On 11/18/13 3:06 PM, Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote:
It's looking more and more like NAT64 will be in our future. One of the
valid concerns for NAT64 - much like NAT44 - is being able to determine
the identity of a given user through the NAT at a given point in time.
Bulk
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 03:06:52PM -0500, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
Other IPv6 transition mechanisms appear to be no less thorny than
NAT64 for a variety of reasons.
Some of us who worked on the NAT64/DNS64 combination were content that
it was a long way from the perfect solution. The idea I
From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:strei...@cluebyfour.org]
It's looking more and more like NAT64 will be in our future.
One of the valid concerns for NAT64 - much like NAT44 - is being
able to determine the identity of a given user through the NAT
at a given point in time.
How feasible this is
Hi folks,
I've traditionally been a Cisco Catalyst shop for my switching gear.
I am doing a significant hardware refresh in one of my offices, which will
entail replacing about 20 access switches and a couple core devices. Pretty
simple L3 VLAN environment with VRRP/HSRP, on the physical
I've used them on a bunch of field deployments. Love'em. When clients have them
it makes documenting any part of the experience a technician level task.
Need a pcap? Built into the GUI. Want the switch to SMS you when ports get
knocked out? Built into the GUI. Do you like visuals that actually
+1 for Joshua's comments. Used them in a small rollout (~20k sqft of
office space across two buildings), was extremely pleased.
Authentication can tie into OAuth (Google Apps) or LDAP/AD. Email or
SMS alerts for *everything*.
Would highly recommend them.
Brandon
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:30
Dear colleagues,
Please find the CFP for RIPE 68 below or at
https://ripe68.ripe.net/submit-topic/cfp/.
The deadline for submissions is 2 March 2014.
Please also note that speakers do not receive any extra reduction or funding
towards the meeting fee at the RIPE Meetings.
Kind regards
Filiz
Op 19 nov 2013, om 18:25 heeft Hank Disuko het volgende geschreven:
Hi folks,
I've traditionally been a Cisco Catalyst shop for my switching gear.
I am doing a significant hardware refresh in one of my offices, which will
entail replacing about 20 access switches and a couple core
Anyone used Fortinet hardware, ideally in both a dual stack and
clustered/HA setup, want to share their opinions/experiences with me off
list? Looking at some of their stuff.
Thanks,
David
I started to look into them for personal and limited small business use, but
stopped short when I realized their cloud management platform is
subscription-based. Unless I've missed something, you cannot deploy your own
internal management platform. It's all licensed through Meraki/Cisco, which
They give you a free ap for listening to their pitch.. We love them.
Expensive.. But responsive and responsible.. Which is pretty hard to find in
Wi-Fi land. Pretty interface and lots of little bells and whistles.. They have
my vote from what we evaluated (ubnt, Blahblahblah).
Sent from my
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Warren Bailey
wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com wrote:
They give you a free ap for listening to their pitch.. We love them.
Expensive.. But
so you just decide: How many may we have to deploy?
then schedule that many pitch meetings with them? :)
If you have one of their routers, etc. you cannot lock yourself out of the
device. You can always web to the 'inside' interface and make basic
configuration changes. It's not going to let you do policy stuff, etc. but
will let you do enough to establish / re-establish network connectivity.
On
I'm curious if any of you guys have compared Meraki and Xirrus? We are
currently in the process of picking new WAPs and have narrowed it down to
these too. We are leaning towards Xirrus due to it's modular structure.
It also has a great user interface.
Anyone else evaluate Xirrus?
On Tue,
Did you check out ubiquiti's UniFi?
-Mike
On Nov 19, 2013, at 14:13, Glenn Robuck techraving...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm curious if any of you guys have compared Meraki and Xirrus? We are
currently in the process of picking new WAPs and have narrowed it down to
these too. We are leaning
Check out their forums first.. Look for my name.. ;)
Ubnt has a cool price point.
Sent from my Mobile Device.
Original message
From: Mike Lyon mike.l...@gmail.com
Date: 11/19/2013 1:18 PM (GMT-09:00)
To: Glenn Robuck techraving...@gmail.com
Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org
Subject:
Haha! Don't give up the secrets!!
Sent from my Mobile Device.
Original message
From: Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
Date: 11/19/2013 12:36 PM (GMT-09:00)
To: Warren Bailey wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com
Cc: Pedersen, Sean sean.peder...@usairways.com,NANOG
On Nov 19, 2013, at 8:36 AM, Andrew Sullivan asulli...@dyn.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 03:06:52PM -0500, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
Other IPv6 transition mechanisms appear to be no less thorny than
NAT64 for a variety of reasons.
Some of us who worked on the NAT64/DNS64 combination
Interesting study of what seems to be real BGP shunts:
http://www.renesys.com/2013/11/mitm-internet-hijacking/
It depends on what direction your are translating to:
IPv6-only host to IPv4 Internet: This isn't a problem if you are dual-stack at
the host, but if you really do have ip6 only hosts, you aren't looking at any
requirement that is different than LSN44 or providing a IPv6 tunnel broker
service
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Ian Smith wrote:
It depends on what direction your are translating to:
IPv6-only host to IPv4 Internet: This isn't a problem if you are
dual-stack at the host, but if you really do have ip6 only hosts, you
aren't looking at any requirement that is different than LSN44
21 matches
Mail list logo
