On 24/Jul/20 16:43, t...@pelican.org wrote:
>
> Not forgetting the cost of billing *disputes*.
>
> It's been a couple of decades since I worked in residential Internet, but
> when I did, if the customer called you, ever, for any reason, the contract
> was essentially running at a loss. I
On 24/Jul/20 16:52, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
> This is the cost / billing model that most last-mile access providers
> use: send acceptable-use reminders to the top 0.5% of users rather
> than getting excited about the other 99.5% who are already costed into
> the model. Then make your service
On 24/Jul/20 15:24, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> There are areas where licensing can make sense, but agreed that most
> implementations are awful. The case in hand here is akin to having a
> chainsaw constantly threatening to cut the branch your business is
> sitting on unless you actively stop it
Saku Ytti wrote on 24/07/2020 14:56:
I've had few upgrades since LS1010+VXR network and there is a
statistically relevant correlation to more bandwidth demand related to
the upgrade cycles
For sure, everyone's bandwidth consumption has increased over the years
and that's what's driven
On Friday, 24 July, 2020 14:52, "Nick Hilliard" said:
> yep, that works fine for electricity because the cost of generating
> electricity is a significant percentage of the amount that the end user
> pays. I.e. the marginal cost is significant, so it's worth billing per
> kWh. If this model
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 16:52, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> yep, that works fine for electricity because the cost of generating
> electricity is a significant percentage of the amount that the end user
> pays. I.e. the marginal cost is significant, so it's worth billing per
> kWh. If this model had
Saku Ytti wrote on 24/07/2020 14:36:
> Yes. Transmission cost would be fixed and cover the cost of delivering
> the first bit, consumption cost would be variant and cover the cost of
> adding capacity, this is the model for electricity in some markets and
> I think it's a great model. In some
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 16:24, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> in this specific case, you're confusing the total cost of customer
> ownership with cost of service delivery. The main individual components
> of residential ip service access are fixed business costs and whether
> people avail of customer
Saku Ytti wrote on 23/07/2020 20:05:
> I think it's well done and I can see applications where it adds real
> value to customers.
There are areas where licensing can make sense, but agreed that most
implementations are awful. The case in hand here is akin to having a
chainsaw constantly
On 23/Jul/20 21:05, Saku Ytti wrote:
> I think it's well done and I can see applications where it adds real
> value to customers. For us the OPEX of dealing with licenses is too
> much, we want a one-time fire and forget solution, which they offer.
> But if I'd install and decom hundreds of
On 23/Jul/20 20:08, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
>
> The whole idea of having your routing stack poll a remote server with
> a query which essentially asks "should I continue to operate?" with a
> default answer of "No" seems like a unusually stupid way to provision
> a network. Regardless of the
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 21:08, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> The whole idea of having your routing stack poll a remote server with a
> query which essentially asks "should I continue to operate?" with a
> default answer of "No" seems like a unusually stupid way to provision a
> network. Regardless of
Saku Ytti wrote on 23/07/2020 10:06:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 11:02, Mark Tinka wrote:
The other option we'd looked at was the SSM (Smart Software Manager)
on-prem, as I'm not keen on having routers make arbitrary calls to some
cloud over at Cisco.
You could also use local HTTP proxy, which
On 23/Jul/20 11:57, Chris Jones wrote:
> SSM only needs to check in once a year (if I remember correctly) before
> things REALLY break, and generally once a month if you don’t want it to
> alarm. So loss of comms doesn’t phase it too much
>
> It’s got an airgapped mode where it can be synced
> On 23 Jul 2020, at 18:59, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 23/Jul/20 10:43, Lukas Tribus wrote:
>>
>> You just need a route to a HTTP proxy (like tinyproxy) in your FIB,
>> just like you already need reachability for monitoring systems, NMS,
>> radius servers etc.
>
> All those monitoring
On 23/Jul/20 11:08, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> Same for an on-prem SSM as well as a proxy.
Yes.
> Yes, as you add variables you add complexity.
>
> It seems to me though that a forward proxy that connects two TCP
> sockets is less complex by an order of magnitude than running a full
> blown
Hello,
On Thursday, 23 July 2020, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 23/Jul/20 10:43, Lukas Tribus wrote:
>
> > You just need a route to a HTTP proxy (like tinyproxy) in your FIB,
> > just like you already need reachability for monitoring systems, NMS,
> > radius servers etc.
