dr at cluenet.de
Fri Apr 3 23:34:38 CEST 2009
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 10:26:16PM +0200, Stefan Kuttler wrote:
> what are your thoughts on this?
I would like to remind the fellow list members to stick to OPERATIONAL
content on THIS list here. We have a lot of actual operational folks here
which I don't want to see fleeing because of the 297856th re-hash of
certain philosophical topics. Discussing operational aspects of NAT is
fine, but please keep it at that.
To give this post at least some on-topic value:
$ dig tools.ietf.org AAAA +short
First being an instance within netnod.se, the second one hosted within
Connectivity from 2001:1440::/32 AS8469 to the netnod.se instance is
fine, but to the AT&T instance is broken. Traces die at the first AT&T
router, so I guess AS7018 doesn't have a working route back to
2001:1440::/32 AS8469. If anyone of AT&T hopefully reading this list
could check that please...
There IS a BGP route to 2001:1440::/32 seen by AS7018 as evidence at GRH
Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path
* 2001:1440::/32 2001:1888::2 0 6435 7018 3549 13237 8469 i
So might as well being 3549 discarding the traffic. 13237 should be fine
as otherwise 8469 would have more widespread IPv6 problems. :)
Folks can check connectivity to 2001:1440::/32 by pinging e.g. www.cluenet.de.
Happy to take any troubleshooting off-list.
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
More information about the ipv6-ops