The problem we have run into is that there does not appear to be a "Zayo."
There are dozens of acquisitions of regional providers with completely
different infrastructure and teams and they have done a very poor job at gluing
it all together. I have seen service orders that have gone *years*
ration requirements?
> I'm wondering if that's part of the reason for not officially supporting email
> to text.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Eric Tykwinski
> TrueNet, Inc.
> P: 610-429-8300
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: NANOG On Behalf Of
>> Rand
We did a few months back and were told that they are no longer officially
supporting it. It may have to do with the volume that is being sent,
particularly from a single IP address.
We moved to using Twilio's API and it has been much more solid.
thanks,
-Randy
- On Nov 17, 2022, at
- On May 16, 2022, at 2:06 PM, Aled Morris aled.w.mor...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2022 at 18:52, Randy Carpenter < [ mailto:rcar...@network1.net
> |
> rcar...@network1.net ] > wrote:
>> My hope for a successor (MX205 ?) would be more flexibility and
would be awesome.
thanks,
-Randy
--
Randy Carpenter
Vice President - IT Services
First Network Group, Inc.
(800)578-6381, Opt. 1
http://www.network1.net
- On May 16, 2022, at 1:10 PM, Kevin Shymkiw kshym...@gmail.com wrote:
> Adam,
> Simply put - No there isn't a way to oversubscribe the
- On Mar 30, 2022, at 12:36 PM, Jared Brown nanog-...@mail.com wrote:
> Randy Carpenter wrote:
>> >> >> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>> >> >> When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
>> >> >
>> >&
- On Mar 30, 2022, at 11:09 AM, Jared Brown nanog-...@mail.com wrote:
> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>> >> When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
>> >
>> > Out of interest, how would this come about?
>>
>> ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing
- On Mar 26, 2022, at 6:16 PM, Abraham Y. Chen ayc...@avinta.com wrote:
> Hi, Tom & Paul:
> 1) " ... hand waved ... ": Through my line of work, I was trained to behave
> exactly the opposite. I am surprised at you jumping to the conclusion, even
> before challenging me about where did I
- On Mar 19, 2022, at 6:44 PM, Matt Hoppes
mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net wrote:
> After a time of transition, all clients would be running 128 bit
> addresses (or whatever length was determined to be helpful).
What you describe is literally IPv6.
> Just like with IPv6, there would
- On Mar 9, 2022, at 4:46 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
wrote:
> ISP here. Deploying gigabit FTTH. No IPv6.
> Customers have 0 complaints about IPv6. 0 Complaints since 2006.
Don't you think there is a responsibility on those who know the technical
details to do things on
That particular one seems to be saying it will work in a 1G, 10G, or 25G port,
not necessarily that it will allow different speeds on either end
simultaneously... although their doc is pretty sparse :-)
thanks,
-Randy
- On Jan 31, 2022, at 5:25 PM, Jared Brown nanog-...@mail.com wrote:
Are you talking about an SFP28 module that can link at 25Gb, but also 1Gb?
We just put 1Gb SFPs in the SFP28 ports and they work fine. I have not seen a
single module that does both, but admittedly, I have not looked too hard, as
the 1Gb modules are so cheap.
Or, are you talking about a
,
>>> Etienne
>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 11:25 PM Bill Blackford < [
>>> mailto:bblackf...@gmail.com
>>> | bblackf...@gmail.com ] > wrote:
>>>> Does this have to be Ethernet? You could look into line gear with coherent
>>>> optics. IIRC, th
How is everyone accomplishing 100GbE at farther than 40km distances?
Juniper is saying it can't be done with anything they offer, except for a
single CFP-based line card that is EOL.
There are QSFP "ZR" modules from third parties, but I am hesitant to try those
without there being an
Considering that the typical $5 pieces of bent metal list for ~$500 from most
vendors, can you imagine the price of fancy tool-less rack kits?
Brand new switch: $2,000
Rack kit: $2,000
-Randy
The DACs with the metal release are definitely considerably more robust. They
are, however, sometimes more difficult to unlatch to remove, particularly in
scenarios with tightly-spaced ports.
thanks,
-Randy
- On Apr 23, 2021, at 12:45 PM, George Metz george.m...@gmail.com wrote:
> One
Any DNSSEC experts that could help with a question about a specific domain?
