None of the stuff you'll make has UL or NEBS approval unless you pay
for that. I'd be inclined to suck it up and pay for remote hands to
turn a switch unless you own the colo or they're casual enough that
they don't care (your insurance company might though).
Should you decide to go ahead and bu
"Paul Stewart" writes:
> That has been my experience as well (only from the RF side) and I would
> believe this was a design choice. The ISP usually wants to keep control
> over the firmware versions of the CM for various technical/support reasons
> versus having consumers mess with the firmwa
Manuel MarÃn writes:
> I was wondering if you can recommend or share your experience with APs that
> you can use in locations that have 300-500 users. I friend recommended me
> Ruckus Wireless, it would be great if you can share your experience with
> Ruckus or with a similar vendor. My experi
Sam,
The most common approach from the MSOs is to take one of two paths. Either
simply not allow non-approved devices to come online, this is common from
the larger MSOs, or to simply not try and update the firmware for
unfamiliar devices, this is common for smaller operators. It's very
unusual
Lauren Weinstein shared a pointer to this video of one of the stranger
failure modes I've ever seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZkAP-CQlhA
pgp58aD9H3ldo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
I'm putting together my first IPv6 allocation plan. The general layout:
/48 for customers universally and uniformly
/38 for larger regions on an even (/37) boundary
/39 for smaller regions on an even (/38) boundary
A few /48's for "internal use" to allow us to monitor and maintain systems.
For se
Ruckus should work fine for you. You need to have a controller and need a good
RF plan but as far as capacity, throughput, roaming etc they are really solid.
Of course the best is Cisco but if you can't afford them Ruckus is the way to
go. I use them in small and very large convention centers
That brings back memories of some unidentified folks getting much higher
speeds and other features they may errr umm not been paying for ;) I miss
my LanCity cablemodem - it made a great spaceheater in the winters.
-Original Message-
From: Rob Seastrom [mailto:r...@seastrom.com]
Sent
My personal experience is that the Ruckus kit outperforms the Cisco Air-O-Net
stuff. This was looking at penetration through concrete walls, co-existence
with other devices, throughput.
YMMV, I’m not a Cisco expert but *did* have a local
certified-up-to-his-eyeballs Cisco dude check what I h
Hi,
2015-01-30 0:28 GMT+01:00 Eric Louie :
> I'm putting together my first IPv6 allocation plan. The general layout:
> /48 for customers universally and uniformly
> /38 for larger regions on an even (/37) boundary
> /39 for smaller regions on an even (/38) boundary
> A few /48's for "internal use
The shaperprobe test program from M-Lab is not working. The problem
appears to be a routing loop in google's realm. Emails to m-lab over
the past month were not effective in resolving the issue.
shaperprobe: http://www.measurementlab.net/tools/shaperprobe
64.9.225.153 is server shaperprobe us
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Mike. wrote:
>
> The shaperprobe test program from M-Lab is not working. The problem
> appears to be a routing loop in google's realm. Emails to m-lab over
> the past month were not effective in resolving the issue.
>
> shaperprobe: http://www.measurementlab.net
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Eric Louie wrote:
> I'm putting together my first IPv6 allocation plan. The general layout:
> /48 for customers universally and uniformly
Hi Eric,
Good luck with that. Personally, I'd be inclined to think that some
customers will (reasonably) want more than a /4
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Manuel Marín wrote:
> I was wondering if you can recommend or share your experience with APs that
> you can use in locations that have 300-500 users. I friend recommended me
> Ruckus Wireless, it would be great if you can share your experience with
> Ruckus or wit
* William Herrin
> nat64/nat46 - allows an IPv6-only host to interact in limited ways
> with IPv4-only hosts. Don't go down this rabbit hole. This will
> probably be useful in the waning days of IPv4 when folks are
> dismantling their IPv4 networks but for now the corner cases will
> drive you nut
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Tore Anderson wrote:
For many folks, that's easier said than done.
Think about it: If everyone could just dual-stack their networks, they
might as well single-stack them on IPv4 instead; there would be no
point whatsoever in transitioning to IPv6 for anyone.
I re-read thi
+1 on Xirrus or Ruckus if you care to sleep at night. Just my 2cents
Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com
On 1/30/15, 8:19 AM, "William Herrin" wrote:
>On Thu, Jan
Tore,
Um, haven't you heard that we are out of IPv4 addresses? The point of IPv6
is to expand address space so that the Internet can keep growing. Maybe you
don't want to grow with it, but most people do. Eventually IPv4 will be dropped
and the Internet will be IPv6-only. Dual-stack is just
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * William Herrin
>
>> Plan on dual-stacking any network which requires
>> access to IPv4 resources such as the public Internet.
