February 2018 - mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: NAT64/NATPT

by Gary Glissendorf

SDN Deployed A10 Thunder to do V6 to V4 and V4 to V4 gary.glissendorf(a)sdncommunications.com <mailto:gary.glissendorf@sdncommunications.com> 2900 W. 10th St. | Sioux Falls, SD 57104 (w) 605.978.3558 | (c) 605.359-3737 | (tf) 800.247.1442 SDN NOC 877.287.8023 NOC Support email: sdnsupport(a)sdncommunications.com<mailto:sdnsupport@sdncommunications.com> "Be Excellent to Each Other" From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Dave Williams Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 11:57 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] NAT64/NATPT Hi all - does anyone have experience with NAT64/PT and opinions on what might be the best hardware platform to use to do it? Thanks! Dave Williams Founder / Visionary Revelation Network Management, Inc. O:763-367-6161 C:763-670-5558 ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ________________________________ ***This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, copying, use or distribution of the information included in this message is prohibited -- Please immediately and permanently delete.***

Feb. 12, 2018

Re: NAT64/NATPT

by Jason Hanke

If you control the CPE you could also look at DS-Lite. The v4 is tunneled back and then natted. There are open source as well as commercial implementations. Your choice is more about where to put the complexity. On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 7:59 AM, Dave Williams <dave(a)revnetdata.com> wrote: > Was hoping to just do v6 to the client, then translate to v4 on the edge… > but dual stack with private v4 would work, just more complex. > > > > *From:* MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] *On Behalf > Of *Jason Hanke > *Sent:* Monday, February 12, 2018 7:39 AM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] NAT64/NATPT > > > > +1 Dual stack /48 to sub with private v4 on the outside assuming you're > out of ipv4. > > > > the transition technologies bring in a lot of complexity. > > > > On Feb 10, 2018 7:16 AM, "Mike Horwath" <drechsau(a)geeks.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 05:56:48PM +0000, Dave Williams wrote: > > Hi all - does anyone have experience with NAT64/PT and opinions on > > what might be the best hardware platform to use to do it? > > I have only done this via Fortinet gear. > > It works. > > Query: why not go native? > > -- > Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Feb. 12, 2018

Re: NAT64/NATPT

by Dave Williams

Was hoping to just do v6 to the client, then translate to v4 on the edge… but dual stack with private v4 would work, just more complex. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 7:39 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] NAT64/NATPT +1 Dual stack /48 to sub with private v4 on the outside assuming you're out of ipv4. the transition technologies bring in a lot of complexity. On Feb 10, 2018 7:16 AM, "Mike Horwath" <drechsau(a)geeks.org<mailto:drechsau@geeks.org>> wrote: On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 05:56:48PM +0000, Dave Williams wrote: > Hi all - does anyone have experience with NAT64/PT and opinions on > what might be the best hardware platform to use to do it? I have only done this via Fortinet gear. It works. Query: why not go native? -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG<mailto:drechsau@Geeks.ORG> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Feb. 12, 2018

Re: NAT64/NATPT

by Jason Hanke

+1 Dual stack /48 to sub with private v4 on the outside assuming you're out of ipv4. the transition technologies bring in a lot of complexity. On Feb 10, 2018 7:16 AM, "Mike Horwath" <drechsau(a)geeks.org> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 05:56:48PM +0000, Dave Williams wrote: > > Hi all - does anyone have experience with NAT64/PT and opinions on > > what might be the best hardware platform to use to do it? > > I have only done this via Fortinet gear. > > It works. > > Query: why not go native? > > -- > Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG >

Feb. 12, 2018

Re: NAT64/NATPT

by Mike Horwath

On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 05:56:48PM +0000, Dave Williams wrote: > Hi all - does anyone have experience with NAT64/PT and opinions on > what might be the best hardware platform to use to do it? I have only done this via Fortinet gear. It works. Query: why not go native? -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Feb. 10, 2018

NAT64/NATPT

by Dave Williams

Hi all - does anyone have experience with NAT64/PT and opinions on what might be the best hardware platform to use to do it? Thanks! Dave Williams Founder / Visionary Revelation Network Management, Inc. O:763-367-6161 C:763-670-5558

Feb. 9, 2018

Premier Move

by Jason Hanke

Premier Communications has moved to port xe-0/0/10 of the NP remote switch. They are no longer using xe-0/0/0 on the NP remote. -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Feb. 6, 2018

Re: Arista Support Contract

by Brady Kittel

I think we're on the same page here in general but what I was getting at specifically was that a quote isn't a contract and thus unless you signed an NDA on behalf of MICE (maybe you did and I missed that in the lengthy thread above?) there is no NDA. Just like I wouldn't be concerned with sharing a quote in this scenario with anyone in my own purchasing or infrastructure team for review I don't largely see a difference with MICE and coop members. I guess I would just be upfront with vendors and tell them that quotes are open for viewing by MICE membership unless it's done under some kind of RFP scenario and they can modify the wording as needed on the quote if they are concerned the pricing they are offering is better than what they might offer a commercial customer (IE: "Special discounted pricing for MICE, not representative of standard commercial discount rate" or similar). Anyway I don't see this aspect of the discussion really going anywhere useful in an email thread, and it might just be best discussed at the next meeting, but just felt obligated to point out that we need to encourage financial transparency as I've seen lack of transparency tear apart non-profits in the past and I want to see MICE continue to be successful. On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: > On 02/05/2018 03:39 PM, Brady Kittel wrote: > > Just putting the words "confidential" on a quote or document doesn't > > generate an automatic contractual NDA as much as vendors might wish it > does. > > Agreed. > > I'm not going to rehash points already made, but I do want to add that > the ambiguity can go both ways. Sometimes when you make a point of > pushing things, they end up going the opposite way you wanted. For > example, if I push back on this, we could get confirmation that it's > totally fine to share the pricing publicly. Or, we could get an explicit > requirement of a real NDA on that pricing. The latter would require > changes to our existing treasurer's reports. > > I'm not saying this is the case, because as I noted, it hasn't been > discussed at all either way with this particular vendor. So I was taking > the "let sleeping dogs lie" approach. > > -- > Richard >

