[20864] in SIPB IPv6
Re: limekiller broken?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Troxel)
Mon Dec 28 18:10:19 2009
From: Greg Troxel <gdt@work.lexort.com>
To: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@MIT.EDU>
Cc: Daniel Jared =?iso-8859-1?Q?Dom=EDnguez?= <danjared@MIT.EDU>,
sipbv6@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <D85DE314-951E-4DFB-8445-607BB08C088A@mit.edu> (Ken Raeburn's
message of "Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:57:11 -0500")
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:09:58 -0500
Ken Raeburn <raeburn@MIT.EDU> writes:
> Jared, what's the status of the whole "lemonkiller" switcheroo? Is
> "limekiller" still properly labeled as such in the machine room?
That's news to me, which doesn't mean much.
> I think we chatted once about the possibility of making the IPv6
> router a virtual machine on the rather well-maintained xvm.mit.edu
> service; we wouldn't have to worry about hardware issues so much and
> would have an easier time restarting the router. I forget what we
> concluded (or whether we reached any conclusion) before, but maybe
> this is a reason to examine the idea again?
I wonder why limekiller is being flaky, but sure that could help.
>> 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
> upstream connectivity from on campus earlier this month. As I'm not
> on campus much, and not on Zephyr much, I can't easily keep an eye on
> such things. Maybe we should ask the sipb-noc maintainers to monitor
> it for us.
I am running nagios at BBN and at MIT, and could add people to the
notify email list. It's probably too chatty to go to this list.
