Fwd: [Igfregionals] Published & for distribution: New IGF resources now available

2017-01-25 Thread Michael Oghia
Dear colleagues,

The 2016 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) intersessional work has been
published, including the Best Practice Forum (BPF) outcome documents for
the IXP and IPv6 BPFs.

Best,
-Michael
__

Michael J. Oghia
iGmena  communications manager
Independent #netgov consultant & editor

Belgrade, Serbia
Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter  *|* LinkedIn


-- Forwarded message --
From: Brian Clarke GUTTERMAN 
Date: Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:38 PM
Subject: [Igfregionals] Published & for distribution: New IGF resources now
available
To: Anri van der Spuy , Wim Degezelle <
wdegeze...@drmv.be>
Cc: bp_gen...@intgovforum.org, igfregion...@intgovforum.org,
bp_i...@intgovforum.org, outreach_com_2...@intgovforum.org,
intersessional_2...@intgovforum.org, d...@intgovforum.org,
bp_i...@intgovforum.org, "bp_cybersec_2...@intgovforum.org" <
bp_cybersec_2...@intgovforum.org>


Dear Internet Governance Stakeholders,

   -


We are glad to let you know that the IGF has just published all of the
tangible outcomes from its intersessional activities conducted in 2016.
These outputs include:


   -

   BPF Gender: Outcome resource 2016
   

   (access and gender) & recommendations roadmap
   

   (online abuse and gender-based violence);
   -

   BPF on Internet exchange points (IXPs)
   ;
   -

   BPF on commercial and economic incentives to deploy IPv6
   ;
   -

   BPF Cybersecurity
   
   (‘Building Confidence and Security in the use of Information and
   Communications Technologies (ICTs) through Enhanced Cooperation and
   Collaboration’); and
   -

   Policy Options for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s)
   

   (Phase II).


These resources are the outputs from bottom-up, inclusive, and
community-driven activities of the IGF that took place over the course of
2016 (for more information about these initiatives, please see the Notes at
the end of this email).

The IGF, along with the facilitators and rapporteurs for all of the
respective intersessional activities, are grateful for the invaluable
support given and time invested in these activities by numerous
stakeholders and volunteers. We would also like to recognise the leadership
and dedication of the coordinators, facilitators, and lead experts who
supported the IGF’s intersessional work over the past year, including Aaron
Hughes, Anri van der Spuy, Brian Gutterman, Constance Bommelaer, Douglas
Onyango, Izumi Okutani, Jac SM Kee, Maarten Van Horenbeeck, Marco
Hogewoning, Markus Kummer, Salanienta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Sumon A. Sabir,
Renata Aquino Ribeiro, Segun Olugbile, and Wim Degezelle, among many others.

What can you do with the IGF’s intersessional resources?

We encourage all stakeholders to share these resources with their
respective communities to ensure that the IGF resource outputs also become
useful inputs into other processes of relevance to the Internet and its
governance in 2017 and beyond.

We hope these resources will not only be useful for policymakers and other
stakeholders, but will also continue to symbolise the IGF community’s
belief that multistakeholder collaboration is fundamental in effectively
addressing pertinent Internet policy challenges.

What’s next for the IGF’s intersessional activities?

All outputs from the IGF’s intersessional activities are intended to be
living documents that can be updated at any time. At the first Open
Consultations and IGF multistakeholder advisory group (MAG) meeting in
March 2017, stakeholders will discuss potential themes for the next cohort
of intersessional activities, including what will happen with the 2016 BPFs
and their outputs.

The IGF Secretariat invites stakeholders to submit written contributions to
the current public consultation

stock-taking exercise. In these contributions, stakeholders are also
welcome to send recommendations and proposed themes for intersessional
activities in 2017. Written inputs should be sent to
takingst...@intgovforum.org by Friday 27 January.

Kind regards,


IGF Secretariat

NOTES

About the IGF

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) serves to bring people together from
various stakeholder groups as equals in discussions on public policy issues
relating to the Internet. While the IGF has no negotiated outcomes, it
serves the important function of 

Re: Fwd: [Bp_ixps] IXPs & IPv6

2016-10-20 Thread Michael Oghia
Yes! Sorry about that Nick. Rob already clarified.

-Michael

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> wrote:

> Michael Oghia wrote:
> > Thanks Nick. Sad to hear, but hopefully we can change that.
>
> you're misunderstanding completely!  It means that ipv6 is considered to
> be of the same importance as ipv4 in the ixp world from the point of
> view of passing production traffic over the ixp fabric.  As far as the
> IXP world is concerned, this is an excellent situation to be in.
>
> Nick
>
>


Re: Fwd: [Bp_ixps] IXPs & IPv6

2016-10-20 Thread Michael Oghia
Thanks Nick. Sad to hear, but hopefully we can change that.

Best,
-Michael


On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Nick Hilliard  wrote:

> > Does anyone knows of recent updates or statements on the IPv6-readines
> > of IXPs?
>
> Other than that IPv6 readiness has been a complete non-issue for years
> in the IXP community, I can't think of anything new to add to the
> euro-ix statement since 2011.
>
> Nick


Fwd: [Bp_ixps] IXPs & IPv6

2016-10-20 Thread Michael Oghia
FYI

Best,
-Michael

-- Forwarded message --
From: Wim Degezelle 
Date: Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:01 PM
Subject: [Bp_ixps] IXPs & IPv6
To: bp_i...@intgovforum.org
Cc: Izumi Okutani 


Hi All,

The Best Practice Forum on IPv6 is looking at the IPv6 deployment by
companies and organisations, and wants to include a paragraph on IXPs.

This should be a general statement on the IPv6 readiness of IXPs in the
world, and briefly discuss motivation and challenges.

I found a Euro-IX statement
 from June
2011 that announced that all Euro-IX members are IPv6 ready and enabled.

Does anyone knows of recent updates or statements on the IPv6-readines of
IXPs?

FYI the BPF IPv6 draft is available on google docs ( link

 ).

Thanks
Wim
_

*Wim Degezelle*
*Consultant IGF BPF IPv6*
*Consultant IGF BPF on IXPs*




___
Bp_ixps mailing list
bp_i...@intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ixps_intgovforum.org


Re: DHCPv6 client in Windows 10 broken after anniversary update

2016-10-10 Thread Michael Oghia
Hi everyone,

Does anyone know if Microsoft is aware of this issue? Perhaps it can be
forwarded to someone who can pass it along to the engineers.

Best,
-Michael


On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Trevor Warwick  wrote:

> I've think I've also seen this. To work around a bug in my Ubiquiti router
> at home, I can't use SLAAC, so need to rely on DHCPv6 for address
> assignment.  This weekend, a recently upgraded Windows 10 Anniversary
> machine wasn't successfully getting an IPv6 address. Looking at it with
> wireshark,IIRC, the client sent a Solicit, the server sent an Advertise,
> but there was no Request from the client after that.
>
> On 10 October 2016 at 09:14, Harald F. Karlsen  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It seems like Microsoft somehow broke DHCPv6 client functionality in the
>> Windows 10 anniversary update and now neither stateful nor stateless DHCPv6
>> functionality works unless you manually issue "ipconfig /renew6" (for
>> stateful DHCPv6 this will only give you IPv6-connectivity untill the lease
>> expires).
>>
>> This is generally not a big issue for dual-stacked residential customers
>> as most CPEs does SLAAC on the LAN-side, but the Win10 clients will not
>> recieve DNS from DHCP if the CPE is configured for that. For enterprise
>> networks on the other hand this can be a big issue. Especially when running
>> FHS and no SLAAC.
>>
>> Have anyone on the list experienced issues with this yet? If so, have you
>> contacted Microsoft and what did they say? I've found reports on this issue
>> dating back from early august so it's strange that Microsoft have not yet
>> issued a fix for it.
>>
>> --
>> Harald
>>
>
>


IPv6 Best Practice Forum

2016-07-27 Thread Michael Oghia
Dear colleagues,

Building on last year's IGF Best Practice Forum (BPF) on creating an
enabling environment for IPv6
,
we are now focusing this year's IPv6 BPF work on how to best encourage and
support IPv6 adoption (for more information, see: Scope and Goals

).

The IPv6 BPF is a consensus-driven, bottom-up, and inclusive collaborative
effort, one that brings together professional expertise from across
stakeholder groups in order to generate a practical, constructive, and
relevant outcome document.