Off-list please.
thanks,
-Randy
I am working with a client that has recently purchased and transferred an IPv4
block.
Sometime in between when the purchase and research was done and when the
transfer was actually complete, an entity in Asia started illicitly announcing
a larger block that includes the block in question.
>From the crude illustration in the manual, it looks like they are the same
>rails as EX-4PST-RMK.
We don't have any MX204s, but the EX-4PST-RMK kit is what is used for SRX1500,
for which there is no official part, along with most current EX models. It
looks to be pretty universal. It also
I could never get LACP + tagged VLANs to work on SwOS.
Then again, it doesn't work reliably on RouterOS either, so I gave up. Spending
more on hardware that is well supported is worth it versus my time and sanity.
I think Ubiquiti pretty much has the "cheap hardware that works well, but
- On Mar 2, 2020, at 5:37 PM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
> I suppose that one went over my head.
>
> To clarify I am the one with peering in LAX and I'm only seeing the big
> aggregates via the Any2 Easy servers. At the moment I can only infer
> that Google announces
Old module says "10G_BASE_SX" so that is multimode fiber, which complicates
things a bit.
You can see about getting a single-mode handoff instead, or you may need the
QSFP-SFP+ adapter (or intermediary switch).
thanks,
-Randy
- On Jan 8, 2020, at 2:26 PM, Ben Cannon b...@6by7.net
gt; tor. 8. aug. 2019 06.47 skrev Randy Carpenter < [ mailto:rcar...@network1.net
> |
> rcar...@network1.net ] >:
>> If you don't require redundant routing engines, there is nothing from Juniper
>> that will cost less and have the capacity you require. In fact, there really
If you don't require redundant routing engines, there is nothing from Juniper
that will cost less and have the capacity you require. In fact, there really
aren't any cheaper MX options at all, other than the kneecapped MX80 and MX104
variants. MX204 is really a nice box. I only wish they had a
FWIW, I have had IPv6 for many years on my Spectrum (formerly Time Warner)
connection at home. I think it was ~2012 or so. On our company fiber
connection, it has been since ~2010, maybe a little earlier. Granted it took a
little pressure and I’m sure were were the first IPv6 business customer
Static IPs are useful for connecting to the "home" site. If our main office is
offline for some reason, it is nice to be able to quickly connect via cellular
OoB.
I agree that other solutions (dial-home, or private network) make sense for
satellite sites.
thanks,
-Randy
- On Feb 7,
We use the Oopengear ACM and IM series and they are great. My only current
issue is that Verizon does not allow for static IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously.
You can have one or the other, but not both. *facepalm*
One major point of advice with the Opengear: make sure the firmware is up to
date.
Is there anyone from Verizon Wireless that I can talk to regarding IPv6
deployment? I am getting nonsensical answers from my local contacts.
Please contact me off-list.
thanks,
-Randy
It would have been nice if Verizon had starting issuing IPv6 while still
issuing IPv4 for an easy transition. The current situation is that you can't
get static IPv6 at all. I have been bugging them about this for many years.
thanks,
-Randy
- On Mar 8, 2017, at 12:16 PM, David Hubbard
Creating the juniper.net account should be pretty straightforward. If there is
an issue in getting the login to work, I would contact Juniper.
If they are an authorized partner, then $RESELLER would surely have access to
the download.
thanks,
-Randy
- On Apr 13, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Bruce
ere it will be well taken care of. Maybe
> visit it from time to time, it is hard to give up a good IP block :)
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:18 PM
> To: NANOG list <
providers.
thanks,
-Randy
- On Feb 19, 2016, at 2:23 PM, chris tknch...@gmail.com wrote:
> Would be great to see a variation of the hoarders tv show where we track
> down hoarders of ipv4 :)
>
> Chris
> On Feb 19, 2016 2:19 PM, "Randy Carpenter" <rcar...@network1.
We have a netblock that was assigned to us out of 65.192.0.0/11 a long time
ago. It has not been used in nearly a decade and still looks to be assigned to
us. I'd love to see it reclaimed and reused by someone who needs it. Please
contact me off list.
thanks,
-Randy
4,500.
