you actually don't need your own block of IP addresses, as long as you've got a good set of providers. You'll need to work with them to get the EBGP peering setup, and your filtering straight... you surely don't want ISP A using your paid for bandwidth to pass traffic to ISP B, right?
If your providers can't help you setup your BGP peering, then you probably need to find a different set of providers.
What you will need to do it correctly, though is your own Autonomous System Number... commonly known as an ASN. this is the number that actually identifies who your organization is to the world, and that BGP uses to define "paths".
My wife and I saw it last night... before the lights went down, we couldn't believe how many kids under 9 were in the theater. This was with a cop in uniform standing outside the room checking tickets, so obivously they had someone over 21 get them in.
Got a couple of things to point out with the Cisco Switches-
1. There's a code problem with several versions of the IOS for the MSFC that causes funky problems, including locking up the MSFC, and preventing Fail-Over according to Cisco. I was in D.C. at a CCIE Lab prep class when we had this problem a couple of weeks ago, so I wasn't on the firing line, and don't know all the details. Just might be something you want to check out.
2. The 5.3(2) Supervisor image apparently doesn't support Gig E ports well. We found this out at the same time as the above problem with the guy at TAC said "Geez, you shouldn't even be working at all with that image and all those Gig ports." or words to that affect. Supposedly the 5.4 images fix this problem. Convient since we had 24 switches delivered in January with a minimum of 4 Gig ports configured, up to 24 Gig ports depending on the switch, and every one of them had the 5.3(2) image.
3. Lastly, I'm becoming concerned with Cisco's Quality control, especially with the Catalyst switches. Of 48 Supervisors delivery in January, I've had to RMA 8 already because of dead SAINTs or other dead ASICs. For the math challenged, that's a 20% failure rate in less than 4 months; definitely not conