Doha dark fiber

[Pui Edylie]

Anyone knows anyone has dark fiber in doha and has a pop in Singapore?Thank 
you.RegardsEdySent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

Re: Templating/automating configuration

[Pui Edylie]

Hi,

Take a look at Ansible

https://www.ansible.com/

Our whole infra is automated using it and it is great!

Regards,
Edy


On 6/6/2017 9:22 PM, Graham Johnston wrote:

Short of complete SDN, for those of you that have some degree of configuration 
templating and/or automation tools what is it that you run? I'm envisioning 
some sort of tool that let's me define template snippets of configuration and 
aids in their deployment to devices. I'm okay doing the heaving lifting in 
defining everything, I'm just looking for the tool that stitches it together 
and hopefully makes things a little less error prone for those who aren't as 
adept.

Graham Johnston
Network Planner
Westman Communications Group
204.717.2829
johnst...@westmancom.com

Any HSBC network admin?

[Pui Edylie]

Dear NANOG Member,

Is there any HSBC network admin on this list or do you happen to know one?

We have problem reaching out to HSBC IP segments from our network and 
using the public WHOIS contact went cold.


Thank you.

Regards,
Edy

Re: Skype off line ??

[Pui Edylie]

Reporting the same from Singapore

Sent from TypeMail



On Sep 21, 2015, 18:27, at 18:27, Max Tulyev  wrote:
>For me yes, it is down for several hours.
>
>BTW, is there any Jabber/XMPP client with similar usability?
>
>I need just scroll up to view all history and one click to join someone
>to multiuser conference in fact.
>
>On 21.09.15 11:32, Marco Paesani wrote:
>> Hi,
>> do you have sone news about it ?
>> Best regards,
>> 

NAT IP and Google

[Pui Edylie]

Hi Everyone,

May I know what is the best approach so that Google would not ban our 
Natted IP from time to time as it suspect it as a bot.


Is there any official channel from Google which we could work with them 
for resolution?


Thanks much!

Best,
Edy

Local Loop Provider Boston Natick

[Pui Edylie]

Dear Nanog,

I am sorry for wide distribution.

We are looking for a local loop provider in Boston Natick area to either

1. our POP in New Jersey
OR
2. to Singapore Equinix SG1

We are looking for 100Mbps Layer 2 (MTU Size 2000 and above) and able to 
carry our SVLAN and CVLAN.


Please kindly unicast the reply to me.

Thanks much!

Best Regards,
Edy

Re: Outgoing traffic problem on Citrix Netscaler Load Balancer

[Pui Edylie]

Hi Anil,

Take a look at 
http://support.citrix.com/proddocs/topic/ns-system-10-1-map/ns-nw-ipaddrssng-enabling-use-src-ip-mode-tsk.html 
- use the client's port.


We prefer F5 LTM much better than Netscaler :)

Cheers,
Edy

On 3/31/2014 8:17 PM, Anil KARADAG wrote:

Hi Paul,

Thanks for reply, it works :). But I have another problem; source port is 
altered by the virtual service. However, we need the source port to be the same 
on the destination servers. Is there a way to  ensure this?

Thanks

-Original Message-
From: Paul Bertain [mailto:p...@bertain.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:47 PM
To: Anil KARADAG
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Outgoing traffic problem on Citrix Netscaler Load Balancer

Hi Anil,

Have you setup MBF?  I've seen that as an issue before. If you don't have a 
default route set, than MBF might help you send the response out the interface 
on which it was received.

Paul


On Mar 24, 2014, at 11:46 PM, Anil KARADAG  wrote:

Hi,

I setup a netscaler load balancer for sip traffic on Amazon EC2. Clients 
packets are arrived to the backend servers over to the load balancer but any 
responses cannot be arrived to clients. I see the responses on the load 
balancer.

