Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
how much resource does an IP/subnet take?
I dont question, BTW, that my setup isnt per hoyle, I had gotten approval
for a contract on our network design to help me get things less "manual"
but our partner company fucked me on that, I had a long spiel post on that
too. on that note, if anybody is hiring, looking for a guy thats really
good at cobblefuckery on a zero dollar budget, im always in the market for
an employer who will treat me like shit while giving me just enough fringe
benefits to make me an asshole for leaving.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Ryan Spott wrote:
> I once did 4050 on a pentium II so ARIN could sniff around and allow us to
> keep a /20 of a /19. :)
>
> 30 minutes to boot that little baby.
>
> ryan
>
>
> --
> D. Ryan Spott | Iron Goat Networks, llc
> broadband | telco | colo | community
> PO Box 1232 / 603 W. Stevens Sultan, WA 98284
> 360-799-0552 | gtalk:rsp...@irongoat.net
>
> On Jan 5, 2015, at 11:04, Josh Luthman
> wrote:
>
> More than 255 addresses on ONE interface?
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:59 PM, That One Guy
> wrote:
>
>> This is a transition on this particular project, moving all the IPs from
>> a powercode BMU to an intermediary router, but some of our sites could
>> easily exceed this number.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Josh Luthman <
>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 255 until 2.2 kernel which is like a bazillion. I'm sure MT is using a
>>> later version of the kernel.
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
>>>
I've never done 20, but I also don't know what it would be. Usually
when we are doing more than a couple, it is a transition kind of thing
while we are preparing a new link or something.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:23 AM, That One Guy <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We recently found that our Fortigates have a limit to the number of
> IPs you can assign to a single interface, pretty low at 20 something. We
> havent found a limit in the Imagestreams.
>
> Is there a limit on Mikrotik?
>
> --
> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that
> the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do
> not
> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>
--
--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
>> parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
>> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
>> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>>
>
>
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
I once did 4050 on a pentium II so ARIN could sniff around and allow us to keep
a /20 of a /19. :)
30 minutes to boot that little baby.
ryan
--
D. Ryan Spott | Iron Goat Networks, llc
broadband | telco | colo | community
PO Box 1232 / 603 W. Stevens Sultan, WA 98284
360-799-0552 | gtalk:rsp...@irongoat.net
> On Jan 5, 2015, at 11:04, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> More than 255 addresses on ONE interface?
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:59 PM, That One Guy
>> wrote:
>> This is a transition on this particular project, moving all the IPs from a
>> powercode BMU to an intermediary router, but some of our sites could easily
>> exceed this number.
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Josh Luthman
>>> wrote:
>>> 255 until 2.2 kernel which is like a bazillion. I'm sure MT is using a
>>> later version of the kernel.
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
>>>
I've never done 20, but I also don't know what it would be. Usually when
we are doing more than a couple, it is a transition kind of thing while we
are preparing a new link or something.
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:23 AM, That One Guy
> wrote:
> We recently found that our Fortigates have a limit to the number of IPs
> you can assign to a single interface, pretty low at 20 something. We
> havent found a limit in the Imagestreams.
>
> Is there a limit on Mikrotik?
>
> --
> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
> parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do
> not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
--
--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
>> parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't
>> get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a
>> hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>
Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
*ouch*
That sounds painful :/
josh reynolds :: chief information officer
spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.com
On 01/05/2015 12:31 PM, That One Guy wrote:
no, its got to do with prepping to move an entirely bridged network to
routed, then having the funding for the routers cut out from under you,
sore subject, but it is what it is and it works.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Josh Luthman
wrote:
Kim poops!!! It's true!!!
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
I just watched an old PBS Frontline about No. Korea last night.
“The Interview” must have gotten all their info from that episode.
Including the bit about Kim Jong Un not pooping. Cracked me up.
*From:* Mike Hammett
*Sent:* Monday, January 05, 2015 2:20 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
Honeypots?
Or if you saw The Interview... Honeydicks are also a thing.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
--
*From: *"Bill Prince"
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Monday, January 5, 2015 3:19:24 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
I can not imagine what circumstance would require something like that.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 11:09 AM, That One Guy
wrote:
lol, no the fortigate limit of 25. I have 94 to put on an interface
right now
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Josh Luthman <
j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
More than 255 addresses on ONE interface?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:59 PM, That One Guy
wrote:
This is a transition on this particular project, moving all the IPs
from a powercode BMU to an intermediary router, but some of our sites could
easily exceed this number.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Josh Luthman <
j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
255 until 2.2 kernel which is like a bazillion. I'm sure MT is using
a later version of the kernel.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Bill Prince
wrote:
I've never done 20, but I also don't know what it would be. Usually
when we are doing more than a couple, it is a transition kind of thing
while we are preparing a new link or something.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:23 AM, That One Guy <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
We recently found that our Fortigates have a limit to the number of
IPs you can assign to a single interface, pretty low at 20 something. We
havent found a limit in the Imagestreams.
