Re: [ipv6-wg] Minutes from RIPE 88

Hi, there is a little typo in section 4 (IPv4-with-IPv6 Next-Hop), Robert Scheck referred to RFC 8950, not RFC 9850. Otherwise the minutes look ok to me. Greetings, Wolfgang -- punkt.de GmbH Wolfgang Zenker Sophienstr. 187 76185 Karlsruhe Tel. +49 721 9109-140 https://punkt.de i

Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 WG chair 2021 re-selection

Greetings! Am Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 09:31:57PM +1000 schrieb Jen Linkova: > My 3 years term as the IPv6 WG co-chair will be over after RIPE82, so > the call for the candidates is open. Thank you for another 3 years of as a WG co-chair. > I'd like to stand for re-selection as well, volunteering to

[ipv6-wg] ip address pricing and protocol selection

in our customer base, and I want to see if others are seeing similar changes or a different situation. You can reply off-list and I will summarize the results to the group. Please state if I should mention your name in the summary. Greetings, Wolfgang Zenker -- punkt.de GmbH Tel

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

essage to users is "If you have trouble to access company A providing service X, it might be because A does not support IPv6 connections. Try company B as an alternative who does have IPv6". Regards, Wolfgang Zenker -- punkt.de GmbH Tel. +49 721 9109-500

Re: [ipv6-wg] RIPE80 Call for Presentations

On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 09:03:59AM +, Tim Chown wrote: >> On 1 May 2020, at 04:44, Jen Linkova wrote: >> I'd not assume that IPv6 is not getting deployed (only) because it's >> hard or because of >> the technical difficulties. >> Maybe you are more lucky but I personally have a lot of things o

[ipv6-wg] netboot and RAs (was: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum)

Hi, On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 02:33:23PM +0200, Nico Schottelius wrote: > [..] > in this light I am wondering two things: > - Why did the essential netboot related information (filename / server) > never made it into the router advertisements? (I know they exist in > dhcpv6) I think this is re

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

* Philip Homburg [191008 20:47]: >> On the other hand, switching the "default" meeting SSID to IPv6-only/NAT64 >> while still providing the dual stack network as a fallback, preferably >> combined with a helpdesk staffed by volunteers ready to analyze any >> problems that attendees might have, str

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

Hi Jen and group, * Jen Linkova [191005 04:20]: > As a co-chair I'm excited to see some discussion happening here, > especially after the list has been quiet for a while. 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.. we

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

* Job Snijders [191008 05:29]: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:11:41PM +0200, Enno Rey wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:05:18PM +0200, Bjoern Buerger wrote: >>> * Martin Schr?der (mar...@oneiros.de) [191007 19:13]: Am Mo., 7. Okt. 2019 um 18:04 Uhr schrieb Dave Taht : > If I can get *one

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

Hi Jen, * Jen Linkova [191005 03:46]: > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:41 AM Wolfgang Zenker wrote: >> ... the default network at RIPE Meetings is the dual-stack network, with >> the IPv6-only (NAT64) network as a barely used extra which is "supported >> on a best effort ba

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

Hi, the description of the working group says: "The 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." I know we do all o

Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 WG co-chair selection

I support Raymond as WG Co-Chair. Wolfgang