Re: 10G switchrecommendaton

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Rodrick Brown wrote: > Not to mention Arista's cli runs a busybox Linux inside! > > Sent from my iPhone > > > Last I checked, Arista used Fedora Linux, with x86 dual-core CPUs and 4GB RAM. Their CLI was written in Python or Perl as well, and they encourage hacking

BFD over every 802.1ax member port?

Hi, I want to track individual member links inside a .1ax trunk (LAG) using BFD since the best timer that we can get with efm-oam is around 100ms as opposed to BFD which can get as low as 10ms (on most platforms). Its while "googling" on this that i came across work being done in IETF that describ

RE: LX sfp minimum range

Yes, you are correct, I had them backwards in my head when I typed that. On Behalf Of Pierre-Yves Maunier Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:27 PM To: George Bonser Subject: Re: LX sfp minimum range It's the contrary. SX only works on multimode fibre, not on singlemode. LX can work on both.

Re: 10G switchrecommendaton

Not to mention Arista's cli runs a busybox Linux inside! Sent from my iPhone On Jan 26, 2012, at 9:02 PM, Tom Sands wrote: > Arista is good but depends on the application. They have some of the most Jr > code but they are coming along with features fast. Weve chosen them for > several applic

RE: 10G switchrecommendaton

> -Original Message- > From: Eddie Parra > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 1:23 PM > To: Rodrick Brown > Cc: nanog list > Subject: Re: 10G switchrecommendaton > > +1 Arista > > -Eddie Good gear, I have some deployed with good results. I have some Brocade TurboIrons, too. Depends o

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:47:15 PST, Owen DeLong said: > Where the definition of (efficient) is highly flexible and almost > certainly does not refer to bit conservation. There's a reason we put 128 bits in there. :) pgpZa0WH9QExQ.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On Jan 26, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Tim Chown wrote: > > On 26 Jan 2012, at 16:53, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Jan 26, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Ray Soucy wrote: >> >>> Does this mean we're also looking at residential allocations larger >>> than a /64 as the norm? >>> >> >> We certainly should be. I still t

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

In message <20120127015842.gh6...@angus.ind.wpi.edu>, Chuck Anderson writes: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 07:53:18PM +, George Bonser wrote: > > > Even if you don't see an advantage to GUA, can you point to a > > > disadvantage? > > > > Just a matter of convenience. If you have a lot of managem

RE: AT&T and IPv6 Launch

-Original Message- From: Jeff Hartley [mailto:intensifysecur...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:04 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: AT&T and IPv6 Launch Chris Chase gave a good presentation on this subject in ~November. Here's the abstract, quoted from: http://gogonet.gogo6

RE: 10G switchrecommendaton

Arista is good but depends on the application. They have some of the most Jr code but they are coming along with features fast. Weve chosen them for several applications when compared to Brocade, Cisco, Extreme, And Blade. There pricing is on par with the others.

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 07:53:18PM +, George Bonser wrote: > > Even if you don't see an advantage to GUA, can you point to a > > disadvantage? > > Just a matter of convenience. If you have a lot of management IPs or some > other IP addresses that are never going to need internet access (an a

RE: 10G switchrecommendaton

Check out Arista's white papers on low-latency networking, the use of merchant silicon, and queueing theory applied to serialization delay. -Original Message- From: James Braunegg [mailto:james.braun...@micron21.com] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:28 PM To: Eddie Parra; Rodrick Brown

RE: 10G switchrecommendaton

Arista sounds interesting, although never knew of them ! How do they compare price wise / feature wise to Brocade / Juniper / Force10 ? That being said my preference is the S4810 - Force10 Kindest Regards James Braunegg W:  1300 769 972  |  M:  0488 997 207 |  D:  (03) 9751 7616 E:   james.brau

Re: Akamai/Integra issue?

Akamai has a 24/7 NOC, n...@akamai.com or +1-617-444-3007. These are published at and other places. Akamai does not watch NANOG-l 24/7. -- TTFN, patrick Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos. On Jan 26, 2012, at 18:15, Thomas Magill wrote:

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On 26 Jan 2012, at 16:53, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jan 26, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Ray Soucy wrote: > >> Does this mean we're also looking at residential allocations larger >> than a /64 as the norm? >> > > We certainly should be. I still think that /48s for residential is the right > answer. > > M

Re: LX sfp minimum range

In some enterprise applications, SX is "good enough" for the distances at hand, and SX optics are cheap... On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Pierre-Yves Maunier wrote: > 2012/1/26 George Bonser > > > > > SX can actually be a little more versatile. LX works only over single > > mode fiber. SX is

Re: LX sfp minimum range

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:48:05PM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 13:47, David Storandt wrote: > > You can put a 3dB or 5dB optical pad on the link if the receiver can't > > handle zero-distance optical power. > > As I recall, the problem may not only be the power > (whic

RE: Akamai/Integra issue?

