because a /23 of ipv6 is very large.... :) also, it's hard to use ipv6 when your last miile provider doesn't offer it...
#fios 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 >>>
