> > just a small comment: As far as I understand "AP isolation" doesn't work
> > if you don't have a WLAN controller but do have more than one APs. E.g. in
> > the following setup
> >
> > ap1--sw1--sw2--ap2
> >
> > with "AP isolation" turned on, clients associated to ap1 cannot
> > communicate dire
Peter Phaal wrote on 09/23/2012 12:23:57 PM:
> Exporting packet oriented measurements doesn't mean that you have to
> loose ingress/egress interface data. In the specific example being
> discussed (sFlow export), detailed forwarding information from the
> router forwarding plane is exported with
On 2012-09-24 14:48 , Joe Loiacono wrote:
> Peter Phaal wrote on 09/23/2012 12:23:57 PM:
>
>> Exporting packet oriented measurements doesn't mean that you have to
>> loose ingress/egress interface data.
Note that you get these in NetFlow too. Depends on which version you
pick or how you combine
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Joe Loiacono wrote:
> Peter Phaal wrote on 09/23/2012 12:23:57 PM:
>
>
>> Exporting packet oriented measurements doesn't mean that you have to
>> loose ingress/egress interface data. In the specific example being
>> discussed (sFlow export), detailed forwarding in
I'm tech-reading an upcoming book, and it makes the implication that 802.1x
is not very widely deployed... which seems possibly an overly narrow view
of the Real World.
If you regularly use one or more 802.1x protected networks, could you take
a moment to reply off-list, and tell me the size of th
* Tore Anderson
> I would pay very close attention to MAP/4RD.
FYI, Mark Townsley had a great presentation about MAP at RIPE65 today,
it's 35 minutes you won't regret spending:
https://ripe65.ripe.net/archives/video/5
https://ripe65.ripe.net/presentations/91-townsley-map-ripe65-ams-sept-24-2012.
Hi,
I´d suggest you to ask the guys from Enterasys mailing list. Sorry,
couldn´t resist ;-)
Michael
P.S.: No, I don´t have 802.1x enabled on LAN for my users sitting in
their offices.
Peter Phaal wrote on 09/24/2012 10:39:26 AM:
> When a switch/router decides to sample a packet it records the
> ingress/egress interfaces and accumulates information about how it
> decided to forward the packet by examining its FIB tables. Each packet
> may take a different path, some may by swit
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Joe Loiacono wrote:
> OK, Well I guess I was thinking sFlow was primarily a switch oriented
> technology versus on a layer-3 peering router.
The sFlow technology is a good fit for any device that performs a
packet forwarding function (including routers) and the s
On Sep 23, 2012, at 4:42 PM, Joe Hamelin wrote:
> PSAV is the company. I just installed about 20 Cisco WiFi radios at the
> Doubletree (a Hilton prop) at Sea-Tac. These covered only the convention
> space, conf rooms, ball rooms, whatnot. It would seem that the hotel is
> running their own syste
On 24 Sep 2012, at 17:57, Tore Anderson
wrote:
> * Tore Anderson
>
>> I would pay very close attention to MAP/4RD.
>
> FYI, Mark Townsley had a great presentation about MAP at RIPE65 today,
> it's 35 minutes you won't regret spending:
>
> https://ripe65.ripe.net/archives/video/5
> https://ri
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:52:28AM -0700, Peter Phaal wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Joe Loiacono wrote:
> > OK, Well I guess I was thinking sFlow was primarily a switch oriented
> > technology versus on a layer-3 peering router.
>
> The sFlow technology is a good fit for any device t
On 24 September 2012 21:11, Adrian Bool wrote:
>
> On 24 Sep 2012, at 17:57, Tore Anderson
> wrote:
>
>> * Tore Anderson
>>
>>> I would pay very close attention to MAP/4RD.
>>
>> FYI, Mark Townsley had a great presentation about MAP at RIPE65 today,
>> it's 35 minutes you won't regret spending:
On 24 Sep 2012, at 22:42, Mike Jones wrote:
> While you could do something similar without the encapsulation this
> would require that every router on your network support routing on
> port numbers,
Well, not really. As the video pointed out, the system was designed to
leverage hierarchy to r
Question about what other service/network providers are doing in
relation to allocation of addresses for websites.
With IPv6 starting to trickle its way in, what is considered the
industry best practise now for IP(v6) addresses bonded to websites. In
the past the standard practise was to have
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:52 PM, John Mitchell wrote:
> Question about what other service/network providers are doing in relation to
> allocation of addresses for websites.
>
> With IPv6 starting to trickle its way in, what is considered the industry
> best practise now for IP(v6) addresses bonded
>Does the best practise switch to now using one IPv6 per site, or still
>the same one IPv6 for multi-sites?
As I've been migrating my sites to IPv6, each site gets its own IP.
Works great. I did find that I needed to improve my tools so I could
track the individual IP addresses and assign the ap
William Herrin wrote:
>
> but I also can't imagine hosting more than 65,000 sites on a single
> server.
Demon's homepages service was based on IPv4 virtual hosting and had IIRC a
/16 and two /18s allocated to it. It was a single web server with a few
reverse proxies that took most of the load and
You can avoid the giant NAT box as long as you don't have to add a new customer
for whom you don't have an available IPv4 address.
At that point, you either have to implement the giant NAT box for your future
(and possibly an increasing percentage of your existing) customers, or, stop
adding ne
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:52 PM, John Mitchell wrote:
> Does the best practise switch to now using one IPv6 per site, or still the
> same one IPv6 for multi-sites?
Certainly it would be nice to have IPv6 address per vhost. In many
cases, this will be practical.
It also sometimes will NOT be pra
Morning,
The way to allocate IPv6 addresses per website depends more on the
technologies already in use at the hosting site. An existing hoster will
move slowly to any alternative method.
I predict a bigger, faster change in the way medium sized sites do load
balancing. IPv6 allows hosters t
* Adrian Bool
>
> On 24 Sep 2012, at 22:42, Mike Jones wrote:
>
>> While you could do something similar without the encapsulation
>> this would require that every router on your network support
>> routing on port numbers,
>
> Well, not really. As the video pointed out, the system was designed
22 matches
Mail list logo
