Chris Wallace wrote:
I am hoping to get some peoples opinions on Alcatel-Lucent routers. We are
looking at the 7750 SR line and the 7450 ESS line. We are currently a Cisco
shop but these would be deployed in a completely new network delivering mostly
MPLS based services and DIA. Any comment
Hello NANOG,
Yesterday we've found some strange requests in our logs, typical to the Daonol
Trojan. According to the logs, the infected computers are sending personal
information such as search engine lookups and browsing history. The information
sent to 115.100.250.112.
Log entry for example:
On 3/6/2010 7:28 AM, Joel Snyder wrote:
Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
>Isn't this really an issue (political) with tariffed T1 prices rather
>than a technical problem?
>I was told that most T1s are provisioned over a DSLAM these days
>anyways, and that the key difference between T1 and DSL was the
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Shon Elliott wrote:
I would love to move to IPv6. However, the IPv6 addressing, I have to
say, is really tough to remember and understand for most people. Where
Hi Shon. But we have a system in place which allows non-technical people
to ignore IP addresses entirely.
Up
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/03/2010 16:52, Robert Brockway wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Shon Elliott wrote:
>
>> I would love to move to IPv6. However, the IPv6 addressing, I have to
>> say, is really tough to remember and understand for most people. Where
>
> Hi Shon. B
We're generally happy with our Juniper SA6500s, but they, and a lot of the
other SSL VPN vendor appliances will not support IPSec. Cisco's ASA does, but
it's less feature-rich in the SSL VPN arena. The Juniper was the most mature
and flexible of all the offerings we looked at, but also the most
Toivo,
The SA Series absolutely supports IPsec if you are using Network Connect. It
defaults to using IPsec and if that is not supported then it will fall back to
SSL. Of course, NC is not as secure as W-SAM, J-SAM, or Core Access in terms
of role and resource granularity control but the supp
There is also the fact to consider that Cisco has said there will be no
support for Windows 64-bit on their IPSEC client, they are pushing
people to the AnyConnect (An SSL-based clientless IPSEC) who want to use
Windows 64-bit or other OSs, so in the future the argument for having a
separate box fo
I've used the Cisco ASAs without issue. Cisco flamers need not respond.
:P
This is a bit of a loaded question though.
- Brian
> -Original Message-
> From: Dawood Iqbal [mailto:dawood_iq...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 9:58 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Best VPN Appli
> -Original Message-
> From: Blomberg, Orin P (DOH) [mailto:orin.blomb...@doh.wa.gov]
> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:37 AM
> To: sfou...@shortestpathfirst.net; Voll, Toivo; Chris Campbell; Dawood
> Iqbal
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Best VPN Appliance
>
> There is also the fact
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:37:02AM -0800, Blomberg, Orin P (DOH) wrote:
> There is also the fact to consider that Cisco has said there will be no
> support for Windows 64-bit on their IPSEC client, they are pushing
> people to the AnyConnect (An SSL-based clientless IPSEC) who want to use
> Window
> There is also the fact to consider that Cisco has said there will be no
> support for Windows 64-bit on their IPSEC client [...]
Amazingly, and to many people's great surprise, Cisco recently made
available a beta version of the IPSEC VPN client that supports 64-bit.
~JasonG
smime.p7s
Descrip
Thanks for the information. I am just going on what we have been
formally told by our onsite Cisco engineers on several occasions. It
may be that they were misinformed, or that they are trying to make the
sell for AnyConnect Licensing, but I had been going with the facts I
had. I am glad there i
If you can use 3rd party VPN clients the ShrewSoft IPSec client on
Windows 7 works great with Cisco concentrators.
http://www.shrew.net/software
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Blomberg, Orin P (DOH)
wrote:
> There is also the fact to consider that Cisco has said there will be no
> support for W
We've been running various Fortinet Fortigate appliances since 2003 and have
had very good luck with them. Clustering is plug-and-play...boxes act as a
single managed unit and do stateful failover of VPN connections. We use the
IPsec for site-to-site between our offices and our data centers, the
Why would you migrate them away instead of buying a $150/$250 one-time
license?
tv
- Original Message -
From: "Blomberg, Orin P (DOH)"
To:
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 1:50 PM
Subject: RE: Best VPN Appliance
Thanks for the information. I am just going on what we have been
formally
Scenario: with the help of RADIUS, routing subnets to end users connecting via
PPP.
Discussion: pros/cons of using Framed-IP-Address+Framed-Route versus
Framed-IP-Address+Framed-IP-Netmask.
We're talking here in generic terms, so as far as the behaviour of the LNS or
access concentrator or wha
We've always considered the WAN and LAN to be different objects so our history
is to prefer the method you think is 'better.' Seems this model has been around
since the dialin days.
We also have customers with multiple routes so it seems a logical separation.
Failover might be a bit more flexib
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:21 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> I poked through AFCO's drawings at
> http://www.afcosystems.com/pdf/AFCO_Drawings.pdf, How much of a size
> hit is typical? Do you take the depth out to 52" to create enough
> space in front of the equipment for air to flow and take the 6-in
19 matches
Mail list logo
