Equinix Virginia - Ethernet OOB suggestions
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
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
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
I'd be doubtful if anyone will feel like offering a /23 with OOB as justification these days, sadly. 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
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
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
because a /23 of ipv6 is very large.... :) also, it's hard to use ipv6 when your last miile provider doesn't offer it... #fios 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
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:36:17 -0500, Christopher Morrow said:
also, it's hard to use ipv6 when your last miile provider doesn't offer it...
I hear the chaps at Hurricane Electric can help you with a nice tunnel for that...
Indeed. I've had one in place for probably two years. Works like a charm. Kudos to Owen & co :) jms
just last week i was able to get a /23 from $ISP as part of my transit purchase with them for one location, but you still have to explain and justify your use to $ISP (who in-turn has to explain/justify to ARIN). if you can't do that, it really is "just cuz i want it". like someone else said previously, that just doesn't work nowadays. so, due the diligence, or rethink your design. if you can legit justify it, and particularly if you are doing bgp, there's really no reason why any worthwhile transit provider won't give you a /24.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:27 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:36:17 -0500, Christopher Morrow said:
also, it's hard to use ipv6 when your last miile provider doesn't offer it...
I hear the chaps at Hurricane Electric can help you with a nice tunnel for that...
yea.. because when the sh*t hits the fan I REALLY need a dependency upon a wonky tunnel server made of cheese and mouse parts to be in the middle of my work process?
I hear the chaps at Hurricane Electric can help you with a nice tunnel for that... yea.. because when the sh*t hits the fan I REALLY need a dependency upon a wonky tunnel server made of cheese and mouse parts to be in the middle of my work process?
wait a sec! there's cheese? where? randy, who may have to rethink tunnels
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
I hear the chaps at Hurricane Electric can help you with a nice tunnel for that... yea.. because when the sh*t hits the fan I REALLY need a dependency upon a wonky tunnel server made of cheese and mouse parts to be in the middle of my work process?
wait a sec! there's cheese? where?
I understand that it is ashburn equinix.
randy, who may have to rethink tunnels
:)
On 11/12/14 11:49 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
I hear the chaps at Hurricane Electric can help you with a nice tunnel for that... yea.. because when the sh*t hits the fan I REALLY need a dependency upon a wonky tunnel server made of cheese and mouse parts to be in the middle of my work process?
wait a sec! there's cheese? where?
I understand that it is ashburn equinix.
randy, who may have to rethink tunnels
:)
cheese++
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
On Tuesday, November 11, 2014 01:00:54 AM Christopher Morrow wrote:
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.
Unless Equinix have an actual product called OoB, in which case it automatically comes with a /30, or /126. Mark.
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.
Without explaining the "restraints," this kinda boils down to "'cuz we want it," which stopped being good justification many years ago. I doubt you'll find many takers who would want to provide you with a circuit for a few Mbps with a /23 for OOB purposes "'just cuz." I note that we're present in Equinix Ashburn and could do it, and that this is basically a nonstarter for us. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
On 2014-11-10 15:20, Joe Greco 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.
Without explaining the "restraints," this kinda boils down to "'cuz we want it," which stopped being good justification many years ago.
I doubt you'll find many takers who would want to provide you with a circuit for a few Mbps with a /23 for OOB purposes "'just cuz."
"just cuz" ack'ing packets for the spam we are sending will be possible then. Is likely what goes through most people's minds... Greets, Jeroen
On 10 November 2014 15:20, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> 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.
Without explaining the "restraints," this kinda boils down to "'cuz we want it," which stopped being good justification many years ago.
Well, I was hoping that I could get some good pointers about where to look to open up the sales discussion and what is possible for us (With some trickery, we could probably do under </24, however again - I dont want a design discussion right now). I was really hoping that this would not turn out to be some bikeshedding or discussions about design constraints in public. Either way, thank you for taking the time to reply. /ruairi
I doubt you'll find many takers who would want to provide you with a circuit for a few Mbps with a /23 for OOB purposes "'just cuz."
I note that we're present in Equinix Ashburn and could do it, and that this is basically a nonstarter for us.
... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 08:20:44AM -0600, Joe Greco 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.
Without explaining the "restraints," this kinda boils down to "'cuz we want it," which stopped being good justification many years ago.
Not to ARIN, which isn't in the business of deciding what uses are valid and what uses are not valid (only that there is, in fact, use). With the recent reduction in minimum allocation sizes, he could get PI space for this directly from ARIN (depending on his previous allocations and efficient utilization thereof, of course).
I doubt you'll find many takers who would want to provide you with a circuit for a few Mbps with a /23 for OOB purposes "'just cuz."
I note that we're present in Equinix Ashburn and could do it, and that this is basically a nonstarter for us.
Not an unreasonable business decision. His challange will be finding a provider large enough that they can easily allocate a /23 but small enough that they're interested in a 10(ish) Mbps connection that isn't likely to grow much. -- Brett
participants (15)
-
Alistair Mackenzie -
Bill Woodcock -
Brett Frankenberger -
Christopher Morrow -
Doug Barton -
Jeroen Massar -
Joe Greco -
Justin M. Streiner -
Mark Tinka -
Owen DeLong -
Paul S. -
Randy Bush -
Ruairi Carroll -
ryanL -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu