> On Nov 10, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > because a /23 of ipv6 is very large.... :)
That’s a good reason not to use a /23, but not a good reason not to use IPv6. > > also, it's hard to use ipv6 when your last miile provider doesn't offer it... > > #fios > No it’s not… #tunnelbroker Owen > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Bill Woodcock <wo...@pch.net> wrote: >> 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 >>>>