On Nov 10, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
because a /23 of ipv6 is very large.... :)
That’s a good reason not to use a /23, but not a good reason not to use IPv6.
also, it's hard to use ipv6 when your last miile provider doesn't offer it...
#fios
No it’s not… #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.
-Bill
On Nov 10, 2014, at 15:02, "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
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.
Good luck nonetheless.
On 11/10/2014 午後 11:00, Ruairi Carroll wrote:
Hey,
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.
/Ruairi
On 10 November 2014 14:38, Alistair Mackenzie <magicsata@gmail.com> wrote:
Couldn't you put a router or VPN system on the single IP they are giving you and use RFC1918 addressing space?
OOB doesn't normally justify a /24 let alone a /23.
On 10 November 2014 13:18, Ruairi Carroll <ruairi.carroll@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear List, > > 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. > > I'm also open to other solutions - xDSL or similar, but emphasis is on > cheap and on-net. > > Cheers > /Ruairi