Probably not much bulkier to just add a DB9-RJ45 adapter shell like this:
https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=1153
Then, you can just use your existing USB-C to RJ45 cable and have both options.
thanks,
-Randy
- On Sep 23, 2024, at 9:41 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
> i know th
The problem we have run into is that there does not appear to be a "Zayo."
There are dozens of acquisitions of regional providers with completely
different infrastructure and teams and they have done a very poor job at gluing
it all together. I have seen service orders that have gone *years* w
egistration requirements?
> I'm wondering if that's part of the reason for not officially supporting email
> to text.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Eric Tykwinski
> TrueNet, Inc.
> P: 610-429-8300
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: NANOG On Behalf Of
We did a few months back and were told that they are no longer officially
supporting it. It may have to do with the volume that is being sent,
particularly from a single IP address.
We moved to using Twilio's API and it has been much more solid.
thanks,
-Randy
- On Nov 17, 2022, at 11:
- On May 16, 2022, at 2:06 PM, Aled Morris aled.w.mor...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2022 at 18:52, Randy Carpenter < [ mailto:rcar...@network1.net
> |
> rcar...@network1.net ] > wrote:
>> My hope for a successor (MX205 ?) would be more flexibility and
would be awesome.
thanks,
-Randy
--
Randy Carpenter
Vice President - IT Services
First Network Group, Inc.
(800)578-6381, Opt. 1
http://www.network1.net
- On May 16, 2022, at 1:10 PM, Kevin Shymkiw kshym...@gmail.com wrote:
> Adam,
> Simply put - No there isn't a way to oversubscrib
- On Mar 30, 2022, at 12:36 PM, Jared Brown nanog-...@mail.com wrote:
> Randy Carpenter wrote:
>> >> >> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>> >> >> When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
>> >> >
>> >>
- On Mar 30, 2022, at 11:09 AM, Jared Brown nanog-...@mail.com wrote:
> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>> >> When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
>> >
>> > Out of interest, how would this come about?
>>
>> ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing
- On Mar 26, 2022, at 6:16 PM, Abraham Y. Chen ayc...@avinta.com wrote:
> Hi, Tom & Paul:
> 1) " ... hand waved ... ": Through my line of work, I was trained to behave
> exactly the opposite. I am surprised at you jumping to the conclusion, even
> before challenging me about where did I ge
- On Mar 19, 2022, at 6:44 PM, Matt Hoppes
mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net wrote:
> After a time of transition, all clients would be running 128 bit
> addresses (or whatever length was determined to be helpful).
What you describe is literally IPv6.
> Just like with IPv6, there would be
- On Mar 9, 2022, at 4:46 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
wrote:
> ISP here. Deploying gigabit FTTH. No IPv6.
> Customers have 0 complaints about IPv6. 0 Complaints since 2006.
Don't you think there is a responsibility on those who know the technical
details to do things on b
That particular one seems to be saying it will work in a 1G, 10G, or 25G port,
not necessarily that it will allow different speeds on either end
simultaneously... although their doc is pretty sparse :-)
thanks,
-Randy
- On Jan 31, 2022, at 5:25 PM, Jared Brown nanog-...@mail.com wrote:
Are you talking about an SFP28 module that can link at 25Gb, but also 1Gb?
We just put 1Gb SFPs in the SFP28 ports and they work fine. I have not seen a
single module that does both, but admittedly, I have not looked too hard, as
the 1Gb modules are so cheap.
Or, are you talking about a modul
d willing to learn.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Etienne
>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 11:25 PM Bill Blackford < [
>>> mailto:bblackf...@gmail.com
>>> | bblackf...@gmail.com ] > wrote:
>>>> Does this have to be Ethernet? You could look into line gear wi
How is everyone accomplishing 100GbE at farther than 40km distances?
Juniper is saying it can't be done with anything they offer, except for a
single CFP-based line card that is EOL.
There are QSFP "ZR" modules from third parties, but I am hesitant to try those
without there being an equivale
Considering that the typical $5 pieces of bent metal list for ~$500 from most
vendors, can you imagine the price of fancy tool-less rack kits?
