The IPv6 connectivity problems, at least the ones that I and some others encountered, where resolved yesterday. Thanks to all the folks involved who made that happen! Mike Leber wrote: [..] > Would you similarly disconnect a nonresponsive customer because they used > a /30 from RFC1918 space on a point to point link with you? That link should not have existed in the first place. Also RPF filters would catch any packets being sourced from that block. [..] >> Of course, Neustar, who are hosting www.ietf.org, might also want to >> look for a couple of extra transit providers who can provide them with >> real connectivity to the rest of the world. > > That won't renumber Bill Manning's links if that is the problem you are > trying to fix. Not much to fix when the person in question doesn't want to fix it. That comment was more meant to point that Neustar should have multiple upstreams. [..] > BTW, Jeroen does have a valid beef, ipv6@xxxxxx used to not be > handled by our normal engineering staff. It was somebody's part > time side project. This has changed with the migration of our IPv6 > network into our core. Since IPv6 is available via all core routers > for customers on the same links as their IPv4 connection, all > Hurricane network engineers are now required to be able take care > of issues with it. That is great to hear, keep the good work coming! Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf