[20875] in SIPB IPv6
Re: limekiller broken?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ken Raeburn)
Tue Dec 29 00:49:35 2009
From: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@MIT.EDU>
To: Quentin Smith <quentin@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0912281850400.25857@dr-wily.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:49:32 -0500
Cc: Greg Troxel <gdt@work.lexort.com>,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel_Jared_Dom=EDnguez?= <danjared@mit.edu>,
sipbv6@mit.edu
On Dec 28, 2009, at 18:52, Quentin Smith wrote:
> I think the reason we didn't want to make it a VM is that it needs
> to have a connection to the W20 network to provide route
> advertisements there.
Ah, and another data point: At this moment (after Mitch rebooted it),
limekiller indicates that it's not actually connected to the W20
network right now. Clearly the additional network interface isn't
really needed right now. :-)
In fact, I seem to recall the W20 network connection on limekiller
being grabbed for something else some time back; I don't know if it
was ever restored, but maybe Jared does. I do think we should have an
IPv6 router on the W20 net; I just don't think it has to be limekiller.
Ken