Brand new switch: $2,000
Rack kit: $2,000
-Randy
The DACs with the metal release are definitely considerably more robust. They
are, however, sometimes more difficult to unlatch to remove, particularly in
scenarios with tightly-spaced ports.
thanks,
-Randy
- On Apr 23, 2021, at 12:45 PM, George Metz george.m...@gmail.com wrote:
> One o
Any DNSSEC experts that could help with a question about a specific domain?
Off-list please.
thanks,
-Randy
I am working with a client that has recently purchased and transferred an IPv4
block.
Sometime in between when the purchase and research was done and when the
transfer was actually complete, an entity in Asia started illicitly announcing
a larger block that includes the block in question. The
>From the crude illustration in the manual, it looks like they are the same
>rails as EX-4PST-RMK.
We don't have any MX204s, but the EX-4PST-RMK kit is what is used for SRX1500,
for which there is no official part, along with most current EX models. It
looks to be pretty universal. It also ha
I could never get LACP + tagged VLANs to work on SwOS.
Then again, it doesn't work reliably on RouterOS either, so I gave up. Spending
more on hardware that is well supported is worth it versus my time and sanity.
I think Ubiquiti pretty much has the "cheap hardware that works well, but
comme
- On Mar 2, 2020, at 5:37 PM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
> I suppose that one went over my head.
>
> To clarify I am the one with peering in LAX and I'm only seeing the big
> aggregates via the Any2 Easy servers. At the moment I can only infer
> that Google announces aggregate
Old module says "10G_BASE_SX" so that is multimode fiber, which complicates
things a bit.
You can see about getting a single-mode handoff instead, or you may need the
QSFP-SFP+ adapter (or intermediary switch).
thanks,
-Randy
- On Jan 8, 2020, at 2:26 PM, Ben Cannon b...@6by7.net wrote:
gt; tor. 8. aug. 2019 06.47 skrev Randy Carpenter < [ mailto:rcar...@network1.net
> |
> rcar...@network1.net ] >:
>> If you don't require redundant routing engines, there is nothing from Juniper
>> that will cost less and have the capacity you require. In fact, there re
If you don't require redundant routing engines, there is nothing from Juniper
that will cost less and have the capacity you require. In fact, there really
aren't any cheaper MX options at all, other than the kneecapped MX80 and MX104
variants. MX204 is really a nice box. I only wish they had a r
FWIW, I have had IPv6 for many years on my Spectrum (formerly Time Warner)
connection at home. I think it was ~2012 or so. On our company fiber
connection, it has been since ~2010, maybe a little earlier. Granted it took a
little pressure and I’m sure were were the first IPv6 business customer i
Static IPs are useful for connecting to the "home" site. If our main office is
offline for some reason, it is nice to be able to quickly connect via cellular
OoB.
I agree that other solutions (dial-home, or private network) make sense for
satellite sites.
thanks,
-Randy
- On Feb 7, 2018
We use the Oopengear ACM and IM series and they are great. My only current
issue is that Verizon does not allow for static IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously.
You can have one or the other, but not both. *facepalm*
One major point of advice with the Opengear: make sure the firmware is up to
date. Th
Is there anyone from Verizon Wireless that I can talk to regarding IPv6
deployment? I am getting nonsensical answers from my local contacts.
Please contact me off-list.
thanks,
-Randy
It would have been nice if Verizon had starting issuing IPv6 while still
issuing IPv4 for an easy transition. The current situation is that you can't
get static IPv6 at all. I have been bugging them about this for many years.
thanks,
-Randy
- On Mar 8, 2017, at 12:16 PM, David Hubbard dhu
Creating the juniper.net account should be pretty straightforward. If there is
an issue in getting the login to work, I would contact Juniper.
If they are an authorized partner, then $RESELLER would surely have access to
the download.
thanks,
-Randy
- On Apr 13, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Bruce Si
be well taken care of. Maybe
> visit it from time to time, it is hard to give up a good IP block :)
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Randy Carpenter
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:18 PM
> To: NANOG list
> S
y upstream providers.
thanks,
-Randy
- On Feb 19, 2016, at 2:23 PM, chris tknch...@gmail.com wrote:
> Would be great to see a variation of the hoarders tv show where we track
> down hoarders of ipv4 :)
>
> Chris
> On Feb 19, 2016 2:19 PM, "Randy Carpenter" wrote:
&
We have a netblock that was assigned to us out of 65.192.0.0/11 a long time
ago. It has not been used in nearly a decade and still looks to be assigned to
us. I'd love to see it reclaimed and reused by someone who needs it. Please
contact me off list.
thanks,
-Randy
800-$4,500.