>
> Ubiquiti is also working on releasing a 12 port SFP+ with 4x10GBaseT,
> pricing will be very low.
>
> It's out there, you just have to look for it.
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Randy Carpenter <rcar...@network1.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> I'd l
I'd love to know what model Juniper you are getting for $102 per 10GbE port and
where you are getting it. The lowest-end 10GbE switch is the EX4600, which
lists at more like $850 per port. You can get higher-end ones with much larger
port counts and get the cost/port down to about half that,
A network that we manage is having trouble getting to several sites. The common
point of failure appears to be Level 3 in Chicago. Connections work fine from
our direct upstream, so it appears that Level 3 is not allowing traffic sourced
from the net block in question. Can someone from Level 3
Hey!
New message, please read <http://hurricanedisasterphotos.com/return.php?su9f>
Randy Carpenter
I have to hand it to EdgeWave (with whom I have a very tumultuous love/hate
relationship) for catching this flood from the very first message.
thanks,
-Randy
- On Oct 25, 2015, at 12:22 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
wrote:
> Can we please get a filter for messages with the
- On Jul 9, 2015, at 4:56 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote:
Huh, since when does ANY application care about what size address allocation
you
have? A V6 address is a 128 bit address period. Any IPv6 aware application
will handle addresses as a 128 bit variable.
The
- On Jul 9, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote:
In short, I'm saying that you should set your default so it is easily changed
on
the fly and then it won't matter if you are wrong.
Absolutely.
Also, since it won't matter if we are wrong, let's use /48 as the
If you are considering Juniper, check out the MX104. There are bundles
currently that give you similar capacity to an MX80 at a significantly lower
price.
thanks,
-Randy
- On May 19, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Colton Conor colton.co...@gmail.com wrote:
What options are available for a small,
- On May 12, 2015, at 9:36 AM, Paul S. cont...@winterei.se wrote:
Hi guys,
We're shortly going to be getting some 10G SANs, and I was wondering
what people were using as SAN switches for 10G SANs.
It is my understanding that low buffer sizes make most 'normal' 10G
ethernet switches
- On May 11, 2015, at 5:36 PM, Peter Baldridge petebaldri...@gmail.com
wrote:
Pi dimensions:
3.37 l (5 front to back)
2.21 w (6 wide)
0.83 h
25 per U (rounding down for Ethernet cable space etc) = 825 pi
You butt up against major power/heat issues here in a single rack, not
that
The Juniper QFX10002-36Q has 36 40GbE Ports. They can be broken out to up to
144 10GbE ports, or 1/3 of them can be used for 100GbE.
So, if you use 6 100GbE ports and still have 72 10GbE ports.
I have not seen one of these yet in person, but it is the smallest form factor
I know of that has
25/50/100 stuff should start coming out around soon, as well, which may drive
pricing down even more.
thanks,
-Randy
- On Apr 8, 2015, at 3:43 PM, Furst, John-Nicholas jofu...@akamai.com wrote:
If you can wait, you will see the market flooded with 32x100G with the
ability to
7700 2 slot looks to only support 1 line card, so 48x10 *or* 12x100
thanks,
-Randy
- On Apr 8, 2015, at 3:16 PM, Klimakhin, Kirill
kirill.klimak...@corebts.com wrote:
Cisco Nexus 7700 2 slot chassis supports 48 x 10 Gbps, 24 x 40 Gbps, and 12 x
100 Gbps.
It is 3RU. Part number is
I've been trying to get an answer from Juniper on this for months. Most of the
responses have been something to the effect of I have no idea what you are
talking about.
I recently got an answer of Juniper has no plans to support that.
I am responsible for several small ISPs' networks, and if
Top Quality ?
Are they aged longer in special barrels? Polished extra nicely?
(Ouch, I think I injured my eyes from the rolling)
thanks,
-Randy
- On Mar 13, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Alec Muffett alec.muff...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm odd, but I find the novelty of this to be amusing:
I have not tried doing that myself, but the only thing that would even be
possible that I know of is thunderbolt.
