[Systems] IPv6 connectivity for Sugar Labs foundation

[Daniel Jared Domínguez]

Is there any update on this?

--Jared

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 03:48:59PM -0400, James Jun wrote:
> Yea, FSF is a sponsored (i.e. zero-dollar customer) account, originally
> setup with Justin Baugh long time ago.  So, I just double checked and there
> won't be any cost for us to enable v6 on this link.
> 
> I'm on vacation today. When I get back next week I will get the IPv6
> information for you and reply to this email thread.  Let me know if you guys
> have any questions in the meantime.
> 
> Regards,
> James
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel Clark [mailto:dclark at pobox.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 3:39 PM
> > To: James Jun
> > Cc: 'Daniel Jared Domínguez'; 'Bernie Innocenti';
> > pubservices at occaid.org; 'Sugar Labs Systems'; noc at occaid.org;
> > dan at gnaps.com; 'Peter Olson'
> > Subject: Re: IPv6 connectivity for Sugar Labs foundation
> > 
> > As long as there would be no cost impact on the FSF or GNAPS, and no
> > impact to the FSF's IPv4 service, and GNAPS is fine with it, I don't
> > see why the FSF (who hosts the Sugar Labs foundation server) would have
> > any objection to that.
> > 
> > --
> > Daniel JB Clark   | Sys Admin, Free Software Foundation
> > pobox.com/~dclark | http://www.fsf.org/about/staff#danny
> > 
> > 
> > James Jun wrote:
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > We should be able to pump native v6 down the VLAN from Towardex
> > > router, since FSF is a customer circuit.  Let me know if you want to
> > > move forward with that I'll get the IMT info for v6 on that vlan.
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Daniel Jared Domínguez [mailto:danjared at MIT.EDU]
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 1:36 PM
> > >> To: Daniel Clark
> > >> Cc: Bernie Innocenti; James Jun; pubservices at occaid.org; 'Sugar Labs
> > >> Systems'; noc at occaid.org; dan at gnaps.com; Peter Olson
> > >> Subject: Re: IPv6 connectivity for Sugar Labs foundation
> > >>
> > >> Yes, we were able to get to 6to4 working, although that's certainly
> > >> suboptimal for various reasons compared to native connectivity.
> > >>
> > >> I looked at the FSF core router, and it is running a recent enough
> > >> version of quagga to do v6.
> > >>
> > >> The FSF's router has a virtual interface running an IPv4 BGP session
> > >> with a TowardEX router (remote router ID is 216.93.255.131). I
> > >> believe it to be doing this on VLAN 1575. I don't know if this can
> > be
> > >> reused for the v6 link. This physical interface is at least the one
> > >> we'd probably be using since it is going to the MXP. Sorry that I
> > >> don't have a circuit ID for you.
> > >>
> > >> --Jared
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:21:12AM -0400, Daniel Clark wrote:
> > >>> Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> > >>>> El Fri, 07-08-2009 a las 13:38 -0400, James Jun escribió:
> > >>>>> OCCAID will be happy to assist.  Where do you need the v6 service
> > >>>>> delivered at, at FSF location or MIT?  If your v6 termination
> > >>>>> equipment is hosted at FSF which is GNAPS facility in Quincy, ask
> > >>>>> them to run a cross-connect for you to Boston MXP. We can then
> > >>>>> shoot a vlan across MXP switch fabric from OCCAID POP in Boston/1
> > >>>>> Summer Street and hand off v6 to you natively.
> > >>>> I'm quite unfamiliar with the FSF network equipment at GNAPs, to
> > >> the
> > >>>> point that I haven't yet even seen the physical box which hosts
> > the
> > >>>> main Sugar Labs machine.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I've been talking with Dan Benson of GNAPs (on cc) to figure out
> > >>>> what needs to be done.  Danny Clark and Dan Jared of the FSF are
> > >>>> going to get in contact with him to get the BGP router connected.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks to everybody for being very helpful.
> > >>> FYI danjared and bernie got tun6to4 working last night; we had just
> > >>> missed the need to add a line to iptables on the FSF's BGP router,
> > >>> ge-core1.qcy.gnu.org [1].
> > >>>
> > >>> I think they are still looking at OCCAID, which danjared, who seems
> > >> to
> > >>> have the most clue in this area, thinks is a much better long-term
> > >> solution.
> > >>> [1] /etc/default/iptables-rules change
> > >>> --- iptables-rules.aug10.from-filesystem	2009-08-10
> > >> 23:20:16.000000000 -0400
> > >>> +++ iptables-rules	2009-08-10 23:21:18.000000000 -0400
> > >>> @@ -28,6 +28,9 @@
> > >>>
> > >>>  -A input_block -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type 8 -m limit --limit
> > 5/sec
> > >> -j
> > >>> ACCEPT
> > >>>
> > >>> +# bernie and danjared (w/ dclark): allow incoming 6to4 packets -A
> > >>> +input_block -p ipv6 -j ACCEPT
> > >>> +
> > >>>  # Blacklisted hosts
> > >>>
> > >>>  -A input_block -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 --src 216.220.57.41 -j
> > DROP
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers and thanks to everyone for the assistance,
> > >>> --
> > >>> Daniel JB Clark   | Sys Admin, Free Software Foundation
> > >>> pobox.com/~dclark | http://www.fsf.org/about/staff#danny
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Daniel Jared Domínguez
> > >> email/jabber: danjared at mit.edu
> > >> pots phone: 617.368.0509
> > >
> 
> 

-- 
Daniel Jared Domínguez
email/jabber: danjared at mit.edu
pots phone: 617.368.0509