European ISP enables IPv6 for all?

In a recent Slashdot article (h
ttp://slashdot.org/articles/07/12/17/1451230.shtml)
discussing IPv6, someone left a comment the read, in part
"One of the largest IPSs (sic) in Europe turned on IPv6
to all 8 million users this week. They've done the right
thing and made it opt-in for now, their customers have to go
to their control panel web page and turn it on, but almost
50,000 people did in the first 24 hours."

Does anyone know which ISP the poster is talking about? Is
there any truth to this at all?

Any feedback appreciated.


Sean Siler
IPv6 Program Manager
Microsoft

On 2007/12/17 10:01, Sean Siler wrote:
> Does anyone know which ISP the poster is talking about?
Is there any truth to this at all?

ht
tp://www.iliad.fr/presse/2007/CP_IPv6_121207.pdf

Thanks to all for your private replies - I have the answer
now.

(It appears to be Free.fr, if you are interested.)

http://www.iliad.fr/en/presse/2007/CP_IPv6_121207_eng.p
df



Sean

Sean Siler|IPv6 Program Manager


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanogmerit.edu [mailto:owner-nanogmerit.edu] On Behalf Of Sean Siler
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 1:02 PM
To: nanogmerit.edu
Subject: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?


In a recent Slashdot article (h
ttp://slashdot.org/articles/07/12/17/1451230.shtml)
discussing IPv6, someone left a comment the read, in part
"One of the largest IPSs (sic) in Europe turned on IPv6
to all 8 million users this week. They've done the right
thing and made it opt-in for now, their customers have to go
to their control panel web page and turn it on, but almost
50,000 people did in the first 24 hours."

Does anyone know which ISP the poster is talking about? Is
there any truth to this at all?

Any feedback appreciated.


Sean Siler
IPv6 Program Manager
Microsoft

On Dec 17, 2007 10:29 AM, Sean Siler <Sean.Silermicrosoft.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks to all for your private replies - I have the
answer now.
>
> (It appears to be Free.fr, if you are interested.)
>
> http://www.iliad.fr/en/presse/2007/CP_IPv6_121207_eng.p
df

I'm glad they managed to get in all the hype for v6 with
little in the
way of reality though... nothing like making it simple for
people to
get confused example:

"This connection system is backward compatible with the
current fixed IPv4."

--or---

" Furthermore, IPv6 simplifies the configuration of
devices when connected to
the Internet. It improves data security and supports quality
of services."

how does it improve data security exactly?

-Chris
hurrah!

> " Furthermore, IPv6 simplifies the configuration
of devices when connected to
> the Internet. It improves data security and supports
quality of services."
> how does it improve data security exactly?

attackers are daunted by the smoke and mirrors?

<sigh> this stuff is hard enough to roll without the
hype.

randy

Apparently, from what I have gathered from other french
people, Free has
rolled out a variation of 6to4 using their own prefix
instead of the well
known 2002::/16. As they control their home gateway, this
was fairly easy
for them to do and did not require much core infrastructure
change. The
apparent benefit is that they control the routing of the
return packets and
thus do not need to worry about packets going through Palo
Alto, Switzerland
or Korea (well known 6to4 relays) on their way back from the
'native' IPv6
Internet...

   - Alain.


On 12/17/07 1:01 PM, "Sean Siler"
<Sean.Silermicrosoft.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> In a recent Slashdot article
> (h
ttp://slashdot.org/articles/07/12/17/1451230.shtml)
discussing IPv6, someone
> left a comment the read, in part "One of the
largest IPSs (sic) in Europe
> turned on IPv6 to all 8 million users this week.
They've done the right thing
> and made it opt-in for now, their customers have to go
to their control panel
> web page and turn it on, but almost 50,000 people did
in the first 24 hours."
> 
> Does anyone know which ISP the poster is talking about?
Is there any truth to
> this at all?
> 
> Any feedback appreciated.
> 
> 
> Sean Siler
> IPv6 Program Manager
> Microsoft
> 
> 

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:29:21 -0800
"Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.listsgmail.com> wrote:

> how does it improve data security exactly?
> 
Back in 1994, it was expected to be true because v6 would
mandate
IPsec, and v6 would be deployed long before the installed
base of v4
machines would be upgraded to IPsec.  Obviously, that's not
what
happened; while IPsec was indeed late in coming, v6 was even
later, so
the original belief has been OBE.  The mythos, however,
hasn't caught
up.  Similar statements can be made about stateless
autoconfig vs. v4
DHCP.

In a slightly more realistic vein, a huge address space
makes life
harder for scanning worms.  As Angelos Keromytis, Bill
Cheswick, and I
have pointed out, "harder" is by no means
equivalent to "impossible",
but the myth, new as it is, still propagates.