>
> Ubiquiti is also working on releasing a 12 port SFP+ with 4x10GBaseT,
> pricing will be very low.
>
> It's out there, you just have to look for it.
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Randy Carpenter
> wrote:
>>
>> I'd love to know
I'd love to know what model Juniper you are getting for $102 per 10GbE port and
where you are getting it. The lowest-end 10GbE switch is the EX4600, which
lists at more like $850 per port. You can get higher-end ones with much larger
port counts and get the cost/port down to about half that, bu
A network that we manage is having trouble getting to several sites. The common
point of failure appears to be Level 3 in Chicago. Connections work fine from
our direct upstream, so it appears that Level 3 is not allowing traffic sourced
from the net block in question. Can someone from Level 3
I have to hand it to EdgeWave (with whom I have a very tumultuous love/hate
relationship) for catching this flood from the very first message.
thanks,
-Randy
- On Oct 25, 2015, at 12:22 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
wrote:
> Can we please get a filter for messages with the
Hey!
New message, please read <http://hurricanedisasterphotos.com/return.php?su9f>
Randy Carpenter
- On Jul 9, 2015, at 4:56 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote:
> Huh, since when does ANY application care about what size address allocation
> you
> have? A V6 address is a 128 bit address period. Any IPv6 aware application
> will handle addresses as a 128 bit variable.
The DH
- On Jul 9, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote:
> In short, I'm saying that you should set your default so it is easily changed
> on
> the fly and then it won't matter if you are wrong.
Absolutely.
Also, since it won't matter if we are wrong, let's use /48 as the d
If you are considering Juniper, check out the MX104. There are bundles
currently that give you similar capacity to an MX80 at a significantly lower
price.
thanks,
-Randy
- On May 19, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Colton Conor colton.co...@gmail.com wrote:
> What options are available for a small, lo
- On May 12, 2015, at 9:36 AM, Paul S. cont...@winterei.se wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> We're shortly going to be getting some 10G SANs, and I was wondering
> what people were using as SAN switches for 10G SANs.
>
> It is my understanding that low buffer sizes make most 'normal' 10G
> ethernet sw
- On May 11, 2015, at 5:36 PM, Peter Baldridge petebaldri...@gmail.com
wrote:
Pi dimensions:
3.37 l (5 front to back)
2.21 w (6 wide)
0.83 h
25 per U (rounding down for Ethernet cable space etc) = 825 pi
>
> You butt up against major power/heat issues here in a
25/50/100 stuff should start coming out around soon, as well, which may drive
pricing down even more.
thanks,
-Randy
- On Apr 8, 2015, at 3:43 PM, Furst, John-Nicholas jofu...@akamai.com wrote:
> If you can wait, you will see the market flooded with 32x100G with the
> ability to down-clo
7700 2 slot looks to only support 1 line card, so 48x10 *or* 12x100
thanks,
-Randy
- On Apr 8, 2015, at 3:16 PM, Klimakhin, Kirill
kirill.klimak...@corebts.com wrote:
> Cisco Nexus 7700 2 slot chassis supports 48 x 10 Gbps, 24 x 40 Gbps, and 12 x
> 100 Gbps.
>
> It is 3RU. Part number is
The Juniper QFX10002-36Q has 36 40GbE Ports. They can be broken out to up to
144 10GbE ports, or 1/3 of them can be used for 100GbE.
So, if you use 6 100GbE ports and still have 72 10GbE ports.
I have not seen one of these yet in person, but it is the smallest form factor
I know of that has t
I've been trying to get an answer from Juniper on this for months. Most of the
responses have been something to the effect of "I have no idea what you are
talking about."
I recently got an answer of "Juniper has no plans to support that."
I am responsible for several small ISPs' networks, and
"Top Quality" ?
Are they aged longer in special barrels? Polished extra nicely?
(Ouch, I think I injured my eyes from the rolling)
thanks,
-Randy
- On Mar 13, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Alec Muffett alec.muff...@gmail.com wrote:
> Perhaps I'm odd, but I find the novelty of this to be amusing:
>
>
I have not tried doing that myself, but the only thing that would even be
possible that I know of is thunderbolt.
