- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

FW: HR 4817 PEERING Bill

by David Farmer

This is too late for MICE but I thought it might be of general interest. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Elizabeth A. Mann <emann(a)areon.net> Date: Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 2:09 PM Subject: FW: HR 4817 PEERING Bill Here’s just one of the bills introduced by the House and was reviewed in the subcommittee meeting on 1/30/2018. This is actually a federal grant but it’s only 50%. But it is one we might keep our eye on. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================

Feb. 14, 2018

Jaguar 10G Upgrade

by Jason Hanke

Please allocate Ethernet 5/35 on the main switch for Jaguar. This port will be bundled with their existing port (4/35) we will need a new LAG Thanks! -- 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. 14, 2018

Re: MICE UG 27

by mark＠INTERNETPOLICYADVISORS.COM

Richard: I'd love to come up and do a very short ICANN update for MICE, but on March 26th I'll be in Geneva Switzerland at the ITU. I wonder if you can keep me in mind for the next UG? Besides the usual silliness of ICANN, there is one meaty technical issue that MICE members should at least be aware of - the root zone KSK rollover which is now scheduled for October. Mark Mark McFadden Madison, Wisconsin E: mark(a)mcfaddencentral.com Tw: McELmside | Fb: Mark McFadden | Skype: McElmside -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 4:16 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE UG 27 UG 27 is scheduled for March 26, 3:00pm. If you have items for the agenda, please let me know. -- Richard

Feb. 14, 2018

MICE UG 27

by Richard Laager

UG 27 is scheduled for March 26, 3:00pm. If you have items for the agenda, please let me know. -- Richard

Feb. 12, 2018

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