A new MacBook Pro and one of these maybe:
http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpresssel_10gbeadapter.html
-Randy
- On Nov 10, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Daniel Rohan
- On Oct 12, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Sander Steffann san...@steffann.nl wrote:
Hi,
Op 11 okt. 2014, om 23:00 heeft Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net het
volgende
geschreven:
On Oct 11, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Tim Raphael raphael.timo...@gmail.com wrote:
From my research, various authorities
My clients typically do DHCP authentication in order to have the ability to
tell which user has which IP at what time. The challenge with doing this with
IPv6 is that the original DHCPv6 spec has no provision for there to be any
unique identifier that can be tied to a particular user like
I would love to see the EdgeRouter Lite, or something similar with 2 SFP ports
and 2 1000bT ports (Which would fit with the OP's question). Q-in-Q tunneling
and basic routing required, but not much else for me. Bonus points points for
something like that with redundant power supplies for $1k
- Original Message -
On 18-Mar-14 17:54, Niels Bakker wrote:
* w...@typo.org (Wayne E Bouchard) [Tue 18 Mar 2014, 23:53 CET]:
I have had to do this at times but it is not strictly allowed by
codes and not at all recommended.
It's an active fire hazard. The cables aren't rated
Is there some technical reason that BGP is not an option? You could allow them
to announce their ATT space via you as a secondary.
-Randy
- Original Message -
This may sound like dumb question, but... I'm used to asking those.
Here's the scenario
Another ISP, say ATT, is the
OpenGear's newer stuff is Gigabit (SFP even).
I've not seen any real switch made in the last decade that has a problem with
100Mb/s connections. Ancient cisco, maybe had issues.
thanks,
-Randy
--
Randy Carpenter
Vice President - IT Services
First Network Group, Inc.
(800)578-6381, Opt. 1
There is no bit length which allocations of /20's and larger won't
quickly exhaust. It's not about the number of bits, it's about how we
choose to use them.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
True, but how many orgs do we expect to fall into that category? If the
majority are getting /32, and only a
In ipv4 there are 482319 routes and 45235 ASNs in the DFZ this week, of that
18619 ~40% announce only one prefix. given the distribution of prefix counts
across ASNs it's quite reasonable to conclude that the consumption of
routing table slots is not primarly a property of the number of
Time Warner installed a Juniper EX4200 as the CPE device for us, so we
connected 2 routers and had two separate BGP sessions. They have us a /29 to
accomplish it.
-Randy
On Aug 16, 2013, at 16:53, Justin Vocke justin.vo...@gmail.com wrote:
The gotcha with that is then you need a switch in
I'm going to guess that this is not going to meet the OP's request for an XFP,
which would be 10GbE (and not an SFP).
thanks,
-Randy
- Original Message -
We have recently been having some serious speed issues with YouTube on our home
connections, which are all Time Warner Cable.
Some searching on forums and such revealed a work around:
Block 206.111.0.0/16 at the router.
This makes speeds go from ~1 Mb/s to the full connection speed (30 Mb/s in
- Original Message -
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Randy Carpenter
rcar...@network1.net wrote:
We have recently been having some serious speed issues with YouTube
on our home connections, which are all Time Warner Cable.
Some searching on forums and such revealed a work around
- Original Message -
On 1/15/13 9:31 AM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:23 +, Warren Bailey wrote:
I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol
More efficient that way - class c uses fewer syllables than
slash
twenty four :-)
You realize that class-c
My main requirements would be:
1. Something that is *not* network (ethernet or otherwise) (isn't that the
point of OOB?)
2. Something that is standard across everything, and can be aggregated easily
onto a console server or the like
I don't really see what is wrong with with keeping the
- Original Message -
Once upon a time, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net said:
Likewise OS vendors are increasingly dropping support for
installing OSes via serial port (RHEL, VMWare, etc.)
At leaset with RHEL, you can make your own boot image that gets rid
of the asinine
- Original Message -
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013, Randy Carpenter wrote:
My main requirements would be:
1. Something that is *not* network (ethernet or otherwise) (isn't
that the point of OOB?)
I don't understand this at all. Why can't an OOB network be ethernet
based towards
--- jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote:
From: Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com
I've finally convinced $DAYJOB to deploy IPv6. Justification for the
IP space is easy, however the truth is that a /64 is more than we
need in all locations. However the last I heard was that you can't
- Original Message -
On Oct 11, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
so there really is no drawback from getting the /44, and having
enough space to not have to worry about it in the future.
