Subject: [testlist] IPV6 Update

From: Glen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:30:08 -0700

All -

Here is a brief update on IPV6.  Please feel free to forward this to
whatever agencies and lists need to have this information (IESG, IAOC,
I???, etc.)

We currently have an identified issue between AT&T, our internet and
IPV6 provider, and several overseas providers, in that the path MTU
appears to be set lower than normal, AND certain types of ICMP-based
error reporting packets are not being sent through.  These two things
combine to prevent, on a seemingly random and intermittent basis, some
people from connecting to the IETF via IPV6.

We have reported this issue to AT&T, and they have reported it to Global
Crossing and the others involved.  AT&T is aware of the problem, and has
confirmed that it is on the remote end (i.e. not in AT&T's routers but
in Global Crossing's routers) and that they (Global Crossing et al) know
about it.  Apparently these routers have to be fixed one by one.

We have already seen that people initially reporting problems have now
had their problems resolved.  As additional reports come in, we are
forwarding them to AT&T, who in turn forwards them to GBLX for resolution.

I am aware of the various discussions on the IETF list about this issue,
and have sent a reply to that list already.

Yesterday, I met in person with Bob Hinden and Joel Jaeggli.  We
discussed the current setup of IPV6 - which Bob indicated he is overall
quite happy with - and discussed ways of making it better, such as the
implementation of multihoming and other tunnel options.  I informed Bob
that I was in favor of doing anything and everything within my power to
make IPV6 more robust, and that I would be glad to take whatever effort
I could to accomplish this.  Bob brought up that we were not under
contract to go that extra mile, and I told him that we would go that
extra mile, or two, or ten, or ten million, regardless of the contract.

MY ONLY CONCERN IS TO IMPROVE SERVICE FOR THE IETF.  I AM NOT INTERESTED
IN FINDING EXCUSES TO *NOT* DO THAT: I AM INTERESTED IN FINDING AND
IMPLEMENTING SOLUTIONS *TO* DO THAT.

That out of the way, Bob and Joel provided me with a number of options,
and indicated that they would be securing additional resources to set up
additional tunnels and, potentially, a dedicated V6 block which could be
used for multihoming.  They will let me know as that progresses.

Late last week, I was contacted by AT&T, and told that they were
preparing to roll out "an improved, native IPV6 stack" for us, if we
wanted it.  I responded emphatically that we DO want this, and the
wheels are now turning to make that happen.  I have no further
information, or timeline, or cost estimate (if any) but I am in
communication with the top people at AT&T (i.e. not just the sales team,
but the actual engineers) and they will let me know as things progress.

Therefore...

When people report problems with IPV6, I encourage everyone to remember
that:

(A). We already provide a very good IPV6 connection for the IETF and
(B). We are actively reporting any problems and sending data to AT&T and
(C). These reports are quickly handled and resolved by AT&T and their
partners and
(D). We are taking action to continue to improve things and
(E). AT&T is taking action to continue to improve things.

So I am simply thanking people for their reports, assuring them that
they are being handled... and then handling them... one case at a
time... just as I would for ANY problem reported to me by anyone.

I hope this information is helpful.  Again, because of "cascade effect"
(people reading and reply to old emails before reading new emails, and
then replying to those emails before reading NEWER emails, and on and on
and on) this may take some time to "appear resolved."  I therefore
encourage everyone to notify your various IETF groups and let them know
that this is NOT in fact a huge disaster, but is simply a case of some
routing problems that we are actively pursuing and getting corrected.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions!

Warm regards,
Glen

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:08:36 -0400

I just wanted to say, "Thanks for the excellent service and keep up the 
great work!"

Thanks, too, to those who know more about these issues than I do for 
helping to get them addressed.

Jim

-- On March 31, 2009 9:30:08 AM -0700 Glen <[email-masked]> wrote 
regarding [testlist] IPV6 Update --

> We have reported this issue to AT&T, and they have reported it to
> Global Crossing and the others involved.  AT&T is aware of the
> problem, and has confirmed that it is on the remote end (i.e. not in
> AT&T's routers but in Global Crossing's routers) and that they
> (Global Crossing et al) know about it.  Apparently these routers have
> to be fixed one by one.
>
> I am aware of the various discussions on the IETF list about this
> issue, and have sent a reply to that list already.
>
> discussed the current setup of IPV6 - which Bob indicated he is
> overall quite happy with - and discussed ways of making it better,
> such as the implementation of multihoming and other tunnel options.
> I informed Bob that I was in favor of doing anything and everything
> within my power to make IPV6 more robust, and that I would be glad to
> take whatever effort I could to accomplish this.  Bob brought up that
> we were not under contract to go that extra mile, and I told him that
> we would go that extra mile, or two, or ten, or ten million,
> regardless of the contract.
>
> MY ONLY CONCERN IS TO IMPROVE SERVICE FOR THE IETF.  I AM NOT
> INTERESTED IN FINDING EXCUSES TO *NOT* DO THAT: I AM INTERESTED IN
> FINDING AND IMPLEMENTING SOLUTIONS *TO* DO THAT.
>
> That out of the way, Bob and Joel provided me with a number of
> options, and indicated that they would be securing additional
> resources to set up additional tunnels and, potentially, a dedicated
> V6 block which could be used for multihoming.  They will let me know
> as that progresses.
>
> communication with the top people at AT&T (i.e. not just the sales
> team, but the actual engineers) and they will let me know as things
> progress.
>
> Therefore...
>
> When people report problems with IPV6, I encourage everyone to
> remember that:
>
> (B). We are actively reporting any problems and sending data to AT&T
> and (C). These reports are quickly handled and resolved by AT&T and
> their partners and
> I hope this information is helpful.  Again, because of "cascade
> effect" (people reading and reply to old emails before reading new
> emails, and then replying to those emails before reading NEWER
> emails, and on and on and on) this may take some time to "appear
> resolved."  I therefore encourage everyone to notify your various
> IETF groups and let them know that this is NOT in fact a huge
> disaster, but is simply a case of some routing problems that we are
> actively pursuing and getting corrected.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Testlist mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://mail.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/testlist

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:05:08 +1300

> helping to get them addressed.

Ditto, and lest we forget, MTU issues were often a significant problem
when we were rolling out the IPv4 Internet 20, or even 15, years
ago. I remember often having to manually reduce my laptop's IPv4 MTU
while on travel; to this day I install DrTCP in case I need to do so.

     Brian