Feb. 5, 2018

Re: Arista Support Contract

by Richard Laager

On 02/05/2018 03:39 PM, Brady Kittel wrote: > Just putting the words "confidential" on a quote or document doesn't > generate an automatic contractual NDA as much as vendors might wish it does. Agreed. I'm not going to rehash points already made, but I do want to add that the ambiguity can go both ways. Sometimes when you make a point of pushing things, they end up going the opposite way you wanted. For example, if I push back on this, we could get confirmation that it's totally fine to share the pricing publicly. Or, we could get an explicit requirement of a real NDA on that pricing. The latter would require changes to our existing treasurer's reports. I'm not saying this is the case, because as I noted, it hasn't been discussed at all either way with this particular vendor. So I was taking the "let sleeping dogs lie" approach. -- Richard

Feb. 5, 2018

Re: Arista Support Contract

by Brady Kittel

Agreed on pursuing the 3 year contract if we have the funds to sustain that option. Would also point out that I've never had to sign an NDA with Arista or any other vendor to get a quote so I think people may be assuming an implied NDA that doesn't actually exist in the case of pricing. Just putting the words "confidential" on a quote or document doesn't generate an automatic contractual NDA as much as vendors might wish it does. I'd suggest that members probably do have the right to review the pricing for the purpose of transparency but perhaps the best venue would be to only provide it on demand and just keep it on file rather than sending it to the mailing list. I worry that trying to keep financial details of the coop secret from members in any way, shape or form is a slippery slope even if it's with good intention. I'd add that the coop can certainly ask (though can't contractually hold them) that anyone that chooses to see the pricing not share it outside of voting coop members as it's in the best interest of the coop and it's current and future relationship with vendors and suppliers. I'd hope that everyone understands that pricing can vary based on the customer/sector/etc that a vendor might issue a quote to and I'd hope that Arista is offering MICE their best pricing for renewal which may also not be representative of the pricing MICE member organizations would get on a renewal (IE: I'd expect some orgs may pay more). Heck I can google for Arista or any other quote given that any government and many non-profits are required to make all RFP proceedings public along with unsealing quotes after bids are closed. On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)he.net> wrote: > I felt as a spending of a LARGE amount of our cash reserves, it should be > something the general membership had the ability to comment about...there > wasn't all that much argument about if we SHOULD do it, just that as a > coop, we need to report back to membership of what we are doing with the $. > > Reid > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: > >> On 02/05/2018 11:08 AM, DeLong, Owen wrote: >> > I think we’re mostly on the same page. >> >> I think so too. >> >> Bringing this to the members for input may have given the impression >> that a problem-needing-solving exists and the board was asking for >> suggestions on solutions. To be clear, I don't think there's a problem >> here. I think this is a no-brainer. >> >> In terms of the function should_we_buy_3_years(...), the members are >> being given an opportunity to suggest the algorithm inside the function >> or at least its parameters, not to execute the function and provide the >> boolean return value. >> >> Here's my thinking: >> >> I don't see us needing to buy a new switch this year or next >> year, so this decision doesn't affect that either way. >> >> We will probably need to add a line card eventually. That is hopefully a >> 100G line card, to avoid filling the chassis with another 10G line card. >> At a quick glance, the 10G has ~35 ports available and the 100G has ~30 >> ports available. Upgrades to 100G will free up 10G ports. We can also >> use breakouts to get more 10G ports out of 100G ports if absolutely >> necessary. It looks to me like we should be okay on this front. In the >> unlikely event we are not, we will end the year with enough cash to buy >> another line card anyway, and if we fill up on ports, that means we also >> brought in a bunch of additional money in port fees. >> >> Our only large recurring expense is this contract. The minimum cash >> balance with this plan is more than 10x other expenses and 5-10x the >> minimum cash balance of last year. That seems fine, and is only >> temporary until all port fees are paid, at which point it is even higher. >> >> One of the Juniper switches or modules dying is a risk, but those are >> significantly cheaper. We also already have two switches, and all the >> participants fit on one, except for the 4 fiber, who could be moved to >> the Arista in a pinch. >> >> The interest we'd earn on the cash is zero or nearly zero, so it takes >> very little extra discount on 3-years to be acceptable on that basis. >> >> The ratio between the 1 and 3 year options is in line with what I'd >> expect from my previous purchases of support contracts from various >> vendors. It is in line with a suggested ratio I was provided off-list by >> another member. >> >> Do you see any flaws in the above or have any additional factors I've >> missed? >> >> -- >> Richard >> >> > > > -- > Reid Fishler > Director > Hurricane Electric > +1-510-580-4178 <(510)%20580-4178> > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Feb. 5, 2018