Bad IPv6 connectivity or why not to announce more specifics (Was: IPv6 news)

Thu Oct 13 19:38:38 UTC 2005

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:06:30 +0200, Jeroen Massar said:

> Well Valdis, that bad route also has to do with your side of the
> equation, you might want to check who you are actually using as transits
> and if the routes they are providing to you are sane enough.

Well, if somebody at stupi.se wants to do a traceroute6 back at us, I'll
be glad to see what the reverse path looks like...  but last I heard
traceroute and traceroute6 showed the *forward* path of packets..

> 2001:468::/32 is in the routing table, getting accepted by most ISP's.
> This one has a reasonable route

The real problem (at least for the forward direction from here) is that the
outbound packets get into the Abilene network, and the best path from there to
2001:440:1880 is a 3ffe: tunnel to japan and then another 3ffe: tunnel back to New
York.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20051013/a2762c74/attachment.sig>