>
> All those monitoring
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 11:02, Mark Tinka wrote:
> The other option we'd looked at was the SSM (Smart Software Manager)
> on-prem, as I'm not keen on having routers make arbitrary calls to some
> cloud over at Cisco.
You could also use local HTTP proxy, which may be less OPEX to
maintain or may
On 23/Jul/20 10:43, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> You just need a route to a HTTP proxy (like tinyproxy) in your FIB,
> just like you already need reachability for monitoring systems, NMS,
> radius servers etc.
All those monitoring systems live in the IGP, which is in FIB.
>
> No default route or
On 23/Jul/20 10:28, Chris Jones wrote:
> That’s the approach we took, with the SSM box part of the IGP so it’s
> reachable.
Yep, exactly. Same view.
We are getting rid of a lot of Cisco gear, but for our CSR1000v RR's,
I'll incur the hassle, as I'm happy with those.
Mark.
> On 23 Jul 2020, at 18:10, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 23/Jul/20 08:31, Saku Ytti wrote:
>>
>> You can still have SLR
>> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/smart-licensing/qsg/b_Smart_Licensing_QuickStart/b_Smart_Licensing_QuickStart_chapter_01000.html
>> and get
On 23/Jul/20 08:31, Saku Ytti wrote:
> You can still have SLR
> https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/smart-licensing/qsg/b_Smart_Licensing_QuickStart/b_Smart_Licensing_QuickStart_chapter_01000.html
> and get persistent smart license you install on your device and it'll
> never
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 08:50, Mark Tinka wrote:
> Is this part of their new Smart Licensing strategy?
>
> We are still running IOS XE 3.17S on our CSR1000v RR's, and that still
> uses the trusty Permanent AX license.
You can still have SLR
On 22/Jul/20 18:44, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
> The CSR1000V licenses were just so cost effective for building route
> reflectors on ESXi compared to the cost of physical hardware. It's a
> shame the perpetual licenses are gone in favor of subscriptions.
>
> As a small operator I've had a lot of
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 09:44:44AM -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> As a small operator I've had a lot of effectively new off lease
> equipment pass through my doors, and expiring license keys don't really
> favor that.
Works as designed.
"We do not want you to re-use stuff that we're not
On 7/21/20 09:54, joe mcguckin wrote:
We don’t buy anything that can’t be managed with a serial connection. That
means no fancy web based guis. Licensing is in the same category… A piece of
equipment has to do something extraordinary before we’d consider purchasing it,
if it implements some
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 01:23:12PM -0400, Aaron wrote:
> I'm gonna hate when Flash is EOL. We have servers that use that GUI thing.
> I agree, I hate it too.
> I don't want to throw out a decent server just because flash no longer
> works. I hope Adobe don't have a programmed kill switch.
I'm gonna hate when Flash is EOL. We have servers that use that GUI thing.
I agree, I hate it too.
I don't want to throw out a decent server just because flash no longer
works. I hope Adobe don't have a programmed kill switch.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 1:21 PM Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 21/Jul/20
ethernet console should be on the list.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 1:01 PM joe mcguckin wrote:
> We don’t buy anything that can’t be managed with a serial connection. That
> means no fancy web based guis. Licensing is in the same category… A piece
> of equipment has to do something extraordinary
On 21/Jul/20 18:54, joe mcguckin wrote:
> We don’t buy anything that can’t be managed with a serial connection. That
> means no fancy web based guis.
iLO on servers is pretty reliable. It has helped us out plenty times.
> Licensing is in the same category… A piece of equipment has to do
We don’t buy anything that can’t be managed with a serial connection. That
means no fancy web based guis. Licensing is in the same category… A piece of
equipment has to do something extraordinary before we’d consider purchasing it,
if it implements some sort of license key scheme. We’ve
On 21/Jul/20 17:34, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
>
> Someone jumped in and sent me an updated license. As far as why it
> can't be done online, I'm not sure. I haven't tried to rehost anything
> in a while.
The joy of when things just work :-).
We had to because we had some boxes fail in that
On 7/20/20 9:58 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 20/Jul/20 19:20, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Does Cisco no longer honor previously purchased perpetual CSR1000V
licenses now that they're EOS? I had a host die and reinstalling the
VM (ESXi) from the OVA results in a new serial number my license file
won't
Does Cisco no longer honor previously purchased perpetual CSR1000V
licenses now that they're EOS? I had a host die and reinstalling the VM
(ESXi) from the OVA results in a new serial number my license file won't
work on, and trying to use the online license manager to rehost it
claims the new
34 matches
Mail list logo
