Hi,
I am hoping for a bit of advice. We are rolling out IPv6 en mass now to peers
and I am finding that our strict IPv6 ingress prefix filter is meaning a lot
of peers are sending me zero prefixes. Upon investigation I determine they
have de-agregrated their /32 for routing reasons / non
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Ben S. Butler ben.but...@c2internet.netwrote:
3 Don't use filters, generate it from an IRR?
Given there is no right answer what is considered to be the best fit one?
This sounds like your best bet. Assuming you can find an IRR with
comprehensive enough
I've had issues and experience with many types of UPSes, including HP (probably
OEM'd from someone else), APC, EATON/Powerware, and Liebert/Emerson. I keep
coming back to APC. Solid units, and are always slightly 'ahead' in
technology. Sure, I've seen each model have failures and even faults
Hi,
Yes, but a multi-homing customer would have PI space from an appropriately
filtered block allowing /24 PI v4 or /48 PI v6. An ISP would have their own
RIR PA allocation /22 to /19 v4 or /29, /32 v6 block that are from blocks that
follow along the lines of minimum assignment size for that
Are these UPS units going inside the racks? Would it not be better to do
something in the power room with an inverter on the circuits that feed the
racks, such as a large Outback unit with sufficient battery capacity?
http://www.amazon.com/OutBack-Inverter-3600-Watts-Volt/dp/B002MWAAYU
With one
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Ben S. Butler
ben.but...@c2internet.net wrote:
So what is the best answer.
1 Don't advertise islands of space under assignment minimum, without
providing a covering aggregate route?
2 Don't use strict filters, they don't work well and
On 11/14/2012 6:02 PM, William Herrin wrote:
and send a polite email to the POC to the effect of, Please beware
that because you have not offered a covering route matching your
allocation, your IPv6 network is not reachable from ours. IPv6 is not
IPv4: end users requiring /48s for multihoming
Hi,
Yes, nice. But... It does not address the case when this is not the ISPs
customers but the ISP (read content provider) that operates globally but
without a network interconnecting their routers. They then advertise a /24 v4
and /48 v6 at each Internet exchange that they are connected to.
On 11/14/2012 8:08 PM, Ben S. Butler wrote:
Hi,
Yes, nice. But... It does not address the case when this is not the ISPs
customers but the ISP (read content provider) that operates globally but
without a network interconnecting their routers. They then advertise a /24
v4 and /48 v6 at
Saw yet another attempt at a solution pop up to try and deal with the
lack of a MAC address in DHCPv6 messages.
I've been giving this some thought about how this should be best
accomplished without requiring that host implementations of DHCPv6 be
modified.
Taking advantage of the relay-agent
FWIW ISC DHCPd listens on raw sockets.
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, horrors, part of my infrastructure needs raw socket data?
We should ban that, for security. Who needs those pesky switches anyways?
George William Herbert
Sent from
In a message written on Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 01:10:57PM +, Ben S. Butler
wrote:
I am hoping for a bit of advice. We are rolling out IPv6 en mass now to
peers and I am finding that our strict IPv6 ingress prefix filter is
meaning a lot of peers are sending me zero prefixes. Upon
What about
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-03
?
--
Tim
On 14 Nov 2012, at 17:46, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote:
Saw yet another attempt at a solution pop up to try and deal with the
lack of a MAC address in DHCPv6 messages.
I've been giving
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Ben S. Butler
ben.but...@c2internet.net wrote:
Yes, nice. But... It does not address the case when this is
not the ISPs customers but the ISP (read content provider)
that operates globally but without a network interconnecting
their routers.
Hi Ben,
That case
Well I guess someone is already working on it, +1
Since this is a relay-only message, though. I think it would be
better as a sub-option of RFC 6422 with a requirement that
relay-agents drop the option if the client tries to source it. But, I
guess it's splitting hairs.
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012
Hi everyone,
I'm looking for a gigabit ethernet media converter to go from SFP
plugable optics to 802.3at POE+. The application involves wireless
access points some distance from a central switch for a venue.
Difficulty: in my old age, I've become allergic to installing
completely unmanaged
On Nov 14, 2012, at 10:06 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Ben S. Butler
ben.but...@c2internet.net wrote:
Yes, nice. But... It does not address the case when this is
not the ISPs customers but the ISP (read content provider)
that operates globally
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:57:06 -0500, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com
wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm looking for a gigabit ethernet media converter to go from SFP
plugable optics to 802.3at POE+. The application involves wireless
access points some distance from a central switch for a venue.
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Michael Smith mksm...@mac.com wrote:
I guess I'm confused. I have a /32 that I have broken up
into /47's for my discrete POP locations. I don't have a
network between them, by design. And, I won't
announce the /32 covering route because there is
no single
On 2012-11-12, at 14:43, Jim Mercer j...@reptiles.org wrote:
Is there a common practice of providers to vet / validate requests to
advertise
blocks?
Yes, most providers whose customers request a particular route to be pointed
towards them will ask for ambiguous instructions, written on
On 11/14/12 2:40 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2012-11-12, at 14:43, Jim Mercer j...@reptiles.org wrote:
Is there a common practice of providers to vet / validate requests to advertise
blocks?
Yes, most providers whose customers request a particular route to be pointed
towards them will ask for
On Nov 14, 2012, at 1:50 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Michael Smith mksm...@mac.com wrote:
I guess I'm confused. I have a /32 that I have broken up
into /47's for my discrete POP locations. I don't have a
network between them, by design. And, I
Hi,
Again, I thought the discussion was about PI, not PA. I don't announce any
PA.
My point, which I feel may be getting lost, and for which ARIN may already have
policies in place for, is that an IP assignment is made out of a block with a
defined minimum assignment size.
Now some people
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Michael Smith mksm...@mac.com wrote:
On Nov 14, 2012, at 1:50 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Michael Smith mksm...@mac.com wrote:
I guess I'm confused. I have a /32 that I have broken up
into /47's for my discrete
Careful though cause the crayons must be crayola approved
Sent from my iPhone
On 2012-11-14, at 5:28 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 11/14/12 2:40 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2012-11-12, at 14:43, Jim Mercer j...@reptiles.org wrote:
Is there a common practice of providers to vet /
Another big-name-big-$$$ vendor whose name begins with C. Sounds like
a conspiracy to me
On 11/14/2012 5:09 PM, Mark Gauvin wrote:
Careful though cause the crayons must be crayola approved
Sent from my iPhone
On 2012-11-14, at 5:28 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On
Hi
I am search one or more carrier for connect 3 sites in Brasil, Mexico
and Argentina to one of our pop
in USA or Spain.
if you have a name and contact ;=)
best regards
Olivier
27 matches
Mail list logo