We are currently soliciting feedback and brainstorming ideas, especially
related to economic elements of IPv6 adoption and business cases:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C7z8MRVBOmBsuWxpl8YivXZWFvksKCq0_ul7TlFJzIU/edit?pref=2=1

If you are not already involved, I encourage you to add suggestions to the
document, share it among your networks, and contact Izumi Okutani, our MAG
coordinator, or Wim Degezelle, the IPv6 BPF project manager, for more
information or if you have any questions. Additionally, you can sign up for
the mailing list at:
http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org.

Kind regards,
-Michael
__

Michael J. Oghia
iGmena  communications manager
Independent #netgov consultant & editor

Istanbul, Turkey
Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter  *|* LinkedIn



Fwd: [ipv6-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Can You Make IPv6 Work Commercially?

2016-07-07 Thread Michael Oghia
Hi all,

Below is a post by Marco Hogewoning from RIPE NCC. I also encourage you all
to join the second call of the IGF IPv6 Best Practice Forum today (July 7)
at noon UTC (2 PM CET).

Meeting number (access code): 951 566 416
Meeting password: IGF2016

https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?MTID=m35c85f53602371f3e98e7c46ae2b0098

Best,
-Michael
__

Michael J. Oghia
IGMENA  communications manager
Independent #netgov consultant & editor

Istanbul, Turkey
Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter  *|* LinkedIn


-- Forwarded message --
From: Mirjam Kuehne 
Date: Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 8:44 AM
Subject: [ipv6-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Can You Make IPv6 Work Commercially?
To: ipv6...@ripe.net


Dear colleagues,

Large scale IPv6 deployments suggest that IPv6 is at least a technical
success, the technology works. Time to visit the other important
question: does it work commercially. Does IPv6 really come with a
positive business case? We are about to find out, if you help us...

Read more on RIPE Labs:

https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_hogewoning/can-you-make-ipv6-work-commercially?pk_campaign=labs_kwd=list-ipv6wg

Please also note the poll next to the article.

Kind regards,
Mirjam Kuehne
RIPE NCC


Fwd: [Bp_ipv6] Starting IPv6 BPF 2016: Next call on 23rd June

2016-06-23 Thread Michael Oghia
FYI. The IGF's Best Practice Forums provide tangible and useful outputs,
and this year's IPv6 BPF aims to build on last year's momentum. I encourage
anyone working with IPv6 to participate and spread this around your
networks.

Best,
-Michael Oghia
__

Independent #netgov consultant & editor
2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador

Istanbul, Turkey
Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia>

-- Forwarded message --
From: Izumi Okutani <iz...@nic.ad.jp>
Date: Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 6:06 PM
Subject: [Bp_ipv6] Starting IPv6 BPF 2016: Next call on 23rd June
To: "bp_i...@intgovforum.org" <bp_i...@intgovforum.org>


Dear Colleagues,

We are starting work on IPv6 BPF 2016 and I am serving as a MAG Coordinator
this year, with my colleague Sumon Ahmed Sabir.
You can see our profiles at:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/mag/45-mag-membership/3030-mag-2016-membership-2

To start work for the BPF this year. we would like to invite you to:

 1) Share your feedback on the attached Scope and Goals document for IPv6
BPF 2016
Close comments by: Fri 1st July

 2) Join us in the call at UTC1600 Thu 23rd June

   *Register*
   <
https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?RGID=ra8e66724ded8a366ee621f9ef5d1721c
>
   After your request has been approved, you'll receive instructions for
joining the meeting.

To share some background, last year’s BPF on IPv6 focused on creating
capacity building platforms and awareness raising, in the form of national
and regional IPv6 taskforces and other initiatives.

Building upon the conclusions of last year, the BPF on IPv6  organizers now
suggest a focus on the economic decisions and commercial drivers behind the
decision to adopt IPv6.

Therefore, the target is non-technical people who can share
economic/business perspectives.

As we did last year, we would like to start with fixing the Scope and Goals
document, to be the basis of our work for the output document to be
produced as our BFP.

