Brent,
While the E300 can probably get your job done for more flexibility and growth I
would personally steer you towards the E600 (or E600i now). It is slightly
outside of your RU requirement coming in at 16 RU but it fits the bill
otherwise.
The main reasons I make this suggestion is due to
The power of defaults.
The few successful Internet security best practice changes have
primarily resulted from changes to default settings, not trying to get
ISPs, operators, sysadmins or users to change.
Smurf attacks - change default directed-broadcast settings in dominant
router vendors
On 3/28/12 11:00 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
once, years ago, Netsol -did- have a path for injecting records.
It was prototype
code with the engineering team. I had records registered with them. Have
since sold the domains
and they moved to other registries. But
Summary: Do not use NSI, if you are. Switch.
/as
On 29 Mar 2012, at 13:32, Matt Ryanczak wrote:
On 3/28/12 11:00 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
once, years ago, Netsol -did- have a path for injecting records.
It was prototype
code with the engineering team. I had
Joe,
We have a wide variety of both Internet and MPLS (WAN) circuits in
Alabama from ATT and ITC/Deltacom (Now Earthlink Business). They both
have a significant footprint in Alabama. Check with Earthlink Business.
-Hammer-
I was a normal American nerd
-Jack Herer
On 3/21/2012 10:44
+1
If after all this time they haven't been able to have support for
records, they are doing a really lousy job.
regards
Carlos
On 3/29/12 10:25 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Summary: Do not use NSI, if you are. Switch.
/as
On 29 Mar 2012, at 13:32, Matt Ryanczak wrote:
On 3/28/12
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Felipe Zanchet Grazziotin
fel...@starbyte.net wrote:
Hello,
can anyone confirm why IF-MIB::ifHighSpeed should return 0 for aggregates
of 10 Gbit/s ports?
just to confirm what all those helpful souls told me off-list: most vendors
(Cisco, Juniper,
No, not $50, NetSol charges me in the range of $9.75 to $9.99 per year per
domain name.
Not defending NetSol, just clarity for the purposes of the archives.
Who knows, maybe I get those rates because I mention their competitor
GoDaddy :-)
Tony Patti
CIO
S. Walter Packaging Corp.
Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or
some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where
that is not practical?
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Tony Patti t...@swalter.com wrote:
No, not $50, NetSol charges me in the range of $9.75
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:21 AM, james jones ja...@freedomnet.co.nz wrote:
Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or
some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where
that is not practical?
If your goal is , i assume you care
Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point.
http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber
On 2012-03-29 18:21 , james jones wrote:
Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or
some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where
that is not practical?
They tend to not do IPv6, let alone native IPv6, they also tend to be
behind a
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 06:34:21PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point.
http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber
Yeah, I got this note the other day. I am very interested in
hearing about folks experience with this hardware once it
Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is
it get VPS servers or some EC2 servers and setup your
own DNS servers. Are there use cases where that is not
practical?
Aren't we talking about NetSol as a *registrar* and inserting quad-A glue? Or
did I miss the original intention?
Apparently they support quad-A glues if you phone them and ask for them.
Personally, I run my own DNS servers, but sometimes it's not an option.
My friend, who originally had this issue, is in a different business
line, he is not proficient in DNS server operation, and thus he's
comfortable
I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes
tricky.
Thanks,
-Drew
-Original Message-
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:45 PM
To: Eugen Leitl
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: airFiber
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at
Drew Weaver (drew.weaver) writes:
I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes
tricky.
Thanks,
-Drew
Define perfect line of sight ? How is this different from any other
wireless
link and the associated Fresnel zone ?
They are taking pre-orders now for a (hopefully) June delivery. I'm
at a conference now and got the rundown yesterday from Ubiquiti. This
product was designed completely from the ground up by the former
Motorola Canopy 100 team. It -should- deliver ~700mbit in both
directions @ full duplex.
It will need perfect line of site. And won't deal with NLOS like most 2/5
ghz gear can. It's 24ghz.
They claim 15Km. Maybe in the desert.
In any climate with rain, Like our's here in Florida even 2 miles is going
to be a stretch as 24ghz will rain fade easy. A great application for this
would
On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Josh Baird wrote:
Anyhow, check the
video out on ubnt.com for an introduction and technical overview -
it's worth watching.
The claim is a huge decline in the cost of backhaul bandwidth for wisps between
10 and 100 times. I have just finished the preparation of
Thanks Jacob and Alex.
Appreciate your reply.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jacob Broussard
shadowedstrangerli...@gmail.com wrote:
While I can't provide an average, I can say we generally have anywhere
from 2-5 microwaves on most sites (with a few exceptions that only have 1,
and a few
Respectfully, the claim isn't a decline in the cost of backhaul bandwidth
between 10 and 100 times, the claim is Operators will be able to get 10 to
100 times more data throughput for the same dollar. which granted is a very
good thing, but it does not imply how much more money one would have
Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace).
Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're
drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. Like
what's happened to 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz in a lot of places. There's few
Probably it will be a good alternate to FSO based laswer links for
backhual. Probably cheaper more reliable solution then hanging lasers
between towers for backhaul?
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Oliver Garraux oli...@g.garraux.netwrote:
Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux oli...@g.garraux.net wrote:
I was at Ubiquiti's conference. I don't disagree with what you're
saying. Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely
never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is. They are seeing 24 Ghz
as only
On 3/29/12 21:53 , Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux oli...@g.garraux.net wrote:
I was at Ubiquiti's conference. I don't disagree with what you're
saying. Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely
never be used to the extent that 2.4 /
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
Cost will continue to drop, fact of the matter is the beam width is
rather narrow and they attenuate rather well so you can have a fair
number of them deployed without co-channel interference. if you pack a
tower full of
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:45:12AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
Leo,
On Mar 28, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
#1) Money.
#2) Laziness.
While Patrick is spot on, there is a third issue which is related
to money and laziness, but also has some unique aspects.
BCP38 makes the
Someone else to check is USCarrier (http://www.uscarrier.com/), they are a
smaller regional fiber transit provider I've had great experiences with in
the past. They only have a few POPs in Alabama though.
Good luck,
-Scott
-Original Message-
From: -Hammer-
On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote:
Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace).
Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're
drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. Like
what's happened
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Joe Provo wrote:
uRFP was a trivial, 0-impact feature on the cisco VXR-based CMTS
platform. Assert a simple statement in the default config (along
with 'ips classless' and all your other standard config elements)
uRPF: or as it's now used in ios,
ip verify unicast source
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 07:31:26PM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Joe Provo wrote:
uRFP was a trivial, 0-impact feature on the cisco VXR-based CMTS
platform. Assert a simple statement in the default config (along
with 'ips classless' and all your other standard config elements)
We are about to accept a 20MEG Ethernet feed via Comcast and their fiber plant
as well as a BGP feed across the same link.
I have a space GIGE interface on a 7206VXR and would like to know best practice
for deploying for optimal performance across this interface.
Any ideas and or direction
On 3/29/12 6:36 PM, Brian R. Watters wrote:
We are about to accept a 20MEG Ethernet feed via Comcast and their
fiber plant as well as a BGP feed across the same link.
I have a space GIGE interface on a 7206VXR and would like to know
best practice for deploying for optimal performance across
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Brielle Bruns wrote:
From my own experience here with our 7200s, some of the PA based 100BaseT
interfaces (ie: not on the IO module) can not negotiate 100-full, but rather
only half. This leaves one end diff then the other and creates issues with
performance. Try
On 3/29/12 7:06 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
I'm pretty sure the PA-FE-TX boards can do auto neg, just not 100 full
(just tested with a 7507 with a VIP4 w a PA-FE-TX and a cheap 10BT hub -
my 7206VXR is not powered up ATM).
Eh, just tried again to show someone and the link didn't even come up
Your correct with your understanding of our setup, I also note on our NPE-G1
that the onboard GIGE interface will auto-negotiation and I do see the flow
control is not supported via the other side (Comcast) but as soon as I refresh
and view the GIG# interface again I note that flow control is
On 3/29/12 7:32 PM, Brian R. Watters wrote:
Your correct with your understanding of our setup, I also note on our
NPE-G1 that the onboard GIGE interface will auto-negotiation and I do
see the flow control is not supported via the other side (Comcast)
but as soon as I refresh and view the GIG#
The GIGe is on-board with the NPE-G1 and from what I am told no bandwidth
points to deal with .. the PA is in slot 4 with ZERO other traffic on that slot
or the port, all other traffic that is of any real size is on the other two
GIGE interfaces that are also on-board with the NPE-G1 blade.
--- On Thu, 3/29/12, Brian R. Watters brwatt...@absfoc.com wrote:
From: Brian R. Watters brwatt...@absfoc.com
Subject: Comcast Ethernet Feed
To: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thursday, March 29, 2012, 5:36 PM
We are about to accept a 20MEG
Ethernet feed via Comcast and their fiber plant
On 30/03/2012, at 12:32 PM, Brian R. Watters wrote:
interface GigabitEthernet0/1
description Comcast Inet Feed Metro E 20MB
bandwidth 10
ip address 12.12.12.12 255.255.255.252
no ip unreachables
no ip route-cache
load-interval 30
duplex full
speed 100
media-type rj45
no negotiation
A couple of questions -
1) What flavor of NPE are you using?
NPE-G1
2) Is the GigE interface on the NPE-G1/G2 OR is this a PA?
3) Is the FaE ethernet interface that you appear to be connecting your laptop
to, on a separate PA in chassis?
Laptop connected directly to router via slot 4
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Brian R. Watters brwatt...@absfoc.com wrote:
A couple of questions -
1) What flavor of NPE are you using?
NPE-G1
2) Is the GigE interface on the NPE-G1/G2 OR is this a PA?
3) Is the FaE ethernet interface that you appear to be connecting your laptop
Never mind control and what Comcast says about hard-coding speed and duplex!
The question is:
What happens when you set the int facing Comcast CPE to auto?
Does the link even come up?
*IF* the link comes up, can you ping your next-hop?
If you can, leave auto-neg on despite what what Comcast may
On Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:03 PM, Brian R. Watters
mailto:brwatt...@absfoc.com wrote:
[snip]
Fast Ether has always been set @ auto
Just in case you missed it, I would echo Brielle's earlier advice: please try
forcing both laptop and the FE it's plugged into to 100/Full, auto disabled,
45 matches
Mail list logo