It's only a worry if you can only route /48s, which was my question
- Original Message -
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Randy Carpenter
rcar...@network1.net wrote:
How many sites do you have? If less than 192, /44 is
perfect, unless some of those sites require more than
a /48. Then, it gets more complicated :-)
We're having a general math
I've seen requests for a drawing of some sort, but never specifically and
exclusively visio.
If they insist on visio, I would send them a LART (at high velocity) instead.
-Randy
- Original Message -
Just got told by a Lightpath person that in order to do BGP on a
customer gig
Just make sure to name the scanned file VisioDi~1_vsd.png, and maybe they won't
notice.
-Randy
- Original Message -
As a person who often draws out + scans diagrams, I support this
message.
On 09/28/2012 01:18 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Hand draw two squares, label them our AS
Safari is definitely preferring IPv4.
In a happier note, if you tether a device via hotspot on an IOS6 iPad, the
clients get native IPv6. Strangely, they get addresses out of the same /64 as
the iPad's LTE interface. Anyone know how that is working? I would have thought
they would use
Appears to compile file on Mac OS X 10.7. The resulting programs run, but I
have not tried any real testing with actual data.
thanks,
-Randy
- Original Message -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Folks,
I've posted a snapshot (tarball) of my working copy of the
Nope.
I signed up for the beta a long time ago, and have never heard anything about
IPv6 on the residential network. My company is one of the first (if not *the*
first) direct connect commercial customers that got IPv6 connectivity in Ohio.
I only see a few other ASNs that are directly
minutes ago...
On May 23, 2012 2:58 PM, Frank Bulk - iName.com frnk...@iname.com
wrote:
Here's a screenshot from 15 months ago:
http://www.fix6.net/archives/2011/02/21/ipv6-live-on-verizons-lte-network/
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Randy Carpenter [mailto: rcar
Not only does Verizon *not* have IPv6 on their LTE network, they also do *not*
have IPv4, except for double-NATed rfc1918 crap that changes your IP address
every couple minutes. The only way to get a stable connection is to pay them
$500 to get a static public IP address.
thanks,
-Randy
functionality. Head--Wall.
thanks,
-Randy
- Original Message -
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Randy Carpenter
rcar...@network1.net wrote:
Not only does Verizon *not* have IPv6 on their LTE network, they
also do *not* have IPv4, except for double-NATed rfc1918 crap that
changes
- Original Message -
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Randy Carpenter
rcar...@network1.net wrote:
I suppose they are selectively letting certain devices in some
areas. I get der duh, what? when I ask about it.
uhm... you asked someone at their kiosks/stores about ipvanything
Thanks everyone for all the responses. They were extremely helpful.
-Randy
- Original Message -
Any Juniper MX experts out there want to do some quick consulting for
me (not for free)?
I am working on implementing a couple of MX5 routers in a service
provider setting, and have
Any Juniper MX experts out there want to do some quick consulting for me (not
for free)?
I am working on implementing a couple of MX5 routers in a service provider
setting, and have run into some issues. I am pretty proficient at the SRX and
EX lines, but not as much with the MX. As the
We're seeing some strange issues with our fiber connection to TWC in Ohio.
Intermittent packet loss to/from some IPs.
It gets as specific as from a certain IP outside our network, packets to
a.b.c.10 are fine, but pings to a.b.c.50 (same subnet of same netblock) lose
~75% of the packets.
Pardon the weird question:
Is the DNS service authoritative or recursive? If auth, you can
solve this a few ways, either by giving the DNS name people point to
multiple (and A) records pointing at a diverse set of
instances.
Authoritative. But, also not the only thing that we are
Does anyone have any recommendation for a reliable cloud host?
We require 1 or 2 very small virtual hosts to host some remote services to
serve as backup to our main datacenter. One of these services is a DNS server,
so it is important that it is up all the time.
We have been using Rackspace
- Original Message -
On Feb 26, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
We have been using Rackspace Cloud Servers. We just realized that
they have absolutely no redundancy or failover after experiencing
a outage that lasted more than 6 hours yesterday. I am appalled
I like the Juniper EX2200C switches. They are only 12-port, but have 2 SFPs.
They are very low power, and have no fans.