Best Regards,
Izumi Okutani

___
Bp_ipv6 mailing list
bp_i...@intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org


Scope-and-goals-IPv6BPF2016.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document


Re: Netflix hates IPv6

2016-06-15 Thread Michael Oghia
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Pete Mundy  wrote:

>
> They have engineers on the NANOG list (they even have presenters at the
> NANOG conference), so yes one must assume they are aware of the discussion.
>


Thank you Pete and Mikael for clarifying, that's basically what I wanted to
know.


Re: Netflix hates IPv6

2016-06-15 Thread Michael Oghia
Hi Mark,

That is a good and constructive suggestion. Forgive me if I'm a broken
record, though, when I ask if Netflix is involved at any level or even
aware of this discussion? If not, it seems advantageous to me to invite
them to be included.

Best,
-Michael


On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Townsley.net <m...@townsley.net> wrote:

>
> Apologies if this has already been suggested, but...
>
> How hard would it be for HE to provide a an API for Netflix to query for
> HE prefixes?
>
> For any given v6 address, HE should have a mapping for the associated
> (IPv4) tunnel source address readily available. Netflix would query HE and
> in turn perform the geolocation check based on the tunnel source.
>
> Sure, there's a little work to do here by HE and Netflix, including a UI
> for user opt-in/out, but for the "honest" tunnel user not trying to
> circumvent the system, perhaps it's a constructive way forward? (and
> generally applicable for other providers doing the same)
>
> - Mark
>
> On Jun 15, 2016, at 10:18, Michael Oghia <mike.og...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Brandon,
>
> Thank you for your insight on this and for linking to your past statement.
> It would be great if someone from Netflix could get involved in the
> discussion. Has this ever happened before? Of course, speaking among
> ourselves without their input or without them being invested in any process
> that seeks to change it is, frankly, pointless. From what I gather from
> your message, at least one improvement could be to technical support.
>
> Has anyone ever reached out to someone or one of their contacts who works
> with Netflix, especially someone regarding this issue/area?
>
> Best,
> -Michael
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Brandon Butterworth <bran...@bogons.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 08:57:03AM +0300, Michael Oghia wrote:
>> > While following this thread, it occurred to me that one issue not being
>> > discussed is Netflix's encouragement to revert to IPv4
>>
>> They could do that better, instead of just telling users to turn off v6
>> they might explain that it's because they are using a tunnel/vpn and
>> that they should ask their ISP for native IPv6 instead.
>>
>> I don't know the numbers involved but they may have decided that a few
>> tunnel users should be able to figure that for themselves if they
>> already figured out how to set up a tunnel. Or they are just giving
>> the lazy answer (and expect ISPs to sort it out when they roll out
>> native IPv6)
>>
>> This has all been done to death on the nanog list (my contribution to
>> the noise is below)
>>
>> > Thus, the question I pose to the community is this: are there any
>> redress
>> > mechanisms we can use to address this situation at the core of the
>> issue,
>> > i.e., with Netflix, and help them work out solutions -- like some of the
>> > ones offered so far -- to not discourage IPv6? This can include
>> meetings,
>> > mobilizing networks, relationship building, outreach, etc.
>>
>> I suspect nothing will change (speaking for netflix while guessing
>> the likely reason so there may be more to this)
>>
>> brandon
>>
>> - Begin Included Message -
>> >From nanog-boun...@nanog.org  Sat Jun  4 11:52:29 2016
>> From: Brandon Butterworth <bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk>
>> To: cryptograph...@gmail.com, o...@delong.com
>> Subject: Re: Netflix VPN detection - actual engineer needed
>> Cc: na...@nanog.org
>>
>> > On Jun 3, 2016, at 17:35 , Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
>> > Letâ's face it folks, if we want to encourage Netflix to tell the
>> > content providers to give up the silly geo-shit, then we have to
>> > stop patronizing channels that do silly geo-shit.
>>
>> Correct but it needs a lot to do that.
>>
>> We do the geo thing. I didn't want us to and we didn't for a few years
>> but once the geo people had convinced rights owners it was a viable
>> thing they forced people buying their content to use it. I tried to
>> stop it here and failed but it's never over, people are starting to
>> realise it's silly to annoy people who want your services, you just
>> need to find a way to allow them
>>
>> To be fair to Netflix the tunnel blocking will likely have been driven
>> by their content suppliers asserting their contractual rights to not
>> allow access from certain places.
>>
>> Their content suppliers will have seen people boasting how they use
>> tunnels to get round them and tunnel suppliers advertising their
>> services for doing so. Blame them for the blocking as while it was a
>> personal thing they wouldn't have been bothered much.
>>
>> As usual a few people see an opportunity to make money off something
>> and in the process break it for everyone
>>
>> btw the list of tunnel providers was likely supplied by the same
>> geo ip people, some sell that as an extra.
>>
>> brandon
>> - End Included Message -
>>
>>
>>
>