A new MacBook Pro and one of these maybe:
http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpresssel_10gbeadapter.html
-Randy
- On Nov 10, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Daniel Rohan dro...@gmail.
- On Oct 12, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Sander Steffann san...@steffann.nl wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Op 11 okt. 2014, om 23:00 heeft Roland Dobbins het
>> volgende
>> geschreven:
>>
>>> On Oct 11, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Tim Raphael wrote:
>>>
From my research, various authorities have recommended that a
My clients typically do DHCP authentication in order to have the ability to
tell which user has which IP at what time. The challenge with doing this with
IPv6 is that the original DHCPv6 spec has no provision for there to be any
unique identifier that can be tied to a particular user like DHCPv
I would love to see the EdgeRouter Lite, or something similar with 2 SFP ports
and 2 1000bT ports (Which would fit with the OP's question). Q-in-Q tunneling
and basic routing required, but not much else for me. Bonus points points for
something like that with redundant power supplies for <$1k
- Original Message -
> On 18-Mar-14 17:54, Niels Bakker wrote:
> > * w...@typo.org (Wayne E Bouchard) [Tue 18 Mar 2014, 23:53 CET]:
> >> I have had to do this at times but it is not strictly allowed by
> >> codes and not at all recommended.
> >
> > It's an active fire hazard. The cables a
Is there some technical reason that BGP is not an option? You could allow them
to announce their AT&T space via you as a secondary.
-Randy
- Original Message -
> This may sound like dumb question, but... I'm used to asking those.
>
> Here's the scenario
>
> Another ISP, say AT&T, is t
OpenGear's newer stuff is Gigabit (SFP even).
I've not seen any real switch made in the last decade that has a problem with
100Mb/s connections. Ancient cisco, maybe had issues.
thanks,
-Randy
--
Randy Carpenter
Vice President - IT Services
First Network Group, Inc.
(800)578-63
> In ipv4 there are 482319 routes and 45235 ASNs in the DFZ this week, of that
> 18619 ~40% announce only one prefix. given the distribution of prefix counts
> across ASNs it's quite reasonable to conclude that the consumption of
> routing table slots is not primarly a property of the number of p
> There is no bit length which allocations of /20's and larger won't
> quickly exhaust. It's not about the number of bits, it's about how we
> choose to use them.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
True, but how many orgs do we expect to fall into that category? If the
majority are getting /32, and onl
Time Warner installed a Juniper EX4200 as the CPE device for us, so we
connected 2 routers and had two separate BGP sessions. They have us a /29 to
accomplish it.
-Randy
On Aug 16, 2013, at 16:53, Justin Vocke wrote:
> The gotcha with that is then you need a switch in front of the routers. I
I'm going to guess that this is not going to meet the OP's request for an XFP,
which would be 10GbE (and not an SFP).
thanks,
-Randy
- Original Message -
> http://www.fiberworks.eu/Webshop/Optical-transceivers/SFP-Bi-Di-/-GPON/Gbit-Ethernet-Bi-Di-1310/1550/SFP-BiDi--125-Gbps-GigE--DDM
- Original Message -
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Randy Carpenter
> wrote:
> >
> > We have recently been having some serious speed issues with YouTube
> > on our home connections, which are all Time Warner Cable.
> > Some searching on forums a
We have recently been having some serious speed issues with YouTube on our home
connections, which are all Time Warner Cable.
Some searching on forums and such revealed a work around:
Block 206.111.0.0/16 at the router.
This makes speeds go from ~1 Mb/s to the full connection speed (30 Mb/s in
- Original Message -
> On 1/15/13 9:31 AM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 17:23 +, Warren Bailey wrote:
> >> I still call a /24 a class c too.. :/ lol
> > More efficient that way - "class c" uses fewer syllables than
> > "slash
> > twenty four" :-)
> >
> You realize
- Original Message -
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2013, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> > My main requirements would be:
> >
> > 1. Something that is *not* network (ethernet or otherwise) (isn't
> > that the point of OOB?)
>
> I don't understand this at all. W
- Original Message -
> Once upon a time, Randy Carpenter said:
> > Likewise OS vendors are increasingly dropping support for
> > installing OSes via serial port (RHEL, VMWare, etc.)
> >
> > At leaset with RHEL, you can make your own boot image that gets ri
My main requirements would be:
1. Something that is *not* network (ethernet or otherwise) (isn't that the
point of OOB?)
