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 >>>> >>> >