Re: Netflix hates IPv6

2016-06-15 Thread Michael Oghia
Hi Brandon,

Thank you for your insight on this and for linking to your past statement.
It would be great if someone from Netflix could get involved in the
discussion. Has this ever happened before? Of course, speaking among
ourselves without their input or without them being invested in any process
that seeks to change it is, frankly, pointless. From what I gather from
your message, at least one improvement could be to technical support.

Has anyone ever reached out to someone or one of their contacts who works
with Netflix, especially someone regarding this issue/area?

Best,
-Michael


On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Brandon Butterworth <bran...@bogons.net>
wrote:

> On Wed Jun 15, 2016 at 08:57:03AM +0300, Michael Oghia wrote:
> > While following this thread, it occurred to me that one issue not being
> > discussed is Netflix's encouragement to revert to IPv4
>
> They could do that better, instead of just telling users to turn off v6
> they might explain that it's because they are using a tunnel/vpn and
> that they should ask their ISP for native IPv6 instead.
>
> I don't know the numbers involved but they may have decided that a few
> tunnel users should be able to figure that for themselves if they
> already figured out how to set up a tunnel. Or they are just giving
> the lazy answer (and expect ISPs to sort it out when they roll out
> native IPv6)
>
> This has all been done to death on the nanog list (my contribution to
> the noise is below)
>
> > Thus, the question I pose to the community is this: are there any redress
> > mechanisms we can use to address this situation at the core of the issue,
> > i.e., with Netflix, and help them work out solutions -- like some of the
> > ones offered so far -- to not discourage IPv6? This can include meetings,
> > mobilizing networks, relationship building, outreach, etc.
>
> I suspect nothing will change (speaking for netflix while guessing
> the likely reason so there may be more to this)
>
> brandon
>
> - Begin Included Message -
> From nanog-boun...@nanog.org  Sat Jun  4 11:52:29 2016
> From: Brandon Butterworth <bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk>
> To: cryptograph...@gmail.com, o...@delong.com
> Subject: Re: Netflix VPN detection - actual engineer needed
> Cc: na...@nanog.org
>
> > On Jun 3, 2016, at 17:35 , Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
> > Letâ's face it folks, if we want to encourage Netflix to tell the
> > content providers to give up the silly geo-shit, then we have to
> > stop patronizing channels that do silly geo-shit.
>
> Correct but it needs a lot to do that.
>
> We do the geo thing. I didn't want us to and we didn't for a few years
> but once the geo people had convinced rights owners it was a viable
> thing they forced people buying their content to use it. I tried to
> stop it here and failed but it's never over, people are starting to
> realise it's silly to annoy people who want your services, you just
> need to find a way to allow them
>
> To be fair to Netflix the tunnel blocking will likely have been driven
> by their content suppliers asserting their contractual rights to not
> allow access from certain places.
>
> Their content suppliers will have seen people boasting how they use
> tunnels to get round them and tunnel suppliers advertising their
> services for doing so. Blame them for the blocking as while it was a
> personal thing they wouldn't have been bothered much.
>
> As usual a few people see an opportunity to make money off something
> and in the process break it for everyone
>
> btw the list of tunnel providers was likely supplied by the same
> geo ip people, some sell that as an extra.
>
> brandon
> - End Included Message -
>
>
>


Re: Netflix hates IPv6

2016-06-15 Thread Michael Oghia
Ah ok, fair enough. Good to know. Well, if there's anything we can do in
terms of advocacy, let me know.