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbi
a.edu/~smb

On Dec 17, 2007, at 10:37 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:

>
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:29:21 -0800
> "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.listsgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> how does it improve data security exactly?
>>
> Back in 1994, it was expected to be true because v6
would mandate
> IPsec, and v6 would be deployed long before the
installed base of v4
> machines would be upgraded to IPsec.  Obviously, that's
not what
> happened; while IPsec was indeed late in coming, v6 was
even later, so
> the original belief has been OBE.  The mythos, however,
hasn't caught
> up.  Similar statements can be made about stateless
autoconfig vs. v4
> DHCP.

Perhaps the concept also holds true because there's a
smaller target market for the moment, and attackers are
all about ROI.  We've certainly seen this at other layers
of
the stack.  However, not sure I'd posit as such.

> In a slightly more realistic vein, a huge address space
makes life
> harder for scanning worms.  As Angelos Keromytis, Bill
Cheswick, and I
> have pointed out, "harder" is by no means
equivalent to "impossible",
> but the myth, new as it is, still propagates.

As will the worms and malware, I suppose, though perhaps
with more thought-out propagation vectors that employ not
only local prefix scanning, but nifty things like walking
ip6.arpa or the like for presumable denser host existence.
Then again, who needs self propagation, when client-side
attacks seem to be more than sufficient.

-danny

On Dec 17, 2007, at 9:58 PM, Danny McPherson wrote:

> when client-side attacks seem to be more than
sufficient.

A self-selected group of victims really helps lower the  
reconnaissance opex, heh.

;>

------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbinscisco.com> //
408.527.6376 voice

	Culture eats strategy for breakfast.

            -- Ford Motor Company

On 17/12/2007, Alain Durand <alain_durandcable.comcast.com> wrote:
> Apparently, from what I have gathered from other french
people, Free has
> rolled out a variation of 6to4 using their own prefix
instead of the well
> known 2002::/16. As they control their home gateway,
this was fairly easy
> for them to do and did not require much core
infrastructure change.

There is an French ISP named Nerim who provides native IPv6
connexions
on xDSL links and dial-up (not much used) since 2002-2003.
Mostly
everything from servers and core network is dual stack, and
while the
ISP is not as large as today's Free.fr, it was the third DSL
operator
in France by then.

XS4All (Netherlands) is providing the same service if I
correctly remember.


-- 
Vassili Tchersky
vasilychersky.ru

Vassili Tchersky wrote:
[..]

> XS4All (Netherlands) is providing the same service if I
correctly remember.

They used to have a product called "PowerDSL",
which did IPv6 over
PPPv6, but apparently due to changes in the infra they had
to drop this.
XS4all does still, since about 2001 or so, provide a
tunnelbroker to
their own users. Every user can simply go to the
service.xs4all.nl site,
and view/modify their tunnel + subnet configuration there.
Only static
tunnels are supported though (at least this is afaik).

Greets,
 Jeroen

On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 10:09:16AM +0100, Jeroen Massar
wrote:
> Vassili Tchersky wrote:
> [..]
> 
> > XS4All (Netherlands) is providing the same service
if I correctly remember.
> 
> They used to have a product called
"PowerDSL", which did IPv6 over
> PPPv6, but apparently due to changes in the infra they
had to drop this.
> XS4all does still, since about 2001 or so, provide a
tunnelbroker to
> their own users. Every user can simply go to the
service.xs4all.nl site,
> and view/modify their tunnel + subnet configuration
there. Only static
> tunnels are supported though (at least this is afaik).

It's kind of interesting that from 2001ish to current day
and there is still
only a handful of service providers worldwide that seem to
offer *any* kind
of support for IPv6.

After all the propaganda, is there actually any other major
deployments in
the IPv6 space?

>From the ipv6.org web site, I see "Most of today's
internet uses IPv4, which
is now nearly twenty years old." - read as it works
well!

" IPv4 has been remarkably resilient in spite of its
age, but it is beginning
to have problems." - Really? Every network I know using
IPv4 still works as
designed.

"Most importantly, there is a growing shortage of IPv4
addresses, which are
needed by all new machines added to the Internet." -
I'm sure there's a lot
more ways around this - and I'm sure the NANOG archives have
a lot of thought
food there.

"It also adds many improvements to IPv4 in areas such
as routing and network
autoconfiguration." - I would really love to know what
these are that DHCP etc
doesn't already do. I tried to check out the FAQ at http://faq.v6.wide.ad.jp/
but it wasn't reachable - maybe it needs IPv6 connectivity?
As for routing
'improvements', doesn't more address space just give us more
routes to handle?

"IPv6 is expected to gradually replace IPv4, with the
two coexisting for a
number of years during a transition period." - so this
'transition period' has
been, what, 7 years so far? I'm still predicting that it'll
be at least another
10 years before IPv6 amounts to much...

On a side note, does anyone currently have issues getting
new address space
where it's operationally required? I don't know anyone first
hand who has yet
to come across this issue...

