Re: Equipment Supporting 2.5gbps and 5gbps
Hi, On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 04:52:59PM +0100, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > The standard 24 or 48 port SFP+ switch is 10 times the price of the > equivalent switch with 24 or 48 port SFP. The same is true for the optics. > > 2.5 and 4 Gbit/s SFP modules are available and cheap. It is just that > ethernet ports will not take advantage of the extra speed. So it is only > useful on fibrechannel ports. > > It would be an improvement if we can get 2.5 or 4 Gbit/s ethernet on SFP > instead of paying for an all SFP+ switch. The issue that causes the need for 2.5 and 4Gbps is older cable (cat5) that can't do anything faster, not the switches. You still need to replace the switches to use the faster speeds. This isn't the same issue with fibre, which can already support 10Gbps+. So it's the same difference. Upgrade switch on copper to go from 1 to 2.5/4 Gbps; upgrade switch on fibre to go from 1 to 10Gbps. The only possibility is if you got a 2.5/4Gbps SFP that would work in a current generation switch. I very much doubt that's going to work (but happy to be proven wrong by those in the know). In my experience 10Gbps switches now cost about the same as 1Gbps switches did a few years ago, so it's only the optics that are pricey. Unless you get them from one of the many cheap suppliers around, in which case there's essentially no difference in cost. Cheers, Matthew -- Matthew Newton, Ph.D. <m...@le.ac.uk> Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services, I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, <ith...@le.ac.uk>
Re: Nat
Hi, On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 03:03:18PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote: > > The mix of having to do this crazy thing of gateway announcements > > from one place, DNS from somewhere else, possibly auto-assigning > > addresses from a router, but maybe getting them over DHCPv6. It's > > just confusing and unnecessary and IMHO isn't helpful for > > persuading people to move to IPv6. Especially when everyone > > already understands DHCP in the v4 world. > > Have you ever tried to deploy IPv6 (even if only in a lab > environment)? I have worked with several companies (ISP and > enterprise) and once they stop thinking "I want to do everything > in IPv6 in exactly the same way as I have always done in IPv4" > and actually look at the features that IPv6 provides them they > are usually much happier with IPv6 than they were with IPv4. I've been running IPv6 for over 10 years. RAs and SLAAC. Doesn't affect my previous comment. :) IPv6 should by all means recommend certain technologies that are "better" in an idealogical world. Not having one small feature that makes it harder for people to deploy (for whatever the reason) does't help the cause. Cheers, Matthew -- Matthew Newton, Ph.D. <m...@le.ac.uk> Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services, I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, <ith...@le.ac.uk>
Re: Nat
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 04:20:48PM -0500, Lee Howard wrote: > On 12/17/15, 1:59 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > > I'm still waiting for the IETF to come around to allowing > > feature parity between IPv4 and IPv6 when it comes to DHCP. > > The stance of not allowing the DHCP server to assign a default > > gateway to the host in IPv6 is a big stumbling point for at > > least one large enterprise I'm aware of. > > Tell me again why you want this, and not routing information > from the router? All config is in one place. IP address, default gateway, domain name, DNS servers, search path, the lot. The mix of having to do this crazy thing of gateway announcements from one place, DNS from somewhere else, possibly auto-assigning addresses from a router, but maybe getting them over DHCPv6. It's just confusing and unnecessary and IMHO isn't helpful for persuading people to move to IPv6. Especially when everyone already understands DHCP in the v4 world. Both RAs and DHCP have their place and can be really useful together or apart in different situations, but witholding key functionality from DHCP "beacuse you can do it in a RA instead" isn't helping the v6 cause. Matthew -- Matthew Newton, Ph.D. <m...@le.ac.uk> Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services, I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, <ith...@le.ac.uk>
Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 05:58:59PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > Still, Todd, ignoring the other parts, the least you can do is > answer this simple question: > > How would you implement a 128-bit address that is backwards > compatible with existing IPv4 hosts requiring no software > modification on those hosts? Details matter here. Handwaving > about ASN32 doesn’t cut it. It was a semi-serious question, hence the smiley. I'd be genuinely interested if there is a sensible way to do the above. I can't think of one. Sometimes you just have to say something is broken and start again. I think fitting 128 bit addresses into something only designed for 32 bit is one of those. The resulting enchancement is likely to be such a cludge that we'd be moaning about it for decades to come, and would still require everything to be upgraded (e.g. router ASICs that only look at 32 bits), so why not upgrade to something cleanly designed from the start? There's much wrong with IPv6 as well, but it's a shedload nicer than a hack on something not designed to support it. I've run IPv6 on my home network for over 10 years. It's not hard. The only real reason we've not done a bit rollout at work yet is that there are always other things that take priority, not that it's actually that difficult to do. Matthew -- Matthew Newton, Ph.D. <m...@le.ac.uk> Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services, I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, <ith...@le.ac.uk>
Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +, Todd Underwood wrote: > it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the rest > of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but i guess > we're stuck with that now (i wish i could say something about lessons > learned but i don't think any one of us has learned a lesson yet). Would be really interesting to know how you would propose squeezing 128 bits of address data into a 32 bit field so that we could all continue to use IPv4 with more addresses than it's has available to save having to move to this new incompatible format. :-) Matthew -- Matthew Newton, Ph.D. <m...@le.ac.uk> Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services, I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, <ith...@le.ac.uk>
Re: The state of TACACS+
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 04:25:56PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: Rfc6613: TLS or IPsec transport is shown as mandatory for RADIUS over TCP. sweet. can you ref conforming implementations? FreeRADIUS and Radiator can do RADSEC, as well as radsecproxy, so it can be used to protect e.g. site-to-site proxying. I don't know whether any switches/NASes can do it at present, though. Matthew -- Matthew Newton, Ph.D. m...@le.ac.uk Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services, I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, ith...@le.ac.uk
Re: Network configuration archiving
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:25:26PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote: As I am evaluating our path forward, I've compiled a small list of open source projects with some biased highlights. Your feedback is most welcome, maybe I missed some interesting projects or developments. I would also be very interested in what other operators seek in a network config/state archive tool. For the last ~8 years we've used a very simple in-house bash script that uses SNMP to tell the switch to write its config using tftp, and then does a wr mem. It then checks the configs into a subversion repository and e-mails out any diffs. One criteria we had was that our config backup system wasn't going to get CLI access to any routers if at all possible, and this turned out to be a good alternative. I can't think of many times when it's failed to work; occasionally the odd switch might not respond, but that's rare. The only possible issue being that we're 100% Cisco, so I don't know if other vendors support the same MIBs. I'll try and post the script (250 lines) somewhere if anyone's interested. Cheers, Matthew -- Matthew Newton, Ph.D. m...@le.ac.uk Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services, I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, ith...@le.ac.uk
Re: Network configuration archiving
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:27:42PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote: On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:59:48PM +0100, Matthew Newton wrote: I'll try and post the script (250 lines) somewhere if anyone's interested. It is almost always good to open source your tools, for others to learn and benefit from! :-) As much as I totally agree with you, the problem is that if I spent all my time publishing each small script I wrote, I'd never have time to write small scripts :-) I've removed local config details and pushed it up to github. Hopefully there's enough info contained to enable someone else to make use of it / learn from it / improve it. https://github.com/mcnewton/cisco-config-backups When I wrote that, neither git or scp to switches were available. It's quite likely that there are at least two obvious improvements that can be made. Cheers, Matthew -- Matthew Newton, Ph.D. m...@le.ac.uk Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services, I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, ith...@le.ac.uk
Re: Advisory — D-root is changing its IPv4 address on the 3rd of January.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 04:42:46PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote: On 13/12/2012 22:54, Jason Castonguay wrote: Advisory — D-root is changing its IPv4 address on the 3rd of January. You've just given 3 weeks notice for a component change in one of the few critical part of the Internet's infrastructure, at a time when most I think that /was/ the advance notification - you've got 6 months :) The old address will continue to work for at least six months after the transition, but will ultimately be retired from service. Cheers, Matthew -- Matthew Newton, Ph.D. m...@le.ac.uk Systems Architect (UNIX and Networks), Network Services, I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, ith...@le.ac.uk
Re: www.nist.gov over v6 trouble Was: Microsoft's participation in World IPv6 day
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 11:38:54AM -0400, David Swafford wrote: Overall though the day seems to be going well, I've sparked a lot of enthusiasm at work by bragging this event (I even made a shirt to promote it :-), and I'd love to see this become a regular occurrence. In fact, daily would be good... ;) Matthew -- Matthew Newton, Ph.D. m...@le.ac.uk Systems Architect (UNIX and Networks), Network Services, I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, ith...@le.ac.uk