Is there a limit on Mikrotik?
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember
that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if
you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do
not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
--
--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that
the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that
the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
--
--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
no, its got to do with prepping to move an entirely bridged network to
routed, then having the funding for the routers cut out from under you,
sore subject, but it is what it is and it works.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Josh Luthman
wrote:
> Kim poops!!! It's true!!!
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
>
>> I just watched an old PBS Frontline about No. Korea last night.
>> “The Interview” must have gotten all their info from that episode.
>> Including the bit about Kim Jong Un not pooping. Cracked me up.
>>
>> *From:* Mike Hammett
>> *Sent:* Monday, January 05, 2015 2:20 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
>>
>> Honeypots?
>>
>> Or if you saw The Interview... Honeydicks are also a thing.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>>
>> --
>> *From: *"Bill Prince"
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Monday, January 5, 2015 3:19:24 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
>>
>> I can not imagine what circumstance would require something like that.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 11:09 AM, That One Guy
>> wrote:
>>
>>> lol, no the fortigate limit of 25. I have 94 to put on an interface
>>> right now
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Josh Luthman <
>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> More than 255 addresses on ONE interface?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Josh Luthman
>>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>>> Suite 1337
>>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:59 PM, That One Guy >>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is a transition on this particular project, moving all the IPs
>>>>> from a powercode BMU to an intermediary router, but some of our sites
>>>>> could
>>>>> easily exceed this number.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Josh Luthman <
>>>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 255 until 2.2 kernel which is like a bazillion. I'm sure MT is using
>>>>>> a later version of the kernel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Josh Luthman
>>>>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>>>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>>>>> Suite 1337
>>>>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Bill Prince
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've never done 20, but I also don't know what it would be. Usually
>>>>>>> when we are doing more than a couple, it is a transition kind of thing
>>>>>>> while we are preparing a new link or something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:23 AM, That One Guy <
>>>>>>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We recently found that our Fortigates have a limit to the number of
>>>>>>>> IPs you can assign to a single interface, pretty low at 20 something.
>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>> havent found a limit in the Imagestreams.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is there a limit on Mikrotik?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember
>>>>>>>> that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you.
>>>>>>>> Therefore, if
>>>>>>>> you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all
>>>>>>>> means, do
>>>>>>>> not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> bp
>>>>>>> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that
>>>>> the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
>>>>> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do
>>>>> not
>>>>> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that
>>> the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
>>> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
>>> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> bp
>> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>>
>>
>
>
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
Kim poops!!! It's true!!!
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
> I just watched an old PBS Frontline about No. Korea last night.
> “The Interview” must have gotten all their info from that episode.
> Including the bit about Kim Jong Un not pooping. Cracked me up.
>
> *From:* Mike Hammett
> *Sent:* Monday, January 05, 2015 2:20 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
>
> Honeypots?
>
> Or if you saw The Interview... Honeydicks are also a thing.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>
> --
> *From: *"Bill Prince"
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Monday, January 5, 2015 3:19:24 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
>
> I can not imagine what circumstance would require something like that.
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 11:09 AM, That One Guy
> wrote:
>
>> lol, no the fortigate limit of 25. I have 94 to put on an interface right
>> now
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Josh Luthman > > wrote:
>>
>>> More than 255 addresses on ONE interface?
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:59 PM, That One Guy
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is a transition on this particular project, moving all the IPs
>>>> from a powercode BMU to an intermediary router, but some of our sites could
>>>> easily exceed this number.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Josh Luthman <
>>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 255 until 2.2 kernel which is like a bazillion. I'm sure MT is using
>>>>> a later version of the kernel.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Josh Luthman
>>>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>>>> Suite 1337
>>>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Bill Prince
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've never done 20, but I also don't know what it would be. Usually
>>>>>> when we are doing more than a couple, it is a transition kind of thing
>>>>>> while we are preparing a new link or something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:23 AM, That One Guy <
>>>>>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We recently found that our Fortigates have a limit to the number of
>>>>>>> IPs you can assign to a single interface, pretty low at 20 something. We
>>>>>>> havent found a limit in the Imagestreams.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there a limit on Mikrotik?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember
>>>>>>> that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you.
>>>>>>> Therefore, if
>>>>>>> you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all
>>>>>>> means, do
>>>>>>> not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> bp
>>>>>> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that
>>>> the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
>>>> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
>>>> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that
>> the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
>> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
>> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> bp
> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>
>
Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
I just watched an old PBS Frontline about No. Korea last night.
“The Interview” must have gotten all their info from that episode. Including
the bit about Kim Jong Un not pooping. Cracked me up.
From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 2:20 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
Honeypots?
