I vaguely remember someone from the iphouse mentioning that they were going to add secondary IP addresses to the route servers during the outage. Just wondering if this has happened since I can only ping them on their original addresses. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 Direct: 612-392-6814 E-Fax: 952-873-7425 jlumby@mnvoip.com ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:41:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote:
I vaguely remember someone from the iphouse mentioning that they were going to add secondary IP addresses to the route servers during the outage. Just wondering if this has happened since I can only ping them on their original addresses.
That was Mike who is out of town this week, and the schedule of the changeover took he and I unprepared as well. There, I've gone ahead and did the IPv4 entries to be 206.108.255.1 & 206.108.255.2 since the general consensys is to keep the same IPv4 last octet. Nobody should be announcing prefixes with the next hop of 206.108.255.x yet though. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn@iphouse.net> -- ipHouse/Goldengate/Bitstream/ProNS -- Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of merlyn Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 12:59 To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] IP address changes
I vaguely remember someone from the iphouse mentioning that they were going to add secondary IP addresses to the route servers during the outage. Just wondering if this has happened since I can only ping them on
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:41:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: their original addresses.
That was Mike who is out of town this week, and the schedule of the changeover took he and I unprepared as well.
There, I've gone ahead and did the IPv4 entries to be 206.108.255.1 & 206.108.255.2 since the general consensys is to keep the same IPv4 last octet.
Nobody should be announcing prefixes with the next hop of 206.108.255.x yet though.
Was there consensus on v6 addressing scheme? 2001:504:27::/48 was the assigned block. Are we keeping the same last hextet here as well? Andy ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 06:12:39PM +0000, Koch, Andrew wrote:
Was there consensus on v6 addressing scheme? 2001:504:27::/48 was the assigned block. Are we keeping the same last hextet here as well?
Not yet. I tried to circle some people in internally since I was supposed to be helping with this part, give us a few days please. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn@iphouse.net> -- ipHouse/Goldengate/Bitstream/ProNS -- Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
participants (3)
-
Jeremy Lumby -
Koch, Andrew -
merlyn