2_1504794011319_IMG_1475.PNG

1_1504794011319_IMG_1474.PNG

0_1504794011318_IMG_1473.PNG

@Tim_G said in Installing VPN access on Windows Server 2016:

I don't remember experiencing or hearing about an MS RRAS server that was compromised or hacked do to the fault of the MS Software directly. It's always been because of dirt poor implementation and security oversights... connecting a Windows server directly to the internet, .....

If you consider exposing the server as a mistake leading to compromise, that's really the point that we were making 🙂

== solved ==

I was looking at 2 different systems, CentOS-7 & Fedora 25.
Bridge networking behavior at the GUI is not the same on both.
F25 required some manual config. to add "br1"
0_1496255974864_nonic2.PNG

It was amazing that Scott found it so fast. I was on the Windows side of things. Inside Windows they were using the iSCSI initiator to connect to the FreeNAS. All the sudden Windows would just log a ton of iSCSI events and go down.

I looked up the events and most people resolved them by putting the iSCSI traffic on a separate NIC. This happened two days in a row at about the same time each day. I was looking at snapshot, backup, etc times when Scott found it in the FreeNAS logs.

@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

@JaredBusch said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

Correct you do have QoS. It is on the VLAN, that contains the voice devices.

So the following is an incorrect assumption.

@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

You might want to LEAD with.... since we discovered that QoS was not set up properly and has never been a problem we can assume that QoS and ensuring call quality cannot be the reason.

Let them come up with a reason if you head that off at the pass.

No, it's correct. They didn't do their jobs properly. They neither did the sensible, cost effective thing for the business, which would have been to not have a VLAN at all. Nor did they properly do QoS for your VoIP traffic.

So no matter what, they didn't set up QoS correctly for you.

Proxim always made high quality, no Internet required mesh gear as well.

@pipesnbytes said in Networking breakout at MangoCon:

What about covering IPV6

That's not a bad idea.

@Curtis said in ZeroTier Bridging Configuration:

@dafyre can you explain your setup in more detail?

@Curtis -- Do you mean my current set up?

I'll do a new post for that.

Edit:

Here it is: https://mangolassi.it/topic/19493/zerotier-site-to-site

There we go. Slowly decreasing that list of unanswereds.

@DustinB3403 said:

They're already spending a ton of money to continue to support IPv4 because of NAT, and the requirement of both types being able to talk to each other.

The cost analysis is probably saying that this process is still less expensive then going all in on IPv6.

Exactly - two 6 TB HDD's may be a lot less expensive, but the performance compared to SSD would be insanely different.

How many HDDs would you need to reach your IOPS requirements?

Yep. that was it. Did route delete on it and it worked. I'm working how that would get there on a clean install.

@g.jacobse said:

Would this be it"

http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/Fluke-Networks-MicroScanner-2-Wiremap-Adapter/1214442.aspx

Sadly that's for version 2, which isn't interchangeable.

Ended up finding this

Enhanced PoE use Cisco Discovery Protocol to auto-negotiate a power level in excess of 15.4W per port.
The Cisco Enhanced PoE switch informs the powered device (PD) of the power level it is capable of providing, and the powered device then selects the appropriate power level.

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/switches/epoe.html

So it may even need to by a Cisco Branded device... Ugh. Cisco!!! Why???

Here is a free one.. It seems pretty basic, but it will get you started.

https://www.udemy.com/introduction-to-the-world-of-cisco-for-complete-beginners/?dtcode=iUUkXWi2xg1R