lol. I couldn't care less.

That's nice, but you'll have to convince me that this is news. Fiber network taps have been around for almost as long as fiber. With fiber you can monitor the drop in signal. That's always been the real differentiator, the fact that you can tell you've been tapped.

@bbiAngie said:

@lhatsynot said:

@bbiAngie said:

Yea that is what I followed and it didn't work. 45 minutes later I realized this is because this is an isolated stack of switches that is not plugged into the domain yet..... Hard to get a time when they cant talk with the ntp server!!

facepalm

Glad you got it sorted out eventually. 🙂

You really have to love those moments when you are starting to get really frustrated then 30 seconds later you think "Oh my, I am a f-in idiot."

I worry if I don't have at least one of those a day, lol.

@JaredBusch said:

@coliver said:

@JaredBusch said:

Disabke SELinux and see if it works. Then if so, add the port as allowed to SELinux?

Looks like it was SELinux, setting it to permissive allowed the port to be used. Now to figure out how to allow the port in SELinux.

semanage port -m -t http_port_t -p tcp 82

That did it thanks.

@it-admin 4 years later, I encountered the same issue that you did.

The solution for me was do do a PCI passthrough of the physical NIC directly to the VM. This bypasses all virtual switching inside Citrix Hypervisor. I posted the exact steps to implement PCI passthrough on Citrix Hypervisor 8.2 here:

https://discussions.citrix.com/topic/414458-open-vswitch-not-passing-all-traffic-from-pif-to-vif/

@pchiodo said:

@scottalanmiller We were attempting "NSLOOKUP 172.16.2.110" and receiving the stated error. As per my previous response, I think we got it fixed by adding the reverse lookup zone, and allowing it time to propagate.

Interesting.. for some reason I thought you were trying to NSLOOKUP using the client as a DNS server, which of course would fail.

@JeffReady said:

There was once a good old day when Linksys was good...

I run DD-WRT on a Netgear Blackhawk (D7000 iirc, not one of the new ones), and it's been solid. Of course Comcast decided to push a friendly firmware update to my cable modem this weekend which reset the config, took it out of bridge mode and re-enabled the modem's own DHCP and routing services (and Lord knows what else), taking me offline. Annoying (not to mention a potential security nightmare)... mostly because I spent an hour jacking around before it even occurred to me to login to the modem and check it's settings.

Are you me? lol

This happened to me a couple weeks ago - same setup, same software, different router.

@nadnerB said:

@wrx7m said:

I am looking at upgrading my infrastructure soon. Has anyone had any experience with Extreme switches?

Not yet but they look like what we will move to when we upgrade... Eventually

We have a business unit that uses them They are always having issues with HMI/PLC logic stuff working over them. Normal data works fine but Extereme nor them have figured out what the deal is.

@Jason you be careful with that!

@Jason said:

Nevermind. #faceplam. forgot to go into configure mode first..

I may or may not have done that more than once.

@Breffni-Potter said:

@coliver said:

@Breffni-Potter said:

Bidding starts at $2500.

Collection only 😄

Welp too rich for my blood.

But I just put an Apple Sticker on top. Therefore the price has gone up.

Oh... Man suddenly I really want these things... damn you Apple!

SSL and TLS protect people from spying on an existing communications channel, but does nothing to protect the end points. It's just a service that has to respond to any incoming request.

@JaredBusch said:

@Dashrender said:

I'll consider changing it when I move to the flat network...

You are not on a flat network? That is how it works. You can have as many DHCP servers as you want as long as they do not see each other.

No, I have several subnets. The networks see each other through a router.

I'm not sure what you mean that you can have many DHCP servers as long as they don't see each other?

In my current setup, at this branch location of 10 PC's and 16 phones I have two DHCP servers. Each provide IPs for a different range in the same subnet. The Mitel PBX has a DHCP server but only responds to Mac addresses belonging to Mitel phones. The windows DHCP will respond to everything. My question was - what happens if the Windows server responds to a phone faster than the Mitel DHCP server? I'm guessing the phone wouldn't work.

This branch will probably always be on a different subnet (local to that location), but my main office has 5 /24 subnets.. I'd like to move them to one /22 subnet.

Great!

@akp982 said:

@oschaudhary FAN hasn't been updated in years (well 2 years)

https://download.centreon.com/ has a more up-to-date nagios core and centreon front end, moving from one to the other is a @@@@@@@@@@ but its much better supported by the community and has a better update process.

Its missing nMap by default I believe but its easy to add in 🙂

Whoa! @akp982 is back! Dude haven't seen you around in forever!

I have witnessed installation of such cable first hand many times. It happened a lot in the past, before 1Gbit became affordable, and customer wouldn't want to run another cable. My co-worker used to love these kind of "hacks", and it worked without any issues at 100Mbit. He even did poor man's POE over similar setup - power plugs/jack on both ends of the cable.

and that is what my vendor said - but then there is this vendor
http://www.balticnetworks.com/ubiquiti-unifi-switch-48-port-poe-switch-750w.html

who indicates on their site that it does support Layer 3.

@Dashrender said:

As part of patient satisfaction I think we should have one. If we put it on it's own internet pipe the cost would be less than $100 a month, but we are moving soon to a new 100/20 pipe from a 10/10 pipe... so we'll have plenty of bandwidth, and with the limitations that creative mentions kinda makes it a non issue.

we have 100/100mb pipes. But if you give a mouse a cookie... that bandwidth can be used up in no time if you let it be.