I worked with Akamai this morning but by the time they got someone to work with me the issue had resolved itself. They didn't know of any cause from their end. All seems fine now though. -Original Message- From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rube...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Re: 10G switchrecommendaton

arista

Re: LX sfp minimum range

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 13:47, David Storandt wrote: > You can put a 3dB or 5dB optical pad on the link if the receiver can't > handle zero-distance optical power. As I recall, the problem may not only be the power (which can cause receiver saturation), but issue that fibre paths shorter than (ar

RE: Who is IANA, these days?

Hi Jay, Jay Ashworth wrote: > Specifically, who manages the TCP and UDP port number registries? Us. The registry is here: http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xml although it loads faster as: http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-n

Re: LX sfp minimum range

2012/1/26 George Bonser > > SX can actually be a little more versatile. LX works only over single > mode fiber. SX is designed to work over either. As long as you have SX at > both ends, you can connect them with either single or multimode fiber as > long as the fiber type is consistent over t

Re: LX sfp minimum range

2012/1/26 Pierre-Yves Maunier > > > 2012/1/26 Holmes,David A > > I have found that -5dB or -10dB attenuators must be used on the send or >> receive strands between Cisco LX connected switches at relatively short >> distances of < 1 km over standard singlemode fiber. >> >> Other Vendors' SFPs rat

Who is IANA, these days?

Specifically, who manages the TCP and UDP port number registries? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com

Re: Choice of address for IPv6 default gateway

I have sites using "all of the above", and concur with Owen's comment regarding it being a "personal preference" issue. RA route learning simply "works", and I (surprisingly) have not yet had problems where the high/med/low settings were not correctly honored (95% Cent/Deb environments, FWIW). FA

Re: AT&T and IPv6 Launch

Chris Chase gave a good presentation on this subject in ~November. Here's the abstract, quoted from: http://gogonet.gogo6.com/profile/ChrisChase | |     Posted by Chris Chase on October 28, 2011 at 5:59pm |     Send Message   View Blog | | IPv6 service at AT&T. | | AT&T has dual stack service ava

Re: mysql.org down?

Yeah down here too. AS8473 (BAHNHOF Bahnhof AB) seems having some issue. On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Ryan Rawdon wrote: > > On Jan 25, 2012, at 6:51 PM, Ingo Flaschberger wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > from my location / austria, mysql.org seems to be down: > > traceroute to 213.136.52.82 (213.1

Re: Hotmail.com/live.com email admin needed

Me too please, seriously. We have a blocked /24 but no information on why in SNDS. No response to our postmaster.live.com attempt either. Thank you. On 26 January 2012 13:28, Adam Hobach wrote: > I apologize but we are not getting anywhere regarding spam issues with > Hotmail.com/live.com thr

Re: volunteer.gov dns admin

In message , Basil Baby writes: > We tried many ways to get a dns admin for volunteer.gov. If anyone > available in this list, please contact me off the list. > Sorry to spam on this list. > > Thanks, > -Basil Baby I'd say use "whois" but DOTGOV's whois server is a joke. Can all the US citizen

Hotmail.com/live.com email admin needed

I apologize but we are not getting anywhere regarding spam issues with Hotmail.com/live.com through the normal support channels. Can someone from hotmail please contact me off-list? Let me know... Thanks, Adam Adam Hobach CyberLynk Sales/Suppor

Scaled broadband access with pppoe

Hi, I am looking for pointers or stories from the field concerning the operational challenges faced by operators of large scale broadband access, particularly those who serve lots of PPPoE. I'm interested in hearining about your pain, what heroics you have had to jump thru to get what you wa

Re: 10G switchrecommendaton

+1 Arista -Eddie On Jan 26, 2012, at 1:02 PM, Rodrick Brown wrote: > http://www.aristanetworks.com/ > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 26, 2012, at 3:20 PM, Deric Kwok wrote: > >> Hi all >> >> I would like to have 10G switchrecommendaton >> Ipref software can test around 9.2G but we can

Re: volunteer.gov dns admin

. Sorry to spam on this list. Thanks, -Basil Baby __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6830 (20120126) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, v

Re: AT&T and IPv6 Launch

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:18:07 -0500, Brandon Ewing wrote: Pace 4111N Netgear 7550 B90 Netgear 6200 A90 Motorola 3360 Those are the devices for which they will be testing and releasing IPv6 capable firmware. I wouldn't expect the decade old Westel 2100 to ever see IPv6 capability. I use

Re: 10G switchrecommendaton

Let's see how many vendors you get listed! I would go for Brocade. -- Leigh Porter On 26 Jan 2012, at 20:24, "Deric Kwok" wrote: > Hi all > > I would like to have 10G switchrecommendaton > Ipref software can test around 9.2G but we can have congestion over 6G > in single port! > > Thank

Re: 10G switchrecommendaton

Juniper EX4500. -RR On 1/26/12, Deric Kwok wrote: > Hi all > > I would like to have 10G switchrecommendaton > Ipref software can test around 9.2G but we can have congestion over 6G > in single port! > > Thank you > >

Re: 10G switchrecommendaton

http://www.aristanetworks.com/ Sent from my iPhone On Jan 26, 2012, at 3:20 PM, Deric Kwok wrote: > Hi all > > I would like to have 10G switchrecommendaton > Ipref software can test around 9.2G but we can have congestion over 6G > in single port! > > Thank you >

volunteer.gov dns admin

We tried many ways to get a dns admin for volunteer.gov. If anyone available in this list, please contact me off the list. Sorry to spam on this list. Thanks, -Basil Baby

RE: LX sfp minimum range

> > I believe you've got that backwards. See ciscos's sfp pages. Lx will go > 550m on mm, 10k on sm. (though it doesn't tend to do that well on mm in > my experience. ) I sure did! Thanks for pointing that out. George

RE: LX sfp minimum range

> -Original Message- > From: Jon Heise > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:41 AM > To: Pierre-Yves Maunier > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: LX sfp minimum range > > Awesome, i got some single mode LC LC fiber off monoprice, sounds like > i should be all set for this. Thanks for every

RE: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

> Even if you don't see an advantage to GUA, can you point to a > disadvantage? Just a matter of convenience. If you have a lot of management IPs or some other IP addresses that are never going to need internet access (an array of 10,000 sensors or something) you don't need to dip into your glo

RE: LX sfp minimum range

I have found that -5dB or -10dB attenuators must be used on the send or receive strands between Cisco LX connected switches at relatively short distances of < 1 km over standard singlemode fiber. Other Vendors' SFPs rated up to 25 km do not need attenuators at distances <1 km. -Original Me

Re: DC wiring standards

On 1/26/2012 9:24 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:07:19 EST, Lamar Owen said: What's interesting here is that this is the third book I've seen on Amazon where the used price is higher than the new; Off-topic, but this usually happens when the book has a "new" price l

Re: LX sfp minimum range

Awesome, i got some single mode LC LC fiber off monoprice, sounds like i should be all set for this. Thanks for everyones info - Jon On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Pierre-Yves Maunier wrote: > 2012/1/26 David Storandt > > > You can put a 3dB or 5dB optical pad on the link if the receiver can'

Re: DC wiring standards

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:07:19 EST, Lamar Owen said: > What's interesting here is that this is the third book I've seen on Amazon > where the used price is higher than the new; Off-topic, but this usually happens when the book has a "new" price listed, but is in fact unavailable/out-of-print. So it

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On Jan 26, 2012 8:49 AM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > > > On Jan 26, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: > >> >> On Jan 26, 2012 5:49 AM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Jan 26, 2012, at 2:00 AM, George Bonser wrote: >> > >> > >> Use different GUA ranges for internal and external. It's easy e

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On Jan 26, 2012 8:44 AM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > > > On Jan 26, 2012, at 6:39 AM, Jima wrote: > > > On 2012-01-26, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> If you can't point to some specific advantage of ULA over secondary > >> non-routed GUA prefixes, then, ULA doesn't have a reason to live. > > > > My biggest co

Re: DC wiring standards

On Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:29:03 AM Jay Ashworth wrote: > > 'DC Power System Design for Telecommunications" by Whitham D. Reeve, > > published by Wiley, ISBN (print) 97680471681618 and is available in > > the Wiley online library. > > Disappointingly, that book does *not* appear to be in Saf

