Last week I had the pleasure to participate at the first RIPE IoT Roundtable Meeting in Leeds (thanks! to Marco Hogewoning for organising it). It was a day with many fruitful discussions. I particularly enjoyed Robert Kisteleki‘s talk on RIPE NCC’s own design & (security) process considerations in the context of RIPE Atlas (at TR17 NGI there was an intro to Atlas, too).
In this post I’d like to quickly lay out the main points of my own contribution on “Balanced Security for IPv6 CPE Revisited” (the slides can be found here).
From May 8th to 12th I was able to attend the 74th RIPE meeting in Budapest, Hungary. Being rather new to the networking community, I enjoyed learning a lot of different things, not only from the various interesting talks but also from inspiring conversations with a variety of people from all areas during the beautiful social events.
As it was the first RIPE meeting for me, I was very thankful for the “Newcomer’s Introduction” on Monday morning, containing a RIPE and RIPE NCC 101. It was quite helpful to get into the mindset and understand the structure of the meeting, like the division into different working groups based on the participants’ interests. After familiarizing myself with the concept, I chose to attend several sessions on Address Policy, IPv6, Routing, Open Source, and DNS working groups besides the general plenary sessions. I’ll be reviewing those sessions here. Continue reading “Looking back on RIPE 74”
I’m on my way back from the RIPE74 meeting in Budapest. It was a great event: quite a few nice technical talks in the plenary, productive working group meetings and some really good hallway discussions.
Big thanks to the RIPE NCC team for the smooth organization and for taking care of us!
In November 2014, after quite some controversy in the IETF OPSEC working group (for those interested look at the archives), the InformationalRFC 7404 “Using Only Link-Local Addressing inside an IPv6 Network” was published. It is authored by Michael Behringer and Eric Vyncke and discusses the advantages & disadvantages of an approach using “only link-local addresses on infrastructure links between routers”.
Some hours ago Iljitsch van Beijnum posted an email with the above subject to the RIPE Best Current Operational Practices (BCOP) mailing list.
Therein he describes the growing issue of (IPv6 prefix) deaggregation desires/approaches by certain organizations vs. the filtering practices of other organizations (providers). I touched this problem, from an enterprise’s perspective, some time ago in the second part of my blog post series on IPv6 address planning. Given we think that the discussion is heavily needed from several angles, I had actually submitted a talk on the topic twice (for the RIPE meeting in Warsaw in May and the upcoming one in London) which was unfortunately rejected at both occasions.
I’m hence very happy to see that a dialogue about the inherent dilemma might be started by Iljitsch’s mail. As a contribution to the development of a BCOP document I will hereby publish our draft slides of the talk which was initially planned. Furthermore two fellow IPv6 practitioners (Hi Roland & Nico!) and I plan to release a detailed paper with research results as for IPv6 prefix distribution at major European IXs in the near future.
Let’s hope that we as the IPv6 community can reach some consensus in this space soon. See you in London,
have a good one everybody