Or if you saw The Interview... Honeydicks are also a thing.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
From: "Bill Prince"
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 3:19:24 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
I can not imagine what circumstance would require something like that.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 11:09 AM, That One Guy wrote:
lol, no the fortigate limit of 25. I have 94 to put on an interface right now
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Josh Luthman
wrote:
More than 255 addresses on ONE interface?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:59 PM, That One Guy
wrote:
This is a transition on this particular project, moving all the IPs from
a powercode BMU to an intermediary router, but some of our sites could easily
exceed this number.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Josh Luthman
wrote:
255 until 2.2 kernel which is like a bazillion. I'm sure MT is using a
later version of the kernel.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
I've never done 20, but I also don't know what it would be. Usually
when we are doing more than a couple, it is a transition kind of thing while we
are preparing a new link or something.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:23 AM, That One Guy
wrote:
We recently found that our Fortigates have a limit to the number of
IPs you can assign to a single interface, pretty low at 20 something. We havent
found a limit in the Imagestreams.
Is there a limit on Mikrotik?
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember
that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use
a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
--
--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't
get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a
hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't
get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a
hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
--
--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
Honeypots?
Or if you saw The Interview... Honeydicks are also a thing.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Prince"
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 3:19:24 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
I can not imagine what circumstance would require something like that.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 11:09 AM, That One Guy < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com >
wrote:
lol, no the fortigate limit of 25. I have 94 to put on an interface right now
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Josh Luthman < j...@imaginenetworksllc.com >
wrote:
More than 255 addresses on ONE interface?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:59 PM, That One Guy < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com >
wrote:
This is a transition on this particular project, moving all the IPs from a
powercode BMU to an intermediary router, but some of our sites could easily
exceed this number.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Josh Luthman < j...@imaginenetworksllc.com >
wrote:
255 until 2.2 kernel which is like a bazillion. I'm sure MT is using a later
version of the kernel.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Bill Prince < part15...@gmail.com > wrote:
I've never done 20, but I also don't know what it would be. Usually when we are
doing more than a couple, it is a transition kind of thing while we are
preparing a new link or something.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:23 AM, That One Guy < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com >
wrote:
We recently found that our Fortigates have a limit to the number of IPs you can
assign to a single interface, pretty low at 20 something. We havent found a
limit in the Imagestreams.
Is there a limit on Mikrotik?
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts
you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them
together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. --
IBM maintenance manual, 1925
--
--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts
you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them
together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. --
IBM maintenance manual, 1925
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts
you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them
together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. --
IBM maintenance manual, 1925
--
--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
I can not imagine what circumstance would require something like that.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 11:09 AM, That One Guy
wrote:
> lol, no the fortigate limit of 25. I have 94 to put on an interface right
> now
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Josh Luthman
> wrote:
>
>> More than 255 addresses on ONE interface?
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:59 PM, That One Guy
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is a transition on this particular project, moving all the IPs from
>>> a powercode BMU to an intermediary router, but some of our sites could
>>> easily exceed this number.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Josh Luthman <
>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>>
255 until 2.2 kernel which is like a bazillion. I'm sure MT is using a
later version of the kernel.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Bill Prince
wrote:
> I've never done 20, but I also don't know what it would be. Usually
> when we are doing more than a couple, it is a transition kind of thing
> while we are preparing a new link or something.
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:23 AM, That One Guy <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We recently found that our Fortigates have a limit to the number of
>> IPs you can assign to a single interface, pretty low at 20 something. We
>> havent found a limit in the Imagestreams.
>>
>> Is there a limit on Mikrotik?
>>
>> --
>> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that
>> the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if
>> you
>> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do
>> not
>> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> bp
> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
>>> parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
>>> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
>>> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
> parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>
--
--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
What the...
josh reynolds :: chief information officer
spitwspots :: www.spitwspots.com
On 01/05/2015 10:09 AM, That One Guy wrote:
lol, no the fortigate limit of 25. I have 94 to put on an interface right
now
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Josh Luthman
wrote:
More than 255 addresses on ONE interface?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:59 PM, That One Guy
wrote:
This is a transition on this particular project, moving all the IPs from
a powercode BMU to an intermediary router, but some of our sites could
easily exceed this number.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Josh Luthman <
j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
255 until 2.2 kernel which is like a bazillion. I'm sure MT is using a
later version of the kernel.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
I've never done 20, but I also don't know what it would be. Usually
when we are doing more than a couple, it is a transition kind of thing
while we are preparing a new link or something.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:23 AM, That One Guy <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
We recently found that our Fortigates have a limit to the number of
IPs you can assign to a single interface, pretty low at 20 something. We
havent found a limit in the Imagestreams.
Is there a limit on Mikrotik?
