> Let it be known that I hate NAT with the burning passion of a million
> suns. But I'm the junior in my workplace, and this is the advice of
> the head honchos. I can easily see both sides of this. I would say
> with a few implementations, (maybe 25 or fewer) NATing isn't that
> difficult.
>
> Gr
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Jun 29, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Tyler Haske wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry you don't like it, and I know IPv6 will wash all this away
>> soon enough, but where I'm working we have no plans to implement IPv6,
>> or require our vendors/partners to readdr
On Jun 29, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Tyler Haske wrote:
> I'm sorry you don't like it, and I know IPv6 will wash all this away
> soon enough, but where I'm working we have no plans to implement IPv6,
> or require our vendors/partners to readdress their networks to get a
> VPN up.
Just because there are
> RFC1918 and VPN becomes non-scalable fast when you connect to lots of
> different organizations - it doesn't take long before two
> organizations you connect to both want to use 172.16.0.x/24 or
> 10.0.0.x/24 or 192.168.0.0/24, or similar). The same logic goes for
> VPN clients - if one end is p
On Jun 28, 2012, at 10:35 PM, Joel Maslak wrote:
> Which is why enterprises generally shouldn't use RFC1918 IPs for
> servers when clients are located on networks not controlled by the
> same entity. Servers that serve multiple administration domains (such
> as VPN users on AT&T - or on some r
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Joel Maslak wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:35 PM, PC wrote:
>
>> While you're at it, I've been also trying to complain about them using
>> RFC1918 (172.16.) address space for the DNS servers they assign to their
>> datacard subscribers. Causes all sorts of pr
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:35 PM, PC wrote:
> While you're at it, I've been also trying to complain about them using
> RFC1918 (172.16.) address space for the DNS servers they assign to their
> datacard subscribers. Causes all sorts of problems with people trying to
> VPN in as the same IP range
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> of course, but you aren't supposed to be doing that on their network
> anyway... so says the nice man from sprint 4 nanogs ago.
That, and if you are tunneling in, it's good practice to forward over
any DNS traffic as well (or all, depen
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:20 PM, PC wrote:
> I'm sure they use carrier grade NAT, yes.
I'm sure it's not 'carrier grade', but it does play one on tv...
> However, nothing would prevent them from using a unique public IP assigned
> to them for their DNS servers like others do.
sure. they could d
I'm sure they use carrier grade NAT, yes.
However, nothing would prevent them from using a unique public IP assigned
to them for their DNS servers like others do.
Using RFC1918 space for a routed destination of an ISP service (DNS) is
particularly problematic for many VPN client configurations wi
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:35 PM, PC wrote:
> Why they don't use public IP space belonging to them for DNS servers, I do
> not know.
they have the same addresses used in multiple VRF's? so much simpler
for them to manage...
I wish you the best of luck.
While you're at it, I've been also trying to complain about them using
RFC1918 (172.16.) address space for the DNS servers they assign to their
datacard subscribers. Causes all sorts of problems with people trying to
VPN in as the same IP range is used by me.
Why the
Hi,
Would anyone happen to know a contact at ATT wireless that would be able to
help diagnose a DNS issue? we are seeing the DNS record for boston.com
intermittantly resolve to the wrong IP address, but I am having trouble
getting through to the correct people through normal support.
Thanks
Mik
13 matches
Mail list logo