However, I am still waiting (it has been several months) for them to send me
the correct rack mount brackets (which are a separate purchase).
-Randy
--
| Randy Carpenter
FUD than fact.
There _are_ things we need to address to make DHCPv6 easier to roll
out (mainly on the server side), but just making bogus nitpick
attacks
distracts from the real issues, IMHO.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Randy Carpenter
rcar...@network1.net wrote
in a dual-stack
environment where IPv6 isn't considered necessary yet, but in the
near
future that will change.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Randy Carpenter
rcar...@network1.net wrote:
I am wondering how people out there are using DHCPv6 to handle
assigning prefixes to end
-0500, Randy Carpenter wrote:
We have also recently realized that the DUID is pretty much
completely
random, and there is no way to tie the MAC address to a client.
This
pretty much makes it impossible to manage a large customer base.
Not sure about that. The DUID is not random, at least
:
On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 17:26 -0500, Randy Carpenter wrote:
One major issue is that there is no way to associate a user's MAC
(for
IPv4) with their DUID. I haven't been able to find a way to
account
for this without making the user authenticate once for IPv4, and
then
again for IPv6
:31, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no wrote:
Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net writes:
Duplicate assignments are not a problem as long as you ensure that the
client is the same.
Duplicate assignments to different clients also
- Original Message -
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Randy Carpenter
rcar...@network1.net wrote:
We have a requirement for it to be a redundant server that is
centrally located. DHCPv6 will be relayed from each customer access
segment.
We have been looking at using ISC
Same here. No idea who the intended recipient organization is, as it was sent
to our generic tech contact email address that is used for a bunch of ASes,
ARIN accounts, domains, etc. There are pretty much no details in the message.
-Randy
- Original Message -
AS2381 has also received
?
When DHCPv6 with Prefix Delegation seems to be about the only way to deploy
IPv6 to end users in a generic device-agnostic fashion, I am wondering why it
is so difficult to find a working solution.
thanks,
-Randy
--
| Randy Carpenter
| Vice President - IT Services
| Red Hat Certified Engineer
for service providers?
-Randy
Original Message
From: Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net
Sent: Tue, Jan 17, 2012 5:4 PM
To: Nanog nanog@nanog.org
CC:
Subject: How are you doing DHCPv6 ?
I am wondering how people out there are using DHCPv6 to handle
assigning
- Original Message -
On 1/17/12 6:37 PM, Daniel Roesen d...@cluenet.de wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 06:19:28PM -0500, Randy Carpenter wrote:
You might want to give this a read:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-02.txt
That doesn't
- Original Message -
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Randy Carpenter
rcar...@network1.net wrote:
Tried that. I agree with others that it is an NDP issue. NDP for
the GUA is fine, but just not for the link local. Is there
something that would block only link local by default
as the next-hop, but are unable to
get an ND entry for it, and thus cannot forward traffic to me.
-Randy
--
| Randy Carpenter
| Vice President - IT Services
| Red Hat Certified Engineer
| First Network Group, Inc.
| (800)578-6381, Opt. 1
We are using global addresses, but on the Cisco side, it is seeing the
Link-Local as the next-hop.
-Randy
--
| Randy Carpenter
| Vice President - IT Services
| Red Hat Certified Engineer
| First Network Group, Inc.
| (800)578-6381, Opt. 1
- Original Message -
When I am trying
BGP is working fine, it is when they are trying to forward the packets back to
me. They are seeing the Link-Local as the next-hop, which, for some reason,
they cannot get to.
-Randy
--
| Randy Carpenter
| Vice President - IT Services
| Red Hat Certified Engineer
| First Network Group, Inc
for that one.
-Randy
On Dec 7, 2011, at 17:53, Peter Rubenstein peter...@gmail.com wrote:
Try setting local-address in the bgp neighbor config on the Juniper side?
--Peter
On Dec 7, 2011, at 4:54 PM, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net wrote:
Does anyone have any suggestions on setting
Not sure about RIPE, but under ARIN, you would qualify for a /44 (or larger if
you have more than 12 sites), out of which you could announce the /48s
independently and as an aggregate, as you wish to do.
-Randy
- Original Message -
Hello,
Please advice what is the best practice
1 - 100 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