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that
the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
--
--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
Augh why did you ask Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jan 5, 2015 2:38 PM, "Josh Reynolds" wrote: > Why in the world would you be doing this? > > On January 5, 2015 9:23:16 AM AKST, That One Guy < > thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> We recently found that our Fortigates have a limit to the number of IPs >> you can assign to a single interface, pretty low at 20 something. We havent >> found a limit in the Imagestreams. >> >> Is there a limit on Mikrotik? >> >> -- >> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the >> parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you >> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not >> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 >> > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >
Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
Why in the world would you be doing this? On January 5, 2015 9:23:16 AM AKST, That One Guy wrote: >We recently found that our Fortigates have a limit to the number of IPs >you >can assign to a single interface, pretty low at 20 something. We havent >found a limit in the Imagestreams. > >Is there a limit on Mikrotik? > >-- >All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that >the >parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you >can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do >not >use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
lol, no the fortigate limit of 25. I have 94 to put on an interface right
now
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Josh Luthman
wrote:
> More than 255 addresses on ONE interface?
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:59 PM, That One Guy
> wrote:
>
>> This is a transition on this particular project, moving all the IPs from
>> a powercode BMU to an intermediary router, but some of our sites could
>> easily exceed this number.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Josh Luthman <
>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 255 until 2.2 kernel which is like a bazillion. I'm sure MT is using a
>>> later version of the kernel.
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
>>>
I've never done 20, but I also don't know what it would be. Usually
when we are doing more than a couple, it is a transition kind of thing
while we are preparing a new link or something.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:23 AM, That One Guy <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We recently found that our Fortigates have a limit to the number of
> IPs you can assign to a single interface, pretty low at 20 something. We
> havent found a limit in the Imagestreams.
>
> Is there a limit on Mikrotik?
>
> --
> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that
> the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do
> not
> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>
--
--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
>> parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
>> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
>> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>>
>
>
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
More than 255 addresses on ONE interface?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:59 PM, That One Guy
wrote:
> This is a transition on this particular project, moving all the IPs from a
> powercode BMU to an intermediary router, but some of our sites could easily
> exceed this number.
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Josh Luthman > wrote:
>
>> 255 until 2.2 kernel which is like a bazillion. I'm sure MT is using a
>> later version of the kernel.
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
>>
>>> I've never done 20, but I also don't know what it would be. Usually
>>> when we are doing more than a couple, it is a transition kind of thing
>>> while we are preparing a new link or something.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:23 AM, That One Guy >> > wrote:
>>>
We recently found that our Fortigates have a limit to the number of IPs
you can assign to a single interface, pretty low at 20 something. We havent
found a limit in the Imagestreams.
Is there a limit on Mikrotik?
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that
the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> bp
>>> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
> parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>
Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
This is a transition on this particular project, moving all the IPs from a
powercode BMU to an intermediary router, but some of our sites could easily
exceed this number.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Josh Luthman
wrote:
> 255 until 2.2 kernel which is like a bazillion. I'm sure MT is using a
> later version of the kernel.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
>
>> I've never done 20, but I also don't know what it would be. Usually when
>> we are doing more than a couple, it is a transition kind of thing while we
>> are preparing a new link or something.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:23 AM, That One Guy
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We recently found that our Fortigates have a limit to the number of IPs
>>> you can assign to a single interface, pretty low at 20 something. We havent
>>> found a limit in the Imagestreams.
>>>
>>> Is there a limit on Mikrotik?
>>>
>>> --
>>> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
>>> parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
>>> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
>>> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> bp
>> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>>
>
>
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
255 until 2.2 kernel which is like a bazillion. I'm sure MT is using a
later version of the kernel.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
> I've never done 20, but I also don't know what it would be. Usually when
> we are doing more than a couple, it is a transition kind of thing while we
> are preparing a new link or something.
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:23 AM, That One Guy
> wrote:
>
>> We recently found that our Fortigates have a limit to the number of IPs
>> you can assign to a single interface, pretty low at 20 something. We havent
>> found a limit in the Imagestreams.
>>
>> Is there a limit on Mikrotik?
>>
>> --
>> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
>> parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
>> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
>> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> bp
> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>
Re: [AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
I've never done 20, but I also don't know what it would be. Usually when
we are doing more than a couple, it is a transition kind of thing while we
are preparing a new link or something.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:23 AM, That One Guy
wrote:
> We recently found that our Fortigates have a limit to the number of IPs
> you can assign to a single interface, pretty low at 20 something. We havent
> found a limit in the Imagestreams.
>
> Is there a limit on Mikrotik?
>
> --
> All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
> parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
> can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
> use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>
--
--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
[AFMUG] Secondary IP port assignment limits
We recently found that our Fortigates have a limit to the number of IPs you can assign to a single interface, pretty low at 20 something. We havent found a limit in the Imagestreams. Is there a limit on Mikrotik? -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
