[176489] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Equinix Virginia - Ethernet OOB suggestions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Dec 1 14:43:55 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaZ-c_wgoFHDtcbaZpSTg58fNFs8Qu8dNDx6QosNUdJYaw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:41:27 -0800
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Nov 10, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Christopher Morrow =
<morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> because a /23 of ipv6 is very large.... :)
That=E2=80=99s a good reason not to use a /23, but not a good reason not =
to use IPv6.
>=20
> also, it's hard to use ipv6 when your last miile provider doesn't =
offer it...
>=20
> #fios
>=20
No it=E2=80=99s not=E2=80=A6 #tunnelbroker
Owen
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
>> Why use IPv4 for OOB? Seems a little late in the day for that.
>>=20
>>=20
>> -Bill
>>=20
>>=20
>>> On Nov 10, 2014, at 15:02, "Christopher Morrow" =
<morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Paul S. <contact@winterei.se> =
wrote:
>>>> I'd be doubtful if anyone will feel like offering a /23 with OOB as
>>>> justification these days, sadly.
>>>=20
>>> why thought? Justification is really about having a use for the ips,
>>> right? and if you have 500 servers/network-devices ... then you have
>>> justification for a /23 ... it seems to me.
>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Good luck nonetheless.
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>> On 11/10/2014 =E5=8D=88=E5=BE=8C 11:00, Ruairi Carroll wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Hey,
>>>>>=20
>>>>> VPN setup is not really a viable option (for us) in this scenario.
>>>>> Honestly, I'd prefer to just call it done already and have a VPN =
but due
>>>>> to
>>>>> certain restraints, we have to go down this route.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> /Ruairi
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> On 10 November 2014 14:38, Alistair Mackenzie =
<magicsata@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Couldn't you put a router or VPN system on the single IP they are =
giving
>>>>>> you and use RFC1918 addressing space?
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> OOB doesn't normally justify a /24 let alone a /23.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> On 10 November 2014 13:18, Ruairi Carroll =
<ruairi.carroll@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Dear List,
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> I've got an upcoming deployment in Equinix (DC10) and I'm =
struggling to
>>>>>>> find a provider who can give me a 100Mbit port (With a commit of =
about
>>>>>>> 5-10Mbit) with a /23 or /24 of public space , for OOB purposes. =
We had
>>>>>>> hoped to use Equinixs services, however they're limiting us to a =
single
>>>>>>> public IP.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> I'm also open to other solutions - xDSL or similar, but emphasis =
is on
>>>>>>> cheap and on-net.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> /Ruairi
>>>>=20