2. Something that is standard across everything, and can be aggregated easily
onto a "console server" or the like
I don't really see what is wrong with with keeping the seri
- Original Message -
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Randy Carpenter
> wrote:
> > How many sites do you have? If less than 192, /44 is
> > perfect, unless some of those sites require more than
> > a /48. Then, it gets more complicated :-)
>
> We'
> >
>
> > A /48 is 65536 /64s and a /44 is 16x65536 /64s. If you
> > only need one subnet (1 subnet = 1 /64), why would you
> > try to get 16x65536 subnets, rather than the 65536 you
> > have in the /48?
> -
- Original Message -
>
>
> On Oct 11, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>
>
> so there really is no drawback from getting the /44, and having
> enough space to not have to worry about it in the future.
>
>
> It's only a worry if you can onl
> --- jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote:
> From: Jo Rhett
>
> I've finally convinced $DAYJOB to deploy IPv6. Justification for the
> IP space is easy, however the truth is that a /64 is more than we
> need in all locations. However the last I heard was that you can't
> effectively announce anythin
Just make sure to name the scanned file VisioDi~1_vsd.png, and maybe they won't
notice.
-Randy
- Original Message -
> As a person who often draws out + scans diagrams, I support this
> message.
>
> On 09/28/2012 01:18 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> > Hand draw two squares, label them "ou
I've seen requests for a drawing of some sort, but never specifically and
exclusively visio.
If they insist on visio, I would send them a LART (at high velocity) instead.
-Randy
- Original Message -
> Just got told by a Lightpath person that in order to do BGP on a
> customer gig circu
Safari is definitely preferring IPv4.
In a happier note, if you tether a device via hotspot on an IOS6 iPad, the
clients get native IPv6. Strangely, they get addresses out of the same /64 as
the iPad's LTE interface. Anyone know how that is working? I would have thought
they would use prefix-d
Appears to compile file on Mac OS X 10.7. The resulting programs run, but I
have not tried any real testing with actual data.
thanks,
-Randy
- Original Message -
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Folks,
>
> I've posted a snapshot (tarball) of my working copy of t
Nope.
I signed up for the beta a long time ago, and have never heard anything about
IPv6 on the residential network. My company is one of the first (if not *the*
first) direct connect commercial customers that got IPv6 connectivity in Ohio.
I only see a few other ASNs that are directly connecte
>
> From a few minutes ago...
> On May 23, 2012 2:58 PM, "Frank Bulk - iName.com" < frnk...@iname.com
> > wrote:
>
>
> Here's a screenshot from 15 months ago:
> http://www.fix6.net/archives/2011/02/21/ipv6-live-on-verizons-lte-network/
>
> F
- Original Message -
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Randy Carpenter
> wrote:
> > I suppose they are selectively letting certain devices in some
> > areas. I get "der duh, what?" when I ask about it.
> >
>
> uhm... you asked someone at the
atic IP,
it disables the hotspot functionality. Head-->Wall.
thanks,
-Randy
- Original Message -
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Randy Carpenter
> wrote:
> >
> > Not only does Verizon *not* have IPv6 on their LTE network, they
> > also do *not* have IPv4, except
Not only does Verizon *not* have IPv6 on their LTE network, they also do *not*
have IPv4, except for double-NATed rfc1918 crap that changes your IP address
every couple minutes. The only way to get a stable connection is to pay them
$500 to get a static public IP address.
thanks,
-Randy
Thanks everyone for all the responses. They were extremely helpful.
-Randy
- Original Message -
>
> Any Juniper MX experts out there want to do some quick consulting for
> me (not for free)?
>
> I am working on implementing a couple of MX5 routers in a service
> provider setting, and
Any Juniper MX experts out there want to do some quick consulting for me (not
for free)?
I am working on implementing a couple of MX5 routers in a service provider
setting, and have run into some issues. I am pretty proficient at the SRX and
EX lines, but not as much with the MX. As the partic
We're seeing some strange issues with our fiber connection to TWC in Ohio.
Intermittent packet loss to/from some IPs.
It gets as specific as from a certain IP outside our network, packets to
a.b.c.10 are fine, but pings to a.b.c.50 (same subnet of same netblock) lose
~75% of the packets.