-- 
Steven Haigh

Email: netwizcrc.id.au
Web: http://www.crc.id.au
Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897

C:WINDOWS C:WINDOWSGO C:PCCRAWL

Steven Haigh wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 10:09:16AM +0100, Jeroen Massar
wrote:
>> Vassili Tchersky wrote:
>> [..]
>>
>>> XS4All (Netherlands) is providing the same
service if I correctly remember.
>> They used to have a product called
"PowerDSL", which did IPv6 over
>> PPPv6, but apparently due to changes in the infra
they had to drop this.
>> XS4all does still, since about 2001 or so, provide
a tunnelbroker to
>> their own users. Every user can simply go to the
service.xs4all.nl site,
>> and view/modify their tunnel + subnet configuration
there. Only static
>> tunnels are supported though (at least this is
afaik).
> 
> It's kind of interesting that from 2001ish to current
day and there is still
> only a handful of service providers worldwide that seem
to offer *any* kind
> of support for IPv6.
> 
> After all the propaganda, is there actually any other
major deployments in
> the IPv6 space?

I wonder how your Martian hands look like, they must have
many many fingers.

For a list of ISP's doing IPv6 check:
htt
p://www.sixxs.net/faq/connectivity/?faq=native

For a long long list of Japanese providers see:
http://www.ipv6style.jp/en/statistics/services/index.s
html

As for all the ISP's who have received and are at least
routing, check
GRH (http://www.sixxs.net/
tools/grh/)

> From the ipv6.org web site, I see "Most of today's
internet uses IPv4, which
> is now nearly twenty years old." - read as it
works well!

That site is IMHO always quite out of date unfortunately.

Greets,
 Jeroen

* Jeroen Massar:

> For a list of ISP's doing IPv6 check:
> htt
p://www.sixxs.net/faq/connectivity/?faq=native

Does PPPv6 still work on the T-DSL platform? 8-/

The list would be more convincing if it contained links to
product
pages.

-- 
Florian Weimer                <fweimerbfk.de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99

On 18 dec 2007, at 6:37, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:

> In a slightly more realistic vein, a huge address space
makes life
> harder for scanning worms.  As Angelos Keromytis, Bill
Cheswick, and I
> have pointed out, "harder" is by no means
equivalent to "impossible",
> but the myth, new as it is, still propagates.

I'd say that the huge address space makes life impossible
for scanning  
worms.

That doesn't mean that there can be no successful scanning
at all with  
IPv6, but it needs to be highly targeted if you want results
the same  
year, so just pumping random numbers in the destination
address field  
like SQL slammer did so successfully doesn't cut it in
IPv6.

* Sebastian Abt:

> * Florian Weimer wrote:
>> Does PPPv6 still work on the T-DSL platform? 8-/
>
> Yes, it does.

Oh.  What happened to the C10K PPPoE length field bug
(CSCsd13298, if
I'm not mistaken)?

-- 
Florian Weimer                <fweimerbfk.de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99

Sebastian Abt schrieb:
> * Florian Weimer wrote:
>> Does PPPv6 still work on the T-DSL platform? 8-/
> 
> Yes, it does.

"sometimes, and sometimes not" would be more
correct 

-- 
============================================================
============
= Sascha Lenz                  SLZ-RIPE          slzbaycix.de
        =
= Network Operations                                        
          =
= BayCIX GmbH, Landshut                  * PGP public Key on
demand *  =
============================================================
============

> doesn't more address space just give us more routes to
handle?

No. It only makes more possible prefixes. Migrating to IPv6
while keeping 
the current (IPv4) routing and current business relations,
there would be 
somewhat less routes:

bigger address space -> bigger chunks -> less need to
incrementally add 
prefixes to the same place -> less prefixes

Andras

On Tue, Dec 18, 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> I'd say that the huge address space makes life
impossible for scanning  
> worms.

The advent of P2P has made "Valid node discovery"
easier than just scanning.

Damned technology and its incremental improvements. 

> That doesn't mean that there can be no successful
scanning at all with  
> IPv6, but it needs to be highly targeted if you want
results the same  
> year, so just pumping random numbers in the destination
address field  
> like SQL slammer did so successfully doesn't cut it in
IPv6.

So maybe said scanning won't take down LANs anymore.



Adrian

On Tue, Dec 18, 2007, JAKO Andras wrote:
> 
> > doesn't more address space just give us more
routes to handle?
> 
> No. It only makes more possible prefixes. Migrating to
IPv6 while keeping 
> the current (IPv4) routing and current business
relations, there would be 
> somewhat less routes:
> 
> bigger address space -> bigger chunks -> less
need to incrementally add 
> prefixes to the same place -> less prefixes

You mean "more address space" ->
"individual businesses want to multihome
and are willing to pay for their own space" -> more
prefixes.





Adrian