-Michael


On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Noel Butler <noel.but...@ausics.net> wrote:

> On 15/06/2016 16:13, Michael Oghia wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Noel Butler <noel.but...@ausics.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 15/06/2016 15:57, Michael Oghia wrote:
>> If HE started dishing out tunnels this week, maybe it could be addressed,
>> script/database changes to ensure U.S. residents get a slice of different
>> pie, that netflix could whitelist, but since its been going for many many
>> years, that is not possible, not easily possible anyway without dropping
>> and changing all existing U.S. users which would bring about a tsunami of
>> complaints for other reasons, so no, HE wont be doing anything in the
>> future :)
>>
>>
> For what it's worth, I'm not well-versed on this issue or familiar with
> any past action on it. But with that said, I understand the risks involved
> in terms of disrupting services, but surely *something *must be able to
> be done about this.
>
> Thats up to netflix - they are the ones blocking. The problem will
> diminish over time when end user ISP's go native IPv6, then they want need
> a HE tunnel service.
> --
> If you have the urge to reply to all rather than reply to list, you best
> first read  http://members.ausics.net/qwerty/
>


Re: Netflix hates IPv6

2016-06-15 Thread Michael Oghia
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Noel Butler <noel.but...@ausics.net> wrote:

> On 15/06/2016 15:57, Michael Oghia wrote:
> If HE started dishing out tunnels this week, maybe it could be addressed,
> script/database changes to ensure U.S. residents get a slice of different
> pie, that netflix could whitelist, but since its been going for many many
> years, that is not possible, not easily possible anyway without dropping
> and changing all existing U.S. users which would bring about a tsunami of
> complaints for other reasons, so no, HE wont be doing anything in the
> future :)
>
>

For what it's worth, I'm not well-versed on this issue or familiar with any
past action on it. But with that said, I understand the risks involved in
terms of disrupting services, but surely *something *must be able to be
done about this.


Re: Netflix hates IPv6

2016-06-14 Thread Michael Oghia
Hi all,

While following this thread, it occurred to me that one issue not being
discussed is Netflix's encouragement to revert to IPv4. Of course, that is
fairly easy with NAT, but the principle is one that makes me feel very
uncomfortable. We work so hard to see IPv6 expanded, it feels like a small
setback -- or at least a jab -- coming from such a large company.

Thus, the question I pose to the community is this: are there any redress
mechanisms we can use to address this situation at the core of the issue,
i.e., with Netflix, and help them work out solutions -- like some of the
ones offered so far -- to not discourage IPv6? This can include meetings,
mobilizing networks, relationship building, outreach, etc.

Best,
-Michael
__

Michael J. Oghia
Independent consultant & editor
2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador

Istanbul, Turkey
Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter  *|* LinkedIn


On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Noel Butler  wrote:

> Robert,
>
> Yes it's regrettable, but HE don't allocate ipv6 ranges on their TB
> service by country, I too use them, and our ranges could be side by side,
> and thats how netflix sees it, so they block HE's tunnels ipv6 ranges. I'm
> not sure if they also block ipv6 ranges that are for HE native use, like in
> their colos etc, possibly they do that too.
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> On 15/06/2016 09:42, Robert Hosford wrote:
>
>> Noel,
>>
>> . I have been using HE for almost 10 years and they have been awesome.
>> Verizon FIOS doesn't offer IPv6 or I would go native. However I am
>> dual stacked on my Verizon phone, works fine with Netflix.
>>
>> I see this blocking as being laziness on the part of Netflix.  When
>> the account is setup a geo location tag can be setup that this is a US
>> based IPv6 tunnel.
>>
>> I am in the US and all of my traffic is in the US.
>>
>> I like HE because I have noticed that my IPv6 traffic over HE is
>> faster than my IPv4 over Verizon's network. And it is free.
>>
>> C:\Windows\system32>ping www.google.com
>>
>> Pinging www.google.com [2607:f8b0:4004:80e::2004] with 32 bytes of data:
>> Reply from 2607:f8b0:4004:80e::2004: time=1ms
>> Reply from 2607:f8b0:4004:80e::2004: time=5ms
>> Reply from 2607:f8b0:4004:80e::2004: time=6ms
>> Reply from 2607:f8b0:4004:80e::2004: time=9ms
>>
>> See I just love HE.
>>
>> Oh I also pay for the HD Netflix and it buffers and still looks like
>> crap. I had better Netflix performance over HE than I do with Verizon.
>>
>> For a company that consumes so much of the Internet blocking us is
>> just a slap in the face.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: ipv6-ops-bounces+rhosford=certifiednets@lists.cluenet.de
>> [mailto:ipv6-ops-bounces+rhosford=certifiednets@lists.cluenet.de]
>> On Behalf Of Noel Butler
>> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 11:04 PM
>> To: ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de
>> Subject: Re: Netflix hates IPv6
>>
>> On 13/06/2016 06:46, Robert Hosford wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Unless you use HE like I do. Nice Job Netflix.
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>
>> Do you use HE tunnel? or native ipv6?  netflix are blocking HE
>> tunnelbroker services because of fun police copyright cops narky about
>> geoblock avoidance, why should you pay the same cheap price as in US
>> when they can make you pay 25-40% more because your from another
>> country for exact same thing ;)
>>
>> this has recently started which leads me to think this is your problem
>>
>> --
>> If you have the urge to reply to all rather than reply to list, you
>> best first read  http://members.ausics.net/qwerty/
>>
>
> --
> If you have the urge to reply to all rather than reply to list, you best
> first read  http://members.ausics.net/qwerty/
>