>
> For many folks, that's easier said than done.
>
> Think about it: If everyone could just dual-stack their net
Paul Nash writes:
> Ruckus is also *way* easier to configure than Cisco. Some of the
> Cisco folk that I know think that that is a point in favour of
> Cisco, as it adds to job security :-)
That matches my experience with Cisco 802.11 kit. Way too many knobs
exposed, and guidance on how to se
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Mike. wrote:
> >
> > The shaperprobe test program from M-Lab is not working. The problem
> > appears to be a routing loop in google's realm. Emails to m-lab over
> > the past month were not effective in resolving the issue.
> >
> > shaperprobe: http://www.meas
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG,
CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net
For hi
Eric Louie writes:
> I'm putting together my first IPv6 allocation plan. The general layout:
> /48 for customers universally and uniformly
> /38 for larger regions on an even (/37) boundary
> /39 for smaller regions on an even (/38) boundary
You really really really don't want to subnet on non
* Mel Beckman
>Um, haven't you heard that we are out of IPv4 addresses? The point
> of IPv6 is to expand address space so that the Internet can keep
> growing. Maybe you don't want to grow with it, but most people do.
> Eventually IPv4 will be dropped and the Internet will be IPv6-only.
> Dual
Single stacking on IPv6 is nice in theory. In practice it just doesn't work
yet. If you as an ISP tried to force all your customers to be IPv6 single
stack, you would go bust.
Therefore the only option is dual stack. The IPv4 can be private address
space with carrier NAT - but you will need to giv
I'm just beginning to grasp the concepts of IPv6 operations here, so please
pardon my seeming ignorance.
If I'm reading properly, the best common practice (at least the original)
was allocating a minimum /48 to customers, though I did see one that
referenced a /56.
If I do everything on nibble bo
* Baldur Norddahl
> Single stacking on IPv6 is nice in theory. In practice it just doesn't work
> yet. If you as an ISP tried to force all your customers to be IPv6 single
> stack, you would go bust.
Kabel Deutschland, T-Mobile USA, and Facebook are examples of companies
who have already or are i
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Eric Louie wrote:
It also sounds like the Internet (aka the upstream/Tier 1 carriers) don't
want me to advertise anything longer than my /32 into BGPv6. Is that true?
(I'm getting that from the spamming comments made by others) Am I
supposed to be asking ARIN for a /32 for
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Eric Louie wrote:
>
> It also sounds like the Internet (aka the upstream/Tier 1 carriers) don't
>> want me to advertise anything longer than my /32 into BGPv6. Is that
>> true?
>> (I'm getting that from the spammi
Hi,
I would not recommend to run any nat over protocol versions for
clients as you would need to break DNSsec.
The clients creating connections should run dual-stack or dual-stack lite.
The only useful thing for service providers would be to proxy/nat lets
say an incoming IPv6 connection to still
> On Jan 29, 2015, at 3:28 PM, Eric Louie wrote:
>
> If I have to do 6-to-4 conversion, is there any way to do that with
> multiple diverse ISP connections, or am I "restricted" to using one
> entry/exit point? (If that's true, do I need to allocate a separate block
> of addresses that would be
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Eric Louie wrote:
If you assign a customer IPv6 space only, a translation mechanism is
needed to allow that customer to reach Internet destinations that only
speak IPv4 today. There's no way around that.
What IPv6 to IPv4 translation mechanisms are available for networks
This report has been generated at Fri Jan 30 21:14:23 2015 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/2.0 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
BGP Update Report
Interval: 22-Jan-15 -to- 29-Jan-15 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS23752 291255 4.9%1967.9 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal
Telecommunications Corporation, Intern
On 1/30/2015 07:36, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
Lauren Weinstein shared a pointer to this video of one of the stranger
failure modes I've ever seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZkAP-CQlhA
It is actually an excreable add for something--runs forever, finally
followd by a very old video of
On 1/30/2015 16:13, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 1/30/2015 07:36, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
Lauren Weinstein shared a pointer to this video of one of the stranger
failure modes I've ever seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZkAP-CQlhA
It is actually an execrable add for something--runs forever
On 1/30/2015 16:23, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 1/30/2015 16:13, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 1/30/2015 07:36, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
Lauren Weinstein shared a pointer to this video of one of the stranger
failure modes I've ever seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZkAP-CQlhA
It is actually an
In this case the cover is a thin, but ridged peice of plastic. It is
possible that the link stayed up until it rained and the acorns absorbed
water coming in through the hole.
