case the
script is parsing log files and netflow data and we are back to the
regex.

Jens
-- 

| Delbrueckstr. 41| 12051 Berlin, Germany   | +49-151-18721264 |
| http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jensl...@quux.de| ---  |

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Alex Le Heux 
I think he's on to something.

Perhaps the IETF can start working on IPv4bis. Something with, say, 128 bit 
addresses, fixed-size subnets and heavier use of multicast instead of broadcast.

We'll leave NAT4bis4bis as an implementation detail for router vendors.

Alex

> On Oct 3, 2019, at 12:34 , Jens Link  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> after now almost 12 years using, working and teaching[1]
> IPv6 I've come to the conclusion that IPv6 is a mistake and will
> not work.
> 
> Therefore the RIPE IPv6 WG should be disbanded and replaced
> with a new WG that MUST investigate all possible solutions to
> artificially prolong the live of IPv4 till the day a new successor
> for IPv4 is created and implemented!
> 
> Some great ideas[2] are already proposed, some of them already
> implemented:
> 
> - Use of NAT
> - Use of the first Class-A network 0.0.0.0[3]
> - Use of parts of localhost Class-A network 127.0.0.0
> - Use of (parts) of Class-D address space (multicast)
> - Use of Class-E address space (future use)
> - Using part of the UDP / TCP port range as extension for the
>  address.
> 
> Some of the reserved address spaces could also be used. E.g. nobody
> is using 192.0.2.0/24 for documentation anyway.
> 
> It should also be investigated to take back legacy IPv4 resources,
> although the "owners" of these resources might already selling
> them on the open market.
> 
> It MUST also be considered not filtering on Class-C[4] bounderies
> but going for something smaller like /26 or /27 in the global routing
> table. Also new Class Designations for these prefixes MUST be created.
> 
> The new successor to IPv4 should not make the same mistakes as IPv6.
> 
> - 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
> 
> Probably the best way to proceed is to just add one or two octets to the
> address.
> 
> One of the reasons for the above is that there are so is so many good
> documentation already written about IPv4! And people already know about
> IPv4! Why waste this knowledge and experience? There is also plenty of
> good software out there that can't work with IPv6[5] Change is bad!
> People don't want to learn!
> 
> IPv4! MUST! NOT! DIE!
> 
> Jens
> 
> [1] at least trying to teach, as one can see from the great number of
>people actually using IPv6 with little success
> 
> [2] https://netdevconf.info/0x13/session.html?talk-ipv4-unicast-expansions
> 
> [3] 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=96125bf9985a
> 
> [4] a Class-C network is the equivalent of an /24. I was told by experts
>that the definition of some bit set in the first octet of an IPv4
>address is complete and utter nonsense
> 
> [5] like a 20 year old shell script that is so important for $university
>that it would be hard for them to implement IPv6!
> 
>

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Andreas Härpfer 



> On 3. Oct 2019, at 13:16, Antonio Prado via ipv6-wg  wrote:
> 
> On 10/3/19 1:11 PM, Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote:
>> Did you also look at the From?, because that’s not the one I expected if
>> I instinctively expanded the name to that of someone I know, like the wg
>> co-chair or so.
> 
> of course Jens Link is not Jen Linkova :-)
> 
> --
> antonio
> 


No worries, looking at the headers and seeing that nearly all
received-by mail hops in the original mail use IPv6 addresses
-- and considering that IPv6 doesn't work anyway -- the whole
email obviously must have been a complete and utter illusion … 

;-)

-Andi

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Antonio Prado via ipv6-wg 
On 10/3/19 1:11 PM, Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote:
> Did you also look at the From?, because that’s not the one I expected if
> I instinctively expanded the name to that of someone I know, like the wg
> co-chair or so.

of course Jens Link is not Jen Linkova :-)

--
antonio



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Joao Luis Silva Damas 


> On 3 Oct 2019, at 12:58, Uros Gaber  wrote:
> 
> Hi Jens,
> 
> Wow, first I had to look at today's date, I thought this was a April Fools 
> joke mail.

Did you also look at the From?, because that’s not the one I expected if I 
instinctively expanded the name to that of someone I know, like the wg co-chair 
or so.

