[20862] in SIPB IPv6
Re: limekiller broken?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ken Raeburn)
Mon Dec 28 17:57:26 2009
From: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@MIT.EDU>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel_Jared_Dom=EDnguez?= <danjared@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20091228213650.GC13041@dr-wily.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:57:11 -0500
Cc: Greg Troxel <gdt@work.lexort.com>, sipbv6@mit.edu
On Dec 28, 2009, at 16:36, Daniel Jared Dom=EDnguez wrote:
> It isn't responding to pings so possibly needs to be powercycled by
> someone on campus with SMR access.
I've been asking on Zephyr... Mitch says he'll check on it tonight, if =20=
no one does before then, and assuming he can identify the machine =20
correctly. Jared, what's the status of the whole "lemonkiller" =20
switcheroo? Is "limekiller" still properly labeled as such in the =20
machine room?
I think we chatted once about the possibility of making the IPv6 =20
router a virtual machine on the rather well-maintained xvm.mit.edu =20
service; we wouldn't have to worry about hardware issues so much and =20
would have an easier time restarting the router. I forget what we =20
concluded (or whether we reached any conclusion) before, but maybe =20
this is a reason to examine the idea again?
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 01:53:35PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
>>
>> I've been seeing v6 connectivity from the outside (specifically from
>> BBN, via sixxs/your.org) be flaky lately, and now limekiller doesn't
>> respond to pings from 18.62. Does anyone know what's up?
Poking through Zephyr logs, I see there were some complaints about =20
upstream connectivity from on campus earlier this month. As I'm not =20
on campus much, and not on Zephyr much, I can't easily keep an eye on =20=
such things. Maybe we should ask the sipb-noc maintainers to monitor =20=
it for us.
Ken=