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On 1/26/12 7:35 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: 1. You don't want to disclose what addresses you are using on your internal network, including to the rir 2. You require or desire an address plan that your rir may consider wasteful. 3. You don't want to talk to an rir for a variety of personal or

Re: DC wiring standards

- Original Message - > From: "acv" > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:29:03AM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > Disappointingly, that book does *not* appear to be in Safari, unless > > you've misremembered the title... > > It is on Wiley's online library however: > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.c

Re: DC wiring standards

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:29:03AM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > Disappointingly, that book does *not* appear to be in Safari, unless you've > misremembered the title... It is on Wiley's online library however: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/0470045035 Alex > > Cheers, > -- jra

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On Jan 26, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Ray Soucy wrote: > Inline > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Tim Chown wrote: >> Thanks for the comments Ray, a couple of comments in-line. >> >> On 26 Jan 2012, at 12:43, Ray Soucy wrote: >> >>> Local traffic shouldn't need to touch the CPE regardless of ULA or

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On Jan 26, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote: > > On Jan 26, 2012 5:49 AM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 26, 2012, at 2:00 AM, George Bonser wrote: > > > > >> Use different GUA ranges for internal and external. It's easy enough to > > >> get an additional prefix. > > >> > > >>> As

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On Jan 26, 2012, at 6:39 AM, Jima wrote: > On 2012-01-26, Owen DeLong wrote: >> If you can't point to some specific advantage of ULA over secondary >> non-routed GUA prefixes, then, ULA doesn't have a reason to live. > > My biggest concern with secondary non-routed GUA would be source address >

Re: DC wiring standards

> 'DC Power System Design for Telecommunications" by Whitham D. Reeve, > published by Wiley, ISBN (print) 97680471681618 and is available in > the Wiley online library. Disappointingly, that book does *not* appear to be in Safari, unless you've misremembered the title... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R.

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

Inline On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Tim Chown wrote: > Thanks for the comments Ray, a couple of comments in-line. > > On 26 Jan 2012, at 12:43, Ray Soucy wrote: > >> Local traffic shouldn't need to touch the CPE regardless of ULA or >> GUA.  Also note that we already have the link local scope

Re: DC wiring standards

[Digging up an older post; I let a couple of thousand NANOG posts pile up in my NANOG folder] On Tuesday, January 03, 2012 02:40:39 PM Leigh Porter wrote: > Does anybody know where I can find standards for DC cabling for -48v systems? Book Resource that anyone dealing with telecom DC power syste

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On Jan 26, 2012 5:49 AM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > > > On Jan 26, 2012, at 2:00 AM, George Bonser wrote: > > >> Use different GUA ranges for internal and external. It's easy enough to > >> get an additional prefix. > >> > >>> As others have mentioned, things like management interfaces on access > >>

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On 2012-01-26, Owen DeLong wrote: > If you can't point to some specific advantage of ULA over secondary > non-routed GUA prefixes, then, ULA doesn't have a reason to live. My biggest concern with secondary non-routed GUA would be source address selection. If you're trying to talk to something in

Re: LX sfp minimum range

2012/1/26 David Storandt > You can put a 3dB or 5dB optical pad on the link if the receiver can't > handle zero-distance optical power. > We're using SFP LX for a couple of years even in back to back configuration for equipments within the same rack with a 1 meter patch cord without any problem.

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

Thanks for the comments Ray, a couple of comments in-line. On 26 Jan 2012, at 12:43, Ray Soucy wrote: > Local traffic shouldn't need to touch the CPE regardless of ULA or > GUA. Also note that we already have the link local scope for traffic > between hosts on the same link (which is all hosts i

Re: Choice of address for IPv6 default gateway

>> >> Letting a host run slaac and then add a static address is not good >> enough as the slaac address might be chosen for locally generated packets. > > > Define for every application your bind address - locally generated packets > will use it. If it is not possible Use RFC 3484 source addres

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On Jan 26, 2012, at 2:00 AM, George Bonser wrote: >> Use different GUA ranges for internal and external. It's easy enough to >> get an additional prefix. >> >>> As others have mentioned, things like management interfaces on access >> switches, printers, and IP phones would be good candidates to

Re: LX sfp minimum range

You can put a 3dB or 5dB optical pad on the link if the receiver can't handle zero-distance optical power. On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote: > vendors that specify a minimum distance for lx typically spec 2 meters. > > even EX shouldn't spike the receiver at that distance as l

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On 2012-01-26 13:43 , Ray Soucy wrote: > Local traffic shouldn't need to touch the CPE regardless of ULA or > GUA. Also note that we already have the link local scope for traffic > between hosts on the same link (which is all hosts in a typical home > network); ULA only becomes useful if routing i

Re: Choice of address for IPv6 default gateway

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 04:16, Mathias Wolkert wrote: > > Note, you can use RA for default gateway while still using static > addressing. > > Could you give me a little bit more on this? > Easy: have the RAs sent w/ a prefix information option included, but w/o the A bit being set. > It seems

Re: is it -really- global?

