[85605] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Bad IPv6 connectivity or why not to announce more specifics (Was: IPv6 news)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Fri Oct 14 14:38:30 2005
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:37:58 -0400
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>,
Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <200510141815.j9EIFKGh015352@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 02:15:20PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> Interesting. :) That's the first one I've seen that a sprintv6.net address isn't at
> hop number 3 or so (indicating that the person is basically directly connected to
> sprintv6.net) and also doesn't take a loop through Japan....
>
We (AS2914) stopped adding tunnel peers awhile ago, and only add
tunnels for customers at this point (i think). As a tech guy, I prefer
people to connect to us native instead of any other method, it
removes all the sillyness i've seen (including v6 p-mtu issues).
It keeps the packets moving the best path and not cloaking the underlying
topology so people can find the trouble. Same reason MPLS networks
don't always turn on/off ttl-decrement when following a (TE) tunnel.
It also makes it easier to troubleshoot and speculate where
troubles are ;-).
- jared
--
Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net
clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
