Re: 5.7/5.8 GHz 802.11n dual polarity MIMO through office building glass, 1.5 km distance
+1 on Alvarion. - Reply message - From: "Bryan Fields" Date: Wed, Dec 29, 2010 9:30 am Subject: 5.7/5.8 GHz 802.11n dual polarity MIMO through office building glass, 1.5 km distance To: On 12/29/2010 08:19, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > Most of these regulations are centered on the concern that your > building not look like a tower site. An antenna that is sufficiently > small that it can not be seen from the ground without resorting to > optics may be on their "oh, that's fine" list once they see one > sitting on the table in front of them. Don't forget about OTARD, where so long as you control the space in your lease, no local government regulations can prevent installation of a internet reception radio. Also, the Ubiquiti is crap from a build/reliability standpoint. If you're doing anything serious, it would be worth it to buy a better product. I'm partial to the Alvarion and Motorola PtP links. -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net
Re: The tale of a single MAC
Fresh install and the NICs are Broadcom b57 10/100/1000, I believe. - Reply message - From: "Randy McAnally" Date: Sun, Jan 2, 2011 8:53 am Subject: The tale of a single MAC To: "Graham Wooden" , -- Original Message --- From: Graham Wooden > Hi there, > > I encountered an interesting issue today and I found it so bizarre > so I thought I would share it. > > I brought online a spare server to help offload some of the recent > VMs that I have been deploying. Around the same time this new > machine (we¹ll call it Server-B) came online, another machine which > has been online for about a year now stopped responding to our > monitoring (and we¹ll name this Server-A). I logged into the switch > and saw that the machine that stopped responding was in the same > VLAN as this newly deployed, and then quickly noticed that Server- > A¹s MAC address was now on Server-B¹s switch port. ³What the ...² > was my initial response. > Fresh OS install from scratch or did you load an image from an existing server? What make/model of on-board NICs? -- Randy M.
Re: Verizon FiOS Distribution Switch
Not that this is a requirement, but good practice none the less with this setup... Turn off cdp on the port facing the LEC... -graham - Reply message - From: "Chris Burwell" Date: Wed, Jan 19, 2011 2:56 pm Subject: Verizon FiOS Distribution Switch To: "NANOG" I have a question about a Verizon FiOS business connection with an ethernet hand off and I am hoping that someone out there has done the same thing. We have a FiOS business connection coming into our building. This includes an Ethernet hand off into the usual Actiontec router as well as a block of 13 public IP addresses. The Actiontec router needs to remain in place with its current Public IP address. We have some devices from a vendor plugged into it for Internet access, as well as numerous cable boxes across the building that get their guide information through the coax interface on the router. What we want to do is take the ethernet hand off out of the WAN (RJ-45) interface on the Actiontec router and plug it into a hardened Cisco switch such as a 2950. Our goal here is to use the Cisco switch as a Internet distribution switch since we will have numerous test devices that will need to have a direct connection to the Internet. Our preference is also not to have all of the traffic from these other devices traverse the Actiontec router. I have a few concerns with this setup: Some articles I have read indicate that the hand off from the Verizon ONT may not be a direct Ethernet hand off so the interface it connects to may require a different config (Dialer or something). I am also concerned about any issues if the ONT or some down stream Verizon device may cause if it sees multiple MAC addresses coming across our link. We're not trying to cheat the system or anything, just to modify the Verizon setup to better suit our needs. Any advice or tips would be helpful. - Chris
Re: Network Naming
Punk bands here - Reply message - From: "Christopher" Date: Tue, Jan 25, 2011 3:11 pm Subject: Network Naming To: I usually name them after ex-girlfriends On 01/25/2011 03:50 PM, Nick Olsen wrote: > Whats the rule of thumb for naming gear these days > (routers,switches...etc). Or is there one? > > looks like level3 does something like > interface.routertype.location.level3.net > > Nick Olsen > Network Operations > (855) FLSPEED x106 > > >
Re: v6 Avian Carriers?
I wonder on the carrier would survive a DoS attack ... - Reply message - From: "Scott Morris" Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 9:01 am Subject: v6 Avian Carriers? To: Mmm... Good question. Would it actually come back OUT in a recognizable (de-encapsulated) manner? I'll vote with packet loss, 'cause tunneling seems pretty gross. ;) Scott On 4/1/11 2:41 PM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote: > I was wondering which April 1st this would happen on. Now I know. So if a > v6 carrier swallows a v4 datagram does that count as packet loss or tunneling? > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/ > > > Marc > > >