On Jan 30, 2015 4:33 PM, "Larry Sheldon" wrote:
> On 1/30/2015 16:23, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>
>> On 1/30/2015 16:13, Larr
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
.
> HOW did they make it
Maybe the woodpecker had a little help...
Obligatory Friday xkcd ref: http://xkcd.com/614/
This one time, at band camp, a guy had pigeons get into his pop and sit on the
warm ciscos til they gummed up the fans with coredumps til failure was achieved.
But that might just be a Dalph rumour.
/kc
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:12:56PM +, Gary Buhrmaster said:
>On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1
On 1/30/15 14:31, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> The questions that have always intrigued me about the clip:
>
> Who made the hole and how long did it take (assumption is "woodpeckers
> made it" but I have no idea how long it took to make the hole).)
Most likely the woodpeckers, maybe helped by natural
+1 Xirrus, especially for the multi radio arrays. Crowded common areas benefit
from sector antennas attached to individual radios. Also, there XMS server is
really useful for managing a large cluster. Ubiquiti UniFi is good for smaller
installations, but I wouldn't trust them for enterprise leve
We are talking about different things. If your business is servers, do
whatever you want. If you are in the business of selling internet, which
quite a few are on this mailinglist, you need to be dual stack.
We are dual stack towards our customers. On our internal network we are
single stack - ipv
And, we're in sort of the same predicament - I have no choice on the
current infrastructure but to run IPv4. IPv6 is a service we would like to
start to offer to new customers in this current infrastructure. And to
existing customers who believe that they have the need for IPv6 and have
the equip
> On Jan 30, 2015, at 07:12 , Karsten Elfenbein
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 2015-01-30 0:28 GMT+01:00 Eric Louie :
>> I'm putting together my first IPv6 allocation plan. The general layout:
>> /48 for customers universally and uniformly
>> /38 for larger regions on an even (/37) boundary
>> /39 for
> On Jan 30, 2015, at 07:51 , William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Eric Louie wrote:
>> I'm putting together my first IPv6 allocation plan. The general layout:
>> /48 for customers universally and uniformly
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> Good luck with that. Personally, I'd be inclin
At OARNet, the leading cause of aerial fiber outages was squirrels,
followed closely by weather, distantly by angry farmers and once in Akron,
random gunfire... At OSU, the leading cause of fiber outages is squirrels,
followed distantly by fire.
Somewhere I have a great picture of a squirrel gnaw
> On Jan 30, 2015, at 09:39 , William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
>> * William Herrin
>>
>>> Plan on dual-stacking any network which requires
>>> access to IPv4 resources such as the public Internet.
>>
>> For many folks, that's easier said than do
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I guess it depends on your definition of ubiquitous, but to me, when a
> protocol
> has the majority of the deployed addresses, I think it counts for this
> purpose.
LOL, Owen, IPv6 had that with the first /64 ethernet LAN it was used on.
H
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 21:07:25 -0500, William Herrin said:
> How about this: when Verizon starts decommissioning its IPv4
> infrastructure on the basis that IPv6 is widespread enough to no
> longer require the expense of dual-stack, IPv6 will have achieved
> ubiquity.
Using that logic, what does Ve
> On Jan 30, 2015, at 18:07 , William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I guess it depends on your definition of ubiquitous, but to me, when a
>> protocol
>> has the majority of the deployed addresses, I think it counts for this
>> purpose.
>
> LOL, Owe
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:48 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 21:07:25 -0500, William Herrin said:
>
>> How about this: when Verizon starts decommissioning its IPv4
>> infrastructure on the basis that IPv6 is widespread enough to no
>> longer require the expense of dual-stack, IPv6 will have achi
Once upon a time, Chris Hartley said:
> At OARNet, the leading cause of aerial fiber outages was squirrels,
> followed closely by weather, distantly by angry farmers and once in Akron,
> random gunfire... At OSU, the leading cause of fiber outages is squirrels,
> followed distantly by fire.
What
Well, y'all probably too young to have read
http://www.csmonitor.com/1990/0302/utwain.html - and then it's a bluejay
yarn - the woodpeckers hereabout aren't so industrious, I've noticed.
-Rand Fischer
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Valdis Kletnieks
wrote:
> Lauren Weinstein shared a pointer
On 1/30/15 9:37 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Don't squirrels go back to their stash? Could a squirrel get through that
>> hole, or were those just a lost stash?
>
> Eh, if the number of small oak trees I find sprouting in my flower beds
> is any indication, the squirrels' brains are smaller than the
55 matches
Mail list logo
