From testlist-bounces@mail.ietf.org Mon Jan 5 14:16:27 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: testlist-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-testlist-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3E1928C135; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:16:26 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: testlist@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: testlist@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECC3128C13A for ; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:16:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.695 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.695 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.696, BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KPhAd6UZAJ4k for ; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:16:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mk-outboundfilter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-outboundfilter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A24128C130 for ; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:15:53 -0800 (PST) X-Trace: 209432736/mk-outboundfilter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com/PIPEX/$PIPEX-ACCEPTED/pipex-customers/62.188.100.54/None/sisyphus@dial.pipex.com X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 62.188.100.54 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: sisyphus@dial.pipex.com X-MUA: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ar0EAP0UYkk+vGQ2/2dsb2JhbACDQ0CJQcBDBoVs X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.36,334,1228089600"; d="scan'208";a="209432736" X-IP-Direction: IN Received: from 1cust54.tnt1.lnd9.gbr.da.uu.net (HELO allison) ([62.188.100.54]) by smtp.pipex.tiscali.co.uk with SMTP; 05 Jan 2009 22:15:38 +0000 Message-ID: <004801c96f7a$bb9d20e0$0601a8c0@allison> From: "Tom.Petch" To: "Ray Pelletier" References: <003c01c960c1$45d03f40$6801a8c0@oemcomputer><6.0.0.20.2.20081218124425.087d5758@localhost><7DD2558C-7BF8-4241-B065-0AEE55E48D0A@isoc.org><8967D18A-F3C2-48ED-99B1-C1C2262741D1@isoc.org><87myetdw6t.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 16:18:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Cc: testlist@mail.ietf.org Subject: [testlist] Note Well X-BeenThere: testlist@mail.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Tom.Petch" , testlist@mail.ietf.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: testlist-bounces@mail.ietf.org Errors-To: testlist-bounces@mail.ietf.org Ray I see that the mailing lists memberships reminder now references RFC5378/RFC3979 but the 'Welcome to the I-D-Announce' references RFC3978 while the 'Welcome to the IETF-Announce' has no reference at all. Arguably, the announce lists need not contain anything since I cannot post to them but I think it would be safer if all announcements were the same. Tom Petch _______________________________________________ Testlist mailing list Testlist@mail.ietf.org https://mail.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/testlist From glen@amsl.com Tue Mar 31 09:29:06 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: testlist@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: testlist@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE973A67A5 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:29:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.33 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.33 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.165, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ovFAkWwuIQ-t for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:29:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::14]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70B8D3A6774 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:29:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core2.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32D78242E5; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:30:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.amsl.com ([64.170.98.20]) by localhost (core2.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PWbVLQXLJd46; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:30:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.103] (unknown [173.8.133.94]) by core2.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EDE2242E4; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:30:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49D24510.80904@amsl.com> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:30:08 -0700 From: Glen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Karen Moreland , Lisa Winkler , Alexa Morris , Matt Larson , bob.hinden@nokia.com, Fred Baker , Ray Pelletier , Russ Housley , Joel Jaeggli , testlist@mail.ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:30:05 -0700 Subject: [testlist] IPV6 Update X-BeenThere: testlist@mail.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: testlist@mail.ietf.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:29:06 -0000 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 galvin@elistx.com Tue Mar 31 10:06:15 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: testlist@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: testlist@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00EBA3A6939 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:06:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PpuHQzKmHWGe for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:06:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.154.239.222]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1CCB3A6894 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31546) with ESMTP id <0KHD00008RGFAN@elistx.com> for testlist@mail.ietf.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:05:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:08:36 -0400 From: James M Galvin In-reply-to: <49D24510.80904@amsl.com> To: testlist@mail.ietf.org, Karen Moreland , Lisa Winkler , Alexa Morris , Matt Larson , bob.hinden@nokia.com, Fred Baker , Ray Pelletier , Russ Housley , Joel Jaeggli Message-id: <56A6C9E1782ACC9945ED1A17@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline References: <49D24510.80904@amsl.com> Subject: Re: [testlist] IPV6 Update X-BeenThere: testlist@mail.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: testlist@mail.ietf.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:06:15 -0000 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 wrote regarding [testlist] IPV6 Update -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Testlist mailing list > Testlist@mail.ietf.org > https://mail.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/testlist From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Tue Mar 31 14:04:20 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: testlist@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: testlist@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53BC73A68F1 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:04:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.493 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.493 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.106, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wD23OySNrdZf for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:04:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E8713A682B for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:04:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 25so3581392wfa.3 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:05:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=O64fWXQnpplq96cJ4/sKKH4gu1+4QYVri0HLVfc2C6E=; b=odduVzpSU532o37ep6nKaz4IQth/jOuTTaN9yPK41UXPfjvhOn/seob3zPwSYt1pzM YjeCa9yJnScLLnQqlmef2xX71c3kL7f/10o+P4/7boO3tVho1janmoq7kwIzBfVANJxL Q/M3AWRGqPmCB3j5IEEagAq7XSAaYpbRUiyVs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=YV7cmtWrChV7nsRFwOwXtdcZpZZ4x3M8DBZHhPYbxSlFUDZNm+fDTjYHiqgxsn6Fgm RRboETN4Hi5HnqC8+RFdR6UfTUP+i8rNx2lzoLyyPRPKZwtwM6CpP2JUTlRxSjNd3B4x 9vLABS6LTOYg8etK8brNWFtcgw2s6uB+cF/IY= Received: by 10.143.12.20 with SMTP id p20mr2779354wfi.169.1238533518953; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:05:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm11459008wfd.26.2009.03.31.14.05.14 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:05:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49D28584.4080702@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:05:08 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: testlist@mail.ietf.org References: <49D24510.80904@amsl.com> <56A6C9E1782ACC9945ED1A17@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> In-Reply-To: <56A6C9E1782ACC9945ED1A17@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Joel Jaeggli , bob.hinden@nokia.com, Lisa Winkler , Ray Pelletier , Alexa Morris Subject: Re: [testlist] IPV6 Update X-BeenThere: testlist@mail.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: testlist@mail.ietf.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:04:20 -0000 On 2009-04-01 06:08, James M Galvin wrote: > 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. 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