William F. Maton Sotomayor wmaton at ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca
Tue Aug 22 11:50:28 CEST 2006

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Pekka Savola wrote:

>>> CA*Net 4.
>> here though so feel free to correct me, I don't mean to be flaming
>> others..).  Abilene<->CAnet4 connection appears to be MOU peering which I
>> think is what it is supposed to be, which appears to explain why routes are
>> not going to you thru that path.
> That's not flaming because I made the same conclusion myself. Canarie was the 
> (second) upstream for IETF66 in Montreal, and v6 connectivity to commercial 
> networks sucked badly to put it mildly (Montreal -> Europe went to Japan, 
> Korea, back to NA and then to Europe IIRC).  Research network connectivity 
> was excellent.  I sent an email about this but never received a response.

I don't consider it a flame either, because as Pekka has pointed out, it's 
simply the truth.  It's gotten so bad that we have been stitching 
together alternate paths just to get away from the mess.  I've sent a 
number of emails into them about this over many past months, but there 
seems to be a distinct lack of interest based on a lack of response. 
Maybe it's time to find an alternate upstream.

> I can send traceroutes if someone is interested in what the events looked 
> back in July 2006.

I would be interested, yes.


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list