Re: push apps failing in Android until you disable IPv6

2016-05-11 Thread Michael Oghia
Hi Ted,

Thanks for this information. I don't come from a technical background but
care very much about IPv6 proliferation nonetheless (from a development
standpoint). I'm happy to offer any resources or information I can that
might help. I am also an Android user, so let me know if there's anything I
can do to help test.

Best,
-Michael

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <t...@ipinc.net> wrote:

> Michael,
>
> Just about all posters to those threads are end users not system admins
> and just about everything they have posted is sheer speculation.  None
> have really tested in a lab.  Most seem concentrated on app settings or
> are convinced it's an app bug.
>
> They are reporting the issue on 6.x , 5.x and some earlier than that.
> Some of what they are reporting is certainly app setting errors.
>
> It would be useful to ask some of the people posting on those threads
> if they have tried turning off wifi on the phone for a day or so
> and seeing if the push notifications all started working.  That might
> get us some useful data.  If push notices work on their cell carriers
> data but not their own wifi network then you can reasonably argue that
> there is a problem with their wifi network.   That would be the first
> step to getting them to do some logical troubleshooting.
>
> Ted
>
> On 5/10/2016 8:10 AM, Michael Oghia wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I am an Android user (but not a developer) and an avid follower of
>> AndroidPolice.com. AP has been reporting about a similar issue for some
>> time (see: here
>> <
>> http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/01/02/some-nexus-owners-are-having-syncing-issues-in-gmail-inbox-and-other-apps/
>> >,
>> here
>> <
>> http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/02/10/the-gmail-sync-bugs-fix-is-rolling-out-over-the-next-week-no-app-updates-necessary/
>> >,
>> and here
>> <
>> http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/03/24/gmails-synchronization-bug-is-far-from-resolved-users-still-reporting-issues-despite-promised-fix/
>> >).
>> The issue concerns Android push notifications for Gmail, and many Nexus
>> users specifically had raised the issue on the Nexus Help Forums
>> <https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/nexus/Ayd_1TOemSE> as
>> well as filed multiple bug reports on the Android Issue Tracker
>> <https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=197805>. As you can
>> read in the third link, it was supposedly fixed in previous builds but
>> the problem has persisted for some. I don't know if the issue raised in
>> this thread is the same, but I figured it was prudent to bring it to
>> your attention.
>>
>> Since Android Police were the ones who covered it, I also CC'd
>> Artem Russakovskii, the editor-in-chief. The AP staff may be able to
>> provide more information in addition to what has been discussed so far.
>>
>> Best,
>> -Michael
>> __
>>
>> Michael J. Oghia
>> Istanbul, Turkey
>> Journalist & editor
>> 2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador
>> Skype: mikeoghia
>> Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia>
>>
>> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@swm.pp.se
>> <mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se>> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 10 May 2016, Erik Kline wrote:
>>
>> It's really not clear to me what that version of rdisc6 would
>> print if
>> it encounters options about which it did not know anything.  A
>> pcap of
>> just an RA would be best.  The adb commands I pasted should also
>> suffice to show what the device thinks it has for DNS, routes,
>> everything.
>>
>>
>> The version of rdisc6 included in Ubuntu 14.04 displays recursive
>> DNS server.
>>
>> This is also seen in "tcpdump -vvv -n -i eth0 icmp6" and I see it as:
>>
>> rdnss option (25), length 24 (3):
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se > swm...@swm.pp.se>
>>
>>
>>


