This is great one! Hope more Hyper-V related stuff is coming 🙂

Hak5 OpenVPN Series: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9Gx4S6DDjBvoIpQZiAhdRFpZ0yztZJms

Yes NTG can do that. We have a Cicso guy on staff.

@Mike-Davis said in switch and NIC teaming in Hyper-v:

Good points. Now that I think about it, in this case it's pointless since they have a 1GB uplink to the main switch. Since all ports go in to one switch and there is only one 1GB uplink nothing is gained in terms or redundancy or bandwidth.

You always gain redundancy you can have 3 links fail.

@scottalanmiller said in Meraki MX400 NAT Question:

@dafyre said in Meraki MX400 NAT Question:

The team that is there now are the ones that have to convince the bean counters of the need to change.

It's a tiny cost though, right? We are only talking about a minuscule investment, I think. If it saves a few hours of effort, doesn't that cover the cost?

No you are not. You are neglecting to add in the labor costs and only calculating on the hardware costs.

Physically changing everything will add labor cost. Ordering, configuration, staging, installation.

Yes, something else is cheaper. But not as cheap as you try to make it sound.

The existing solution is in place and already paid for. A simple support call resolved the configuration issue. There is no reason to spend additional capital to change a working solution until you have to plan for new spend on the solution.

If the existing solution was actually not functional, or some other factors were in play to offset things, then it would certainly be worth switching solutions.

@stacksofplates said in CentOS 7 networking issues:

NetworkManager still creates the ifcfg files under network-scripts. So those configs will still be there, but should have NM_CONTROLLED=yes

Also, for some reason CentOS ships with both network and NetworkManager on at the same time. So that's most likely why you saw the DHCP for NetworkManager and the static file that you created. I always disable and mask network to keep people from turning it back on when they aren't paying attention.

So it looks like they took out the NM_CONTROLLED section. I must have been thinking of RHEL 6. But NM still creates the ifcfg files in the same directory.

@Dashrender said in Considering a New VPN:

@JaredBusch said in Considering a New VPN:

@scottalanmiller said in Considering a New VPN:

@JaredBusch said in Considering a New VPN:

@scottalanmiller said in Considering a New VPN:

@JaredBusch said in Considering a New VPN:

@scottalanmiller said in Considering a New VPN:

@Carnival-Boy said in Considering a New VPN:

Yeah, I need hub and spoke really. But that's not too difficult to setup on ZeroTier is it?

ZeroTier doesn't offer hub and spoke at all. It's pure SDN / mesh.

This is not true, ZeroTier has gateway functionality.
https://www.zerotier.com/community/topic/5/bridging-ethernet-to-zerotier-virtual-networks-on-linux

I was leaving that out for simplicity as he's not going to build custom Linux systems for this.

Why? Because a single VM setup as a gateway means that ZT now meets all needs also.

No different than replacing a router, etc.

I've not used it, does it require you to change your IP range or can you keep what you have?

The biggest recommendation is to make it inclusive of your LAN subnet so make life easier. I've not had the time to set it up on my lab yet.

I use ZT in a number of places, but not using the gateway anywhere yet.

Right, so being inclusive means that you did follow Scott's recommendation, only that you bent ZT to the current setup, instead of making a whole new IP setup with this in mind.

Did that solve all of the Windows DNS issues?

I have no idea WTF you are talking about. You are implying and inferring things that are not being discussed here.

@JaredBusch said in Unifi switch - tagged traffic issues:

@Dashrender said in Unifi switch - tagged traffic issues:

Found the problem - the uplink from my Unifi to my core switch, VLAN 2 wasn't allowed on the connection.

Enabled VLAN2, problem solved.

Aww the little things.

on which switch.

Also, reinforcing the issue with VLAN complicating things.

The core switch, in my case an HP 2824.

I don't disagree that VLANs can/do add complication. But in this case it was pre-existing complication that I had to work through, not remove at this point.

https://mangolassi.it/topic/12560/digital-ocean-gets-load-balancers

@Reid-Cooper said in Fortinet Experiences:

I guess it matters then... who else is on the list? What about Sophos, are they an option?

Looks like only their disk encryption is.

Here is the list: http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/STM/cmvp/documents/140-1/1401vend.htm.

@Dashrender said in Two ISP Fail over Internally vs Externally Fail over:

what does it do that the ER-L doesn't? I know someone else (the guy at SW who swears more than JB) recommended the Peplink to me years ago... but I think the ER-L can do many of the same things now.

Much like Tivo and generic DVRs, they function the same, but the actual execution is more refined.

Outbound load balance has been a feature for many different devices for a while now. I've got an ER-L right now, yeah it does the load balance between the two circuits. But since they are very different speeds, they don't balance as evenly as Peplink can do it. They also don't offer bonded VPN and their interface is easy as fuck to deal with.

Yeah, I can buy a TWC DVR, but my Tivo does more.

Yup, and cheap enough to swap while someone else is trying to fix something is huge. I'll take two devices that I can swap when one dies for a total price of $600 long before I'll take one of $3,000 that fails "a little less often" but can take a day for someone to repair!

@scottalanmiller said in Barracuda Borks Firewalls with Automatic Update:

@Dashrender said in Barracuda Borks Firewalls with Automatic Update:

ERL for crying out loud!

Keep one on spare for just these kinds of emergencies!

lol I was thinking the same - most can probably afford to just keep this on the shelf in case of an issue.

@FATeknollogee hi, what model of sfp are u using. I'm getting the same error. Thanks!

Yeah, WTF?

Are you connecting a permanent IPSEC tunnel with some other network you do not control?