On 01/24/2012 03:12 AM, Randy Bush wrote: only intl links on which smokeping shows anything is ashburn to tokyo. but that only covers us, joburg, linx, tokyo Anything that can explain the 50 ms rtt increase during 1 month by the end of the year?

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

Local traffic shouldn't need to touch the CPE regardless of ULA or GUA. Also note that we already have the link local scope for traffic between hosts on the same link (which is all hosts in a typical home network); ULA only becomes useful if routing is involved which is not the typical deployment

RE: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

> In other words, you turn leakage into a feature. You make the fact > that routes might leak add to the uncertainty by having everyone use > the same nets. The more people that leak, the less likely you are to > reach an intended destination. V6 ULA makes it MORE likely a leak will > result in

RE: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

> It was a suggestion a previous homenet session, but the security aspect > of homenet is lagging rather behind the current focus of routing and > prefix delegation. The usefulness of the suggestion does depend on ULA > filtering at borders, and defining the borders. > > I'm interested in views a

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

On 26 Jan 2012, at 11:10, George Bonser wrote: >> The potential advantage of ULAs is that you have a stable internal >> addressing scheme within the homenet, while your ISP-assigned prefix >> may change over time. You run ULAs alongside your PA prefix. ULAs are >> not used for host-based NAT. T

RE: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

> > The potential advantage of ULAs is that you have a stable internal > addressing scheme within the homenet, while your ISP-assigned prefix > may change over time. You run ULAs alongside your PA prefix. ULAs are > not used for host-based NAT. The implication is that all homenet > devices carr

Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

So the issue of ULAs has come up in the IETF homenet WG. The homenet WG is considering routing, prefix delegation, security, naming and service discovery. ULA support is written into RFC6204 (basic IPv6 requirements for CPE routers) so home CPEs should have the capability, and should be able t

Re: Populating BGP from Connected or IGP routes

> > If you're a little bigger and have BGP customers, then I highly recommend > use of BGP communities to control your outbound route filtering. By > defining and setting communties on received customer routes, you can turn > up new BGP customers without having to modify anything beyond the rout

RE: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

> Use different GUA ranges for internal and external. It's easy enough to > get an additional prefix. > > > As others have mentioned, things like management interfaces on access > switches, printers, and IP phones would be good candidates to hide with > ULA. > > Or non-advertised, filtered GUA. W

Re: Choice of address for IPv6 default gateway

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012, Mathias Wolkert wrote: Hi On 1/25/12 23:53 , Owen DeLong wrote: [...] Note, you can use RA for default gateway while still using static addressing. Could you give me a little bit more on this? It seems to me that most platforms stop listening to RAs once you give the

Re: Choice of address for IPv6 default gateway

Thanks everyone for your input! I now have a more complete perspective on the pros and cons of the options available. -Daniel Le 26/01/2012 09:18, Mohacsi Janos a écrit : On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Daniel STICKNEY wrote: I'm having trouble finding authoritative sources on the best common practic

Re: Choice of address for IPv6 default gateway

Hi On 1/25/12 23:53 , Owen DeLong wrote: [...] > Note, you can use RA for default gateway while still using static addressing. Could you give me a little bit more on this? It seems to me that most platforms stop listening to RAs once you give them a static address. Letting a host run slaac and

Re: Choice of address for IPv6 default gateway

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Daniel STICKNEY wrote: I'm having trouble finding authoritative sources on the best common practice (if there even is one) for the choice of address for an IPv6 default gateway in a production server environment (not desktops). For example in IPv4 it is common to chose th

Re: LX sfp minimum range

vendors that specify a minimum distance for lx typically spec 2 meters. even EX shouldn't spike the receiver at that distance as long as the max RX is about +1. On 1/25/12 11:26 , jon Heise wrote: > we are moving a router between 2 data centers and we only have LX sfp's for > connection, is ther