Cheers
Joao

> 
> But to go forward seriously, a couple of questions to maybe clarify your 
> thinking - from bullet points:
> 1. WHY should it have NAT
> 2. What do you understand under class, IPv4 "Classes" are just defined subnet 
> groups (simply put)
> 3. AFAIK DHCPv6 is defined in RFC (3319,3646,4704,5007,6221,6355,6939,8415)
> 4. Partly agree on this one
> 5. Partly agree on this one, but probably with the right set of firewall 
> rules you could achieve the same effect you are going after
> 6. Dots and colon, what's the difference?
> 7. Use DNS to resolve - no [] needed then.
> 
> And for the "footprints":
> [4] you want classes in "IPvX" but negate the same with this point
> [5] what does the script have to do with network layer?
> 
> Just my 2c.
> 
> Uros
> 
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 12:35 PM Jens Link  > wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> after now almost 12 years using, working and teaching[1]
> IPv6 I've come to the conclusion that IPv6 is a mistake and will
> not work.
> 
> Therefore the RIPE IPv6 WG should be disbanded and replaced
> with a new WG that MUST investigate all possible solutions to
> artificially prolong the live of IPv4 till the day a new successor
> for IPv4 is created and implemented!
> 
> Some great ideas[2] are already proposed, some of them already
> implemented:
> 
> - Use of NAT
> - Use of the first Class-A network 0.0.0.0[3]
> - Use of parts of localhost Class-A network 127.0.0.0
> - Use of (parts) of Class-D address space (multicast)
> - Use of Class-E address space (future use)
> - Using part of the UDP / TCP port range as extension for the
>   address.
> 
> Some of the reserved address spaces could also be used. E.g. nobody
> is using 192.0.2.0/24  for documentation anyway.
> 
> It should also be investigated to take back legacy IPv4 resources,
> although the "owners" of these resources might already selling
> them on the open market.
> 
> It MUST also be considered not filtering on Class-C[4] bounderies
> but going for something smaller like /26 or /27 in the global routing
> table. Also new Class Designations for these prefixes MUST be created.
> 
> The new successor to IPv4 should not make the same mistakes as IPv6.
> 
> - 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
> 
> Probably the best way to proceed is to just add one or two octets to the
> address.
> 
> One of the reasons for the above is that there are so is so many good
> documentation already written about IPv4! And people already know about
> IPv4! Why waste this knowledge and experience? There is also plenty of
> good software out there that can't work with IPv6[5] Change is bad!
> People don't want to learn!
> 
> IPv4! MUST! NOT! DIE!
> 
> Jens
> 
> [1] at least trying to teach, as one can see from the great number of
> people actually using IPv6 with little success
> 
> [2] https://netdevconf.info/0x13/session.html?talk-ipv4-unicast-expansions 
> 
> 
> [3] 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=96125bf9985a
>  
> 
> 
> [4] a Class-C network is the equivalent of an /24. I was told by experts
> that the definition of some bit set in the first octet of an IPv4
> address is complete and utter nonsense
> 
> [5] like a 20 year old shell script that is so important for $university
> that it would be hard for them to implement IPv6!
> 
>

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Carlos Friaças via ipv6-wg 



Hi,
(Respectfully)

IPv6 _is_ working.

Check your DNS, please. You should see  records.

Google is using it.
Facebook is using it.
Cloudflare is using it.
We are using it.
And so on...

Cheers,
Carlos


On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, Jens Link wrote:


Hi,

after now almost 12 years using, working and teaching[1]
IPv6 I've come to the conclusion that IPv6 is a mistake and will
not work.

Therefore the RIPE IPv6 WG should be disbanded and replaced
with a new WG that MUST investigate all possible solutions to
artificially prolong the live of IPv4 till the day a new successor
for IPv4 is created and implemented!

Some great ideas[2] are already proposed, some of them already
implemented:

- Use of NAT
- Use of the first Class-A network 0.0.0.0[3]
- Use of parts of localhost Class-A network 127.0.0.0
- Use of (parts) of Class-D address space (multicast)
- Use of Class-E address space (future use)
- Using part of the UDP / TCP port range as extension for the
 address.

Some of the reserved address spaces could also be used. E.g. nobody
is using 192.0.2.0/24 for documentation anyway.

It should also be investigated to take back legacy IPv4 resources,
although the "owners" of these resources might already selling
them on the open market.

It MUST also be considered not filtering on Class-C[4] bounderies
but going for something smaller like /26 or /27 in the global routing
table. Also new Class Designations for these prefixes MUST be created.

The new successor to IPv4 should not make the same mistakes as IPv6.

