On 9/Feb/15 22:18, Daniel Corbe wrote:
> You could always roll the 6509s into 6800 series stuff if you're married
> to Cisco for Campus style switches in your distribution network. But I
> really hate the Sup2T. In my admittedly limited scope, they have a
> pretty high failure rate.
We run 6880
On 9/Feb/15 21:54, Cliff Bowles wrote:
> So... Is there something in the same class as the ASR9000s that also have a
> good reputation? Will need at least 48 ports of 10G, 24x1Gb, limited
> oversubscription, good feature sets, not astronomically priced. If we can't
> find the perfect fit, we wi
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Cliff Bowles
wrote:
>
> 1 - Look at ASR9010 (or something similar) to replace all of the above.
> Pros: It has the density, it has features, port buffers, seems to have good
> granular virtualization, seems to have a good reputation amongst heavy
> users. Cons: It
because I have a partial implementation of MPLS routers. Whether the
routers support MPLS or not, the routing on an OSPF level doesn't depend on
MPLS being enabled. Eventually everything will be MPLS-capable. The MPLS
network is not multiple-path. The OSPF network is.
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 12:
Cliff Bowles writes:
> We have some aging infrastructure and need to start budgeting next-gen.
>
>
> * The network has several small routers as individual edges to peers,
> WAN, SIP services.
>
> * It has a couple 6509s as Internet edge (full tables, 2 carriers, no
> transit, s
We have some aging infrastructure and need to start budgeting next-gen.
* The network has several small routers as individual edges to peers,
WAN, SIP services.
* It has a couple 6509s as Internet edge (full tables, 2 carriers, no
transit, simple policies)
* It has som
This group is the most imaginative I have ever participated in. I imagine
stuff like that all the time. Most here love science & "fiction". Helps
makes for good group of problems solvers. At NANOG meetings I often
imagine it as a comic con without all the dressing up. :-)
However, the discussions
With Time Warner Cable in my region that is expected 100% of the time.
Every single cable modem replacement requires you to initialize the static
IP configuration. I expect the cable operators to operate similarly.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
T
Yes, this is very common. You are lucky to even get a working static IP
when they replace a modem. A lot of times they forget to assign one or
assigned one that doesn't work. No, most of the time they won't tell you
the IP changed.
Couple time I was told where my IP and default gateway wasn't i
Seen this happen quite often with Comcast. They simply didn’t provision the
new modem. A simple call to them should correct it. Done it two or 3 times in
the past 6 months.
Justin
Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net
http://www.mtin.net
Managed Services – xISP Solutions – Data Centers
http://www.the
Has anyone run into the situation where their static IP address from Comcast
(on the business class cable modem Internet service) was changed when the modem
was replaced?
We have a remote site that uses Comcast as a backup Internet connection and
when we went to use it recently our VPN tunnel w
Dear NANOG,
> On 19 Jan 2015, at 14:33, Bajpai, Vaibhav
> wrote:
[...]
> We are currently looking for volunteers in US with native IPv6 lines
> to help us in our v6 measurement research.
Thanks to you, we have shipped 15 probes to North America (some of which
are already starting to come up o
> On 09/02/2015, at 13:25, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 12:56:37 -0200, Patrick Tracanelli said:
>>> On 09/02/2015, at 12:14, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>>> On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 11:54:04 -0200, Patrick Tracanelli said:
On a bridged firewall you can have the behav
On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 12:56:37 -0200, Patrick Tracanelli said:
> > On 09/02/2015, at 12:14, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 11:54:04 -0200, Patrick Tracanelli said:
> >> On a bridged firewall you can have the behavior you want, whatever it is.
> >> Passing packets with firewal
> On 09/02/2015, at 12:14, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 11:54:04 -0200, Patrick Tracanelli said:
>
>> On a bridged firewall you can have the behavior you want, whatever it is.
>> Passing packets with firewall is down, but the box still up.
>
> Owen's point is that pas
On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 14:24:48 +, lobna gouda said:
> Thanks Valdis! i am sure someone has imagined it:) was asking about the
> community imagination - my though it would be all virtualized on the cloud
HCI can't be in the cloud. MCI has to happen in the same room as the H.
And this is the wro
Thanks Valdis! i am sure someone has imagined it:) was asking about the
community imagination , my though it would be all virtualized on the cloud, on
a bigger scale not the one we have now. Were it will end up not to buy any
laptops, smartphone...etc. No processing or availability limits, your
On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 11:54:04 -0200, Patrick Tracanelli said:
> On a bridged firewall you can have the behavior you want, whatever it is.
> Passing packets with firewall is down, but the box still up.
Owen's point is that passing packets if the firewall is down is really poor
security-wise. If
> On 08/02/2015, at 22:48, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2015, at 06:02 , Patrick Tracanelli
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>>
>>> Some Juniper models actually do a very good job of being both.
>>>
>>> In reality, a Firewall _IS_ a router, even if it's a bad one. Anything that
>>> mov
On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 01:48:01 +, lobna gouda said:
> Has anyone imagined this? away on increasing processing power or visual
> clearance of what we already have, what could be the next HCI?
Yes, somebody has imagined it.
pgp4eHQH23RV7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 11:40:56AM -0200, BPNoC Group wrote:
> > Firewalls are firewalls. Routers are routers. Routers should do some very
> > basic filtering (stateles, ACLs, data plane protection...) and firewalls
> > should do basic stati
Another good choice would be Cogent, AS174. We use Cogent along with
Level 3. I'd say 2/3 of our traffic is on Level 3 and 1/3 on Cogent.
It's been a great blend for us. Justin Wilson recently made some great
comments about Cogent on Feb 6, reference subject: Re: Input Regarding
Cogent and
Hi,
You can check with CenturyLink
Regards
Vaib
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Max Tulyev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> If you have he.net there - it will be the best choise.
>
> On 06.02.15 19:26, Colton Conor wrote:
> > We have a network that is single homed with Level3 at this time in
> D
On Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 11:40:56AM -0200, BPNoC Group wrote:
> Firewalls are firewalls. Routers are routers. Routers should do some very
> basic filtering (stateles, ACLs, data plane protection...) and firewalls
> should do basic static routing. And things should not go far beyond that.
This is, a
24 matches
Mail list logo
