[OCCAID] Transferring to LAX

[James]

On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 03:39:14PM -0800, bryan at shatow.net wrote:
> K, thanks. :)

Sorry for delay.

I setup a new tunnel for you at Los Angeles router.

Information below:

             IPv4                    IPv6
our end:  209.237.229.222        2001:4830:ea::1/64
your end: 68.7.13.159		 2001:4830:ea::2/64

our AS: 30071

I am accepting your 3ffe:401d:2041::/48 prefix from AS64590.

Let me know when you have brought up this tunnel and BGP session, then
we can migrate you over from SFO to LAX.

-J

> 
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, James wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 02:52:50PM -0800, bryan at shatow.net wrote:
> >>I only have one endpoint, so I'll opt to move to LA whenever you get a
> >>chance, thanks :)
> >>
> >>Need any more info from me?
> >
> >Nope.. Give me a couple days to get things arranged for you. Still waiting 
> >for
> >internal assignment for addr space at LA.
> >
> >-J
> >
> >>
> >>On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, James wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 11:46:28AM -0800, bryan at shatow.net wrote:
> >>>>I am currently tunnelled at SF0, what must I do to be transferred?
> >>>>My AS is: AS64590
> >>>>My ip is: 68.7.13.159
> >>>>
> >>>>Would it be possible to keep the SF0 as well for now?
> >>>
> >>>We can definitely move your tunnel to LA but I want to see tunnel at SF
> >>>deleted.
> >>>
> >>>I don't see a point in leaving SFO tunnel in place other than leaving a
> >>>trail
> >>>of tunneling mess on the 30071 backbone network. I would be more inclined
> >>>to
> >>>let you tunnel into two different OCCAID POP's if you have two separate
> >>>tunnel
> >>>endpoints going over two physically separate ISP connections, where
> >>>redundancy
> >>>then becomes more realistic than just pseudo tunnels.
> >>>
> >>>If you wish to tunnel more to do additional practice in BGP, my
> >>>recommendation
> >>>would be is to privately peer with other OCCAID member in west coast. We
> >>>have
> >>>no problems with people peering each other as long as they do not peer 
> >>>with
> >>>any public/production IPv6 networks with our IP space.
> >>>
> >>>Let me know if this still sounds acceptable. Like I said, if you have two
> >>>separate internet connections or separate boxes/routers sitting in
> >>>different
> >>>networks, I have no problem letting you tunnel to both SFO and LAX.
> >>>
> >>>-J
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>James Jun                                            TowardEX
> >>>Technologies, Inc.
> >>>Technical Lead                      Boston IPv4/IPv6 Web Hosting,
> >>>Colocation and
> >>>james at towardex.com            Network design/consulting & configuration
> >>>services
> >>>cell: 1(978)-394-2867           web: http://www.towardex.com , noc:
> >>>www.twdx.net
> >>>
> >
> >-- 
> >James Jun                                            TowardEX 
> >Technologies, Inc.
> >Technical Lead                      Boston IPv4/IPv6 Web Hosting, 
> >Colocation and
> >james at towardex.com            Network design/consulting & configuration 
> >services
> >cell: 1(978)-394-2867           web: http://www.towardex.com , noc: 
> >www.twdx.net
> >

-- 
James Jun                                            TowardEX Technologies, Inc.
Technical Lead                      Boston IPv4/IPv6 Web Hosting, Colocation and
james at towardex.com            Network design/consulting & configuration services
cell: 1(978)-394-2867           web: http://www.towardex.com , noc: www.twdx.net