I think there is a config problem for that but I don't know and did not find 
any solution for that. How can I fix the outbound traffic issue.

thanks
Bu e-posta mesaj? ve ekleri g?nderildi?i ki?i ya da kuruma ?zeldir ve gizlidir. 
Ayr?ca hukuken de gizli olabilir. Hi?bir ?ekilde ???nc? ki?ilere a??klanamaz ve 
yay?nlanamaz. E?er mesaj?n g?nderildi?i al?c? de?ilseniz bu elektronik postan?n 
i?eri?ini a??klaman?z, kopyalaman?z, y?nlendirmeniz ve kullanman?z kesinlikle 
yasakt?r ve bu elektronik postay? ve eklerini derhal silmeniz gerekmektedir. 
NETA? TELEKOM?N?KASYON A.?. bu mesaj?n i?erdi?i bilgilerin do?rulu?u veya 
eksiksiz oldu?u konusunda herhangi bir garanti vermemektedir. Bu nedenle bu 
bilgilerin ne ?ekilde olursa olsun i?eri?inden, iletilmesinden, al?nmas?ndan, 
saklanmas?ndan ve kullan?lmas?ndan sorumlu de?ildir. Bu mesajdaki g?r??ler 
g?nderen ki?iye ait olup, NETA? TELEKOM?N?KASYON A.?.'nin g?r??lerini 
yans?tmayabilir.
---
This e-mail and its attachments are private and confidential and intended for 
the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. It may 
also be legally confidential. Any disclosure, distribution or other 
dissemination of this message to any third party is strictly prohibited. If you 
are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
forwarding, copying or use of any of the information is strictly prohibited, 
and the e-mail should immediately be deleted. NETA? TELEKOM?N?KASYON A.?. makes 
no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in 
this message and hereby excludes any liability of any kind for the information 
contained therein or for the transmission, reception, storage or use of such 
information in any way whatsoever. The opinions expressed in this message are 
those of the sender and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of NETA? 
TELEKOM?N?KASYON A.?.

Bu e-posta mesajı ve ekleri gönderildiği kişi ya da kuruma özeldir ve gizlidir. 
Ayrıca hukuken de gizli olabilir. Hiçbir şekilde üçüncü kişilere açıklanamaz ve 
yayınlanamaz. Eğer mesajın gönderildiği alıcı değilseniz bu elektronik postanın 
içeriğini açıklamanız, kopyalamanız, yönlendirmeniz ve kullanmanız kesinlikle 
yasaktır ve bu elektronik postayı ve eklerini derhal silmeniz gerekmektedir. 
NETAŞ TELEKOMÜNİKASYON A.Ş. bu mesajın içerdiği bilgilerin doğruluğu veya 
eksiksiz olduğu konusunda herhangi bir garanti vermemektedir. Bu nedenle bu 
bilgilerin ne şekilde olursa olsun içeriğinden, iletilmesinden, alınmasından, 
saklanmasından ve kullanılmasından sorumlu değildir. Bu mesajdaki görüşler 
gönderen kişiye ait olup, NETAŞ TELEKOMÜNİKASYON A.Ş.’nin görüşlerini 
yansıtmayabilir.
---
This e-mail and its attachments are private and confidential and intended for 
the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. It may 
also be legally confidential. Any disclosure, distribution or other 
dissemination of this message to any third party is strictly prohibited. If you 
are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
forwarding, copying or use of any of the information is strictly prohibited, 
and the e-mail should immediately be deleted. NETAŞ TELEKOMÜNİKASYON A.Ş. makes 
no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in 
this message and hereby excludes any liability of any kind for the information 
contained therein or for the transmission, reception, storage or use of such 
information in any way whatsoever. The opinions expressed in this message are 
those of the sender and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of NETAŞ 
TELEKOMÜNİKASYON A.Ş.

Re: Fusion Splicer

[Pui Edylie]

Hi Shawn,

Maybe 3K USD but i am open to any recommendation.

The usage is going to be almost daily

It seems Fujikura is the top contender

Cheers

On 3/18/2014 8:35 PM, Shawn L wrote:

It depends on what you mean by affordable and how much you're going to
use it.


On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 4:47 AM, Pui Edylie  wrote:


Dear Member,

Anyone can recommend a reliable and "affordable" fusion splicer please?

Thanks!

Fusion Splicer

[Pui Edylie]

Dear Member,

Anyone can recommend a reliable and "affordable" fusion splicer please?

Thanks!

