This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ripe-atlas@ripe.net/
[atlas] Running a probe behind a NAT66
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] Running a probe behind a NAT66
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] Running a probe behind a NAT66
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
James Andrewartha
jandrewartha at ccgs.wa.edu.au
Tue Jun 12 04:43:58 CEST 2018
On 12/06/18 10:41, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:42 AM Roman Mamedov <rm at romanrm.net> wrote: > I fully expect that you didn't account for such a setup in the controller >> infrastructure or possibly various "local IP is valid" checks and whatnot, but >> why this used to work fine before? Has there been any change on your side in >> April that would break this kind of setup? > > Many would argue that the setup is already broken in many ways and > that this is just one bit of breakage that you happened to notice. So what is your recommendation for IPv6 multi-homing without BGP? -- James Andrewartha Network & Projects Engineer Christ Church Grammar School Claremont, Western Australia Ph. (08) 9442 1757 Mob. 0424 160 877
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] Running a probe behind a NAT66
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] Running a probe behind a NAT66
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]