Re: push apps failing in Android until you disable IPv6

2016-05-10 Thread Michael Oghia
Hi everyone,

I am an Android user (but not a developer) and an avid follower of
AndroidPolice.com. AP has been reporting about a similar issue for some
time (see: here
,
here
,
and here
).
The issue concerns Android push notifications for Gmail, and many Nexus
users specifically had raised the issue on the Nexus Help Forums
 as well
as filed multiple bug reports on the Android Issue Tracker
. As you can
read in the third link, it was supposedly fixed in previous builds but the
problem has persisted for some. I don't know if the issue raised in this
thread is the same, but I figured it was prudent to bring it to your
attention.

Since Android Police were the ones who covered it, I also CC'd
Artem Russakovskii, the editor-in-chief. The AP staff may be able to
provide more information in addition to what has been discussed so far.

Best,
-Michael
__

Michael J. Oghia
Istanbul, Turkey
Journalist & editor
2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador
Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter  *|* LinkedIn


On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson 
wrote:

> On Tue, 10 May 2016, Erik Kline wrote:
>
> It's really not clear to me what that version of rdisc6 would print if
>> it encounters options about which it did not know anything.  A pcap of
>> just an RA would be best.  The adb commands I pasted should also
>> suffice to show what the device thinks it has for DNS, routes,
>> everything.
>>
>
> The version of rdisc6 included in Ubuntu 14.04 displays recursive DNS
> server.
>
> This is also seen in "tcpdump -vvv -n -i eth0 icmp6" and I see it as:
>
> rdnss option (25), length 24 (3):
>
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
>


Re: Slow WiFi with Android Marshmallow & IPv6?

2016-05-06 Thread Michael Oghia
Hi Shane,

I'm not an active member of the community since a lot of the technical
language is over my head, but I care about IPv6 implementation and keep up
to date with IPv6 developments (I was very active in the IGF IPv6 Best
Practice Forum and edited the outcome document

).

I immediately recognized the link you sent below. Funny enough, after I
came across this link some time ago, I asked some of the BPF contributors,
including Marco Hogewoning from NCC if it would be prudent to email Lorenzo
and advocate for Android to support DHCPv6.

After drafting the letter and sending it on Jan. 26, I never got an answer
but just resent it to his Google email address that is listed on the forums.

Best,
-Michael
__

Michael J. Oghia
Istanbul, Turkey
Journalist & editor
2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador
Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter  *|* LinkedIn


On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Shane Kerr 
wrote:

> Tim,
>
> At 2016-05-05 12:45:44 +0100
> Tim Chown  wrote:
>
> > > On 28 Apr 2016, at 06:37, Ted Mittelstaedt  wrote:
> > >
> > > On 4/27/2016 12:37 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> > >> Ted Mittelstaedt  writes:
> > >>> On 4/26/2016 1:37 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> >  But let's face it: name-server config is not something that
> interests a
> >  large group of end users. Any feature which is not part of the
> default
> >  OS installation is not worth considering at all.
> > >>>
> > >>> is that a fact?  I suppose you don't use SSH then to access your
> > >>> command line servers and devices.
> > >>
> > >> I meant to imply a name-server config context.  I.e.
> > >
> > > Understood.  I didn't mean to imply that ISP's should tell
> > > end users to run RDNSS on Windows.  But I did want to dispel any
> > > talk that it was impossible.
> >
> > Well, RDNSS is clearly possible on Windows.
> >
> > Just like DHCPv6 support is possible on Android.
> >
> > Meanwhile neither has happened, and this religious war hurts practical
> deployment.
> >
> > Will this madness ever end?
>
> Probably. After all, OS X now supports DHCPv6 which it did not for
> many years, so even unbelievers may eventually be converted. (Although
> I suspect it was more like "okay we will hold our noses and implement
> it even though we think it stinks"). ;)
>
> I just discovered the bug report about DHCPv6 on Android, which is
> interesting reading for a Friday afternoon. :)
>
> https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=32621
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Shane
>