- 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

Probably the best way to proceed is to just add one or two octets to the
address.

One of the reasons for the above is that there are so is so many good
documentation already written about IPv4! And people already know about
IPv4! Why waste this knowledge and experience? There is also plenty of
good software out there that can't work with IPv6[5] Change is bad!
People don't want to learn!

IPv4! MUST! NOT! DIE!

Jens

[1] at least trying to teach, as one can see from the great number of
   people actually using IPv6 with little success

[2] https://netdevconf.info/0x13/session.html?talk-ipv4-unicast-expansions

[3] 
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=96125bf9985a

[4] a Class-C network is the equivalent of an /24. I was told by experts
   that the definition of some bit set in the first octet of an IPv4
   address is complete and utter nonsense

[5] like a 20 year old shell script that is so important for $university
   that it would be hard for them to implement IPv6!

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Marco Davids (Private) via ipv6-wg 
Hi Jens,

On 03/10/2019 12:34, Jens Link wrote:

> after now almost 12 years using, working and teaching[1]
> IPv6 I've come to the conclusion that IPv6 is a mistake and will
> not work.

Please elaborate.

We are well underway with IPv6.

In al honesty, your suggestions hurt my eyes.

--
Marco

Re: [ipv6-wg] Disband IPv6 WG

2019-10-03 Thread Uros Gaber 
Hi Jens,

Wow, first I had to look at today's date, I thought this was a April Fools
joke mail.

But to go forward seriously, a couple of questions to maybe clarify your
thinking - from bullet points:
1. WHY should it have NAT
2. What do you understand under class, IPv4 "Classes" are just defined
subnet groups (simply put)
3. AFAIK DHCPv6 is defined in RFC (3319,3646,4704,5007,6221,6355,6939,8415)
4. Partly agree on this one
5. Partly agree on this one, but probably with the right set of firewall
rules you could achieve the same effect you are going after
6. Dots and colon, what's the difference?
7. Use DNS to resolve - no [] needed then.

And for the "footprints":
[4] you want classes in "IPvX" but negate the same with this point
[5] what does the script have to do with network layer?

Just my 2c.

Uros

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 12:35 PM Jens Link  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> after now almost 12 years using, working and teaching[1]
> IPv6 I've come to the conclusion that IPv6 is a mistake and will
> not work.
>
> Therefore the RIPE IPv6 WG should be disbanded and replaced
> with a new WG that MUST investigate all possible solutions to
> artificially prolong the live of IPv4 till the day a new successor
> for IPv4 is created and implemented!
>
> Some great ideas[2] are already proposed, some of them already
> implemented:
>
> - Use of NAT
> - Use of the first Class-A network 0.0.0.0[3]
> - Use of parts of localhost Class-A network 127.0.0.0
> - Use of (parts) of Class-D address space (multicast)
> - Use of Class-E address space (future use)
> - Using part of the UDP / TCP port range as extension for the
>   address.
>
> Some of the reserved address spaces could also be used. E.g. nobody
> is using 192.0.2.0/24 for documentation anyway.
>
> It should also be investigated to take back legacy IPv4 resources,
> although the "owners" of these resources might already selling
> them on the open market.
>
> It MUST also be considered not filtering on Class-C[4] bounderies
> but going for something smaller like /26 or /27 in the global routing
> table. Also new Class Designations for these prefixes MUST be created.
>
> The new successor to IPv4 should not make the same mistakes as IPv6.
>
> - 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
>
> Probably the best way to proceed is to just add one or two octets to the
> address.
>
> One of the reasons for the above is that there are so is so many good
> documentation already written about IPv4! And people already know about
> IPv4! Why waste this knowledge and experience? There is also plenty of
> good software out there that can't work with IPv6[5] Change is bad!
> People don't want to learn!
>
> IPv4! MUST! NOT! DIE!
>
> Jens
>
> [1] at least trying to teach, as one can see from the great number of
> people actually using IPv6 with little success
>
> [2] https://netdevconf.info/0x13/session.html?talk-ipv4-unicast-expansions
>
> [3]
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=96125bf9985a
>
> [4] a Class-C network is the equivalent of an /24. I was told by experts
> that the definition of some bit set in the first octet of an IPv4
> address is complete and utter nonsense
>
> [5] like a 20 year old shell script that is so important for $university
> that it would be hard for them to implement IPv6!
>
>
>