Why use IPv4 for OOB? Seems a little late in the day for that. -Bill
> On Nov 10, 2014, at 15:02, "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Paul S. <cont...@winterei.se> wrote: >> I'd be doubtful if anyone will feel like offering a /23 with OOB as >> justification these days, sadly. > > why thought? Justification is really about having a use for the ips, > right? and if you have 500 servers/network-devices ... then you have > justification for a /23 ... it seems to me. > >> >> Good luck nonetheless. >> >> >>> On 11/10/2014 午後 11:00, Ruairi Carroll wrote: >>> >>> Hey, >>> >>> VPN setup is not really a viable option (for us) in this scenario. >>> Honestly, I'd prefer to just call it done already and have a VPN but due >>> to >>> certain restraints, we have to go down this route. >>> >>> /Ruairi >>> >>>> On 10 November 2014 14:38, Alistair Mackenzie <magics...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Couldn't you put a router or VPN system on the single IP they are giving >>>> you and use RFC1918 addressing space? >>>> >>>> OOB doesn't normally justify a /24 let alone a /23. >>>> >>>> On 10 November 2014 13:18, Ruairi Carroll <ruairi.carr...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear List, >>>>> >>>>> I've got an upcoming deployment in Equinix (DC10) and I'm struggling to >>>>> find a provider who can give me a 100Mbit port (With a commit of about >>>>> 5-10Mbit) with a /23 or /24 of public space , for OOB purposes. We had >>>>> hoped to use Equinixs services, however they're limiting us to a single >>>>> public IP. >>>>> >>>>> I'm also open to other solutions - xDSL or similar, but emphasis is on >>>>> cheap and on-net. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> /Ruairi >>