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco ScanSafe, aka Cisco Cloud Web Security

[Pui Edylie]

Hi Eugeniu,

You could use the inexpensive Mikrotik User Manager

http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/User_Manager/Introduction

http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:User_Manager

http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/User_Manager/Getting_started

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blEGv5i-aO4

Good Luck :)

Edy

On 12/6/2013 3:14 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:

Hi,

How do you handle captive portals in hotels and other venues where you
first have to login into the portal and then have Internet access ?

This is my biggest woe right now in this regards with any kind of proxy
settings I can push to users.

Thanks,
Eugeniu


On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Scott Voll  wrote:


We currently use CCWS (previously ScanSafe) with the Anyconnect client.
  Nice solution.  Whether your in the office or remoting from a Starbucks,
the traffic is always proxied.  We went with the solution because of a
couple reasons:

1. with multiple egress points on the corporate network, we didn't want to
be down if we lost a proxy server.

2. corporate laptops whether in the office or at Starbucks would still be
proxied.  This helps limit our virus and malware infections.  and provides
HR reports.

3 split tunneling would be an option because the traffic doesn't have to
come back to your internal proxy.

4. our remote home office bandwidth is very limited, so using the cloud it
provided for better use of that bandwidth.

all and all it's a good solution.  I'm not going to tell you that we have
not had any issues, but with any new solution, there will be a couple
bruises along the way.

YMMV

Scott



On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Herro91  wrote:


Hi,

I'm doing some research on the Cisco Cloud Web Security offering, also
known as ScanSafe.

Has anyone on the lists explored Cisco's ScanSafe SaaS offering, now

called

Cisco Cloud Web Security - as a means of providing protection in the

cloud

that would potentially negate the requirement to have a full tunnel (i.e.
allow split tunneling) for teleworkers?


Thanks!


___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-...@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: Brocade XMR/MLX VLAN bit counters (Cacti graphs for brocade VLANS) (95% billing).

[Pui Edylie]

Hi James,

We have been using Observium and never look back

http://www.observium.org/wiki/Main_Page

Cheers,
Edy

On 1/14/2013 10:00 PM, James Wininger wrote:

All,

We are running into an issue with Brocade where we are finding it difficult to 
to graph VLAN interfaces for bits (in/out) across a tagged (trunk) interface. 
On Cisco this is not an issue. So what we end up with in Cacti is a blank (no 
data) graph.

I have been all over these devices with snmpwalk etc (typical tool set). Has anyone found 
a "fix" or work around for this? Or perhaps I should be asking a different 
question….Is there a better tool/mindset for 95% billing since this is what we are doing 
with this info.
--

Jim Wininger

"Don't find fault, find a remedy." - Henry Ford

Re: Microsoft Product Activation server reachability

[Pui Edylie]

I have just tested from Singapore

[root@trinity ~]# ping wpa.one.microsoft.com
PING wpa.one.microsoft.com (94.245.126.107) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 213.199.189.37 icmp_seq=1 Packet filtered
From 213.199.189.37 icmp_seq=6 Packet filtered

[root@trinity ~]# telnet wpa.one.microsoft.com 443
Trying 94.245.126.107...

[root@trinity ~]# telnet wpa.one.microsoft.com 80
Trying 94.245.126.107...

On 1/11/2013 12:24 PM, Nathan Anderson wrote:

Anybody else having a problem reaching (what appears to be) the sole Microsoft 
Product Activation server (wpa.one.microsoft.com)?

$ ping wpa.one.microsoft.com
PING wpa.one.microsoft.com (94.245.126.107): 56 data bytes
36 bytes from 213.199.189.41: Communication prohibited by filter

I get this sourcing from our network, from AT&T 3G, and from ye residential DSL 
connection located in the greater Seattle area. They aren't simply 
source-filtering. Either that or they are source-filtering for 0.0.0.0/0.

This is apparently the only server/IP they have set up to respond to these 
requests. wpa.one.microsoft.com resolves to that IP via every DNS server I've 
tried (so no round-robin A records), Microsoft products that need to activate 
over the internet only try to resolve that FQDN, and I've looked for others 
without success (wpa.two.microsoft.com isn't valid, for example).