Like
> Pardon the weird question:
>
> Is the DNS service authoritative or recursive? If auth, you can
> solve this a few ways, either by giving the DNS name people point to
> multiple (and A) records pointing at a diverse set of
> instances.
Authoritative. But, also not the only thing that we a
- Original Message -
>
> On Feb 26, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> > We have been using Rackspace Cloud Servers. We just realized that
> > they have absolutely no redundancy or failover after experiencing
> > a outage that lasted more than 6 hours
Does anyone have any recommendation for a reliable cloud host?
We require 1 or 2 very small virtual hosts to host some remote services to
serve as backup to our main datacenter. One of these services is a DNS server,
so it is important that it is up all the time.
We have been using Rackspace
I like the Juniper EX2200C switches. They are only 12-port, but have 2 SFPs.
They are very low power, and have no fans.
However, I am still waiting (it has been several months) for them to send me
the correct rack mount brackets (which are a separate purchase).
-Randy
--
| Randy Carpenter
d to address to make DHCPv6 easier to roll
> > out (mainly on the server side), but just making bogus nitpick
> > attacks
> > distracts from the real issues, IMHO.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Randy Carpenter
> > wrote
wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 17:26 -0500, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> >> One major issue is that there is no way to associate a user's MAC
> >> (for
> >> IPv4) with their DUID. I haven't been able to find a way to
> >> account
> >> for
012-01-23 at 14:44 -0500, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> > We have also recently realized that the DUID is pretty much
> > completely
> > random, and there is no way to tie the MAC address to a client.
> > This
> > pretty much makes it impossible to manage a large customer
t;
> For now, we get by with static assignments made in the database and
> no
> dynamic allocation via DHCPv6, which does OK in a dual-stack
> environment where IPv6 isn't considered necessary yet, but in the
> near
> future that will change.
>
>
>
>
> On
at 12:31, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Randy Carpenter writes:
>
> Duplicate assignments are not a problem as long as you ensure that the
> client is the same.
>
> Duplicate assignments to different clients also won't b
- Original Message -
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Randy Carpenter <
> rcar...@network1.net > wrote:
>
>
> We have a requirement for it to be a redundant server that is
> centrally located. DHCPv6 will be relayed from each customer access
> segment
Same here. No idea who the intended recipient organization is, as it was sent
to our generic tech contact email address that is used for a bunch of ASes,
ARIN accounts, domains, etc. There are pretty much no details in the message.
-Randy
- Original Message -
> AS2381 has also received
- Original Message -
>
> On 1/17/12 6:37 PM, "Daniel Roesen" wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 06:19:28PM -0500, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> >> > You might want to give this a read:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>h
shion that
is suitable for service providers?
-Randy
> Original Message ----
> From: Randy Carpenter
> Sent: Tue, Jan 17, 2012 5:4 PM
> To: Nanog
> CC:
> Subject: How are you doing DHCPv6 ?
>
>
> I am wondering how people out there are using DHCPv6 to
?
When DHCPv6 with Prefix Delegation seems to be about the only way to deploy
IPv6 to end users in a generic device-agnostic fashion, I am wondering why it
is so difficult to find a working solution.
thanks,
-Randy
--
| Randy Carpenter
| Vice President - IT Services
| Red Hat Certified Engineer
- Original Message -
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Randy Carpenter
> wrote:
> > Tried that. I agree with others that it is an NDP issue. NDP for
> > the GUA is fine, but just not for the link local. Is there
> > something that would block only link loc
that one.
-Randy
On Dec 7, 2011, at 17:53, Peter Rubenstein wrote:
> Try setting local-address in the bgp neighbor config on the Juniper side?
>
> --Peter
>
> On Dec 7, 2011, at 4:54 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>
>>
>> Does anyone have any suggestions on
BGP is working fine, it is when they are trying to forward the packets back to
me. They are seeing the Link-Local as the next-hop, which, for some reason,
they cannot get to.
-Randy
--
| Randy Carpenter
| Vice President - IT Services
| Red Hat Certified Engineer
| First Network Group, Inc
We are using global addresses, but on the Cisco side, it is seeing the
Link-Local as the next-hop.
-Randy
--
| Randy Carpenter
| Vice President - IT Services
| Red Hat Certified Engineer
| First Network Group, Inc.
| (800)578-6381, Opt. 1
- Original Message -
> > Whe
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
