Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition

Subject: Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition Date: Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 12:17:19AM -0400 Quoting Patrick W. Gilmore (patr...@ianai.net): > On Mar 30, 2014, at 16:40 , Måns Nilsson wrote: > > Subject: Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition Date: Sat, > > Mar 29, 2

RE: Outgoing traffic problem on Citrix Netscaler Load Balancer

Hi Paul, Thanks for reply, it works :). But I have another problem; source port is altered by the virtual service. However, we need the source port to be the same on the destination servers. Is there a way to ensure this? Thanks -Original Message- From: Paul Bertain [mailto:p...@berta

Re: Outgoing traffic problem on Citrix Netscaler Load Balancer

On Mar 31, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Anil KARADAG wrote: > However, we need the source port to be the same on the destination servers. Out of curiosity, why? --- Roland Dobbins // Luck is the

Re: Outgoing traffic problem on Citrix Netscaler Load Balancer

Hi Anil, Take a look at http://support.citrix.com/proddocs/topic/ns-system-10-1-map/ns-nw-ipaddrssng-enabling-use-src-ip-mode-tsk.html - use the client's port. We prefer F5 LTM much better than Netscaler :) Cheers, Edy On 3/31/2014 8:17 PM, Anil KARADAG wrote: Hi Paul, Thanks for reply, i

RE: Outgoing traffic problem on Citrix Netscaler Load Balancer

Hi, Thanks for solution but I cannot use it, because backend servers must know netscaler snip ip for clients. So I need fixed proxy port to communication with backend servers. -Original Message- From: Pui Edylie [mailto:em...@edylie.net] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 3:23 PM To: Anil KAR

RE: 3356 leaking routes out 3549 lately?

There shouldn't be any reason for this happening. Our network integration work generally involves moving a customer ASN from behind 3549 to be behind 3356, and once moved is generally permanent. In some cases, 3356 provides transit for 3549 to get to some peers that have been consolidated onto

Just wondering

Pardon for the ignorance regarding this. If folks can point me to something I may have missed as a participant for over 14 years, to powering this Alzheimers. I received several reports today regarding some scans for udp items from shadowservers hosted out of H.E. Seems to claim to be checking for

Re: Just wondering

On Mar 31, 2014, at 10:51 PM, Joe wrote: > Pardon for the ignorance regarding this. If folks can point me to something > I may have missed as a participant for over 14 years, to powering this > Alzheimers. > > I received several reports today regarding some scans for udp items from > shadowserv

Re: Just wondering

On 3/31/2014 10:51 PM, Joe wrote: I received several reports today regarding some scans for udp items from shadowservers hosted out of H.E. Seems to claim to be checking for issues regarding udp issues, amp issues, which I am all fine for, but my issue is this. It trips several IDP/IPS traps pr

RE: Just wondering

At the bottom of one of their pages it says this: If you would like us to not scan your network, please let us know and we will remove your networks from the scan. Likewise, if you have anymore questions please feel free to send us an email at: dnsscan [at] shadowserver [dot] org.

RE: Outgoing traffic problem on Citrix Netscaler Load Balancer

Hi again, I continue to work on fixing the problem, but no success so far. Is there any way to use client port number without enabling "use source ip"?? -Original Message- From: Anil KARADAG [mailto:akara...@netas.com.tr] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 3:51 PM To: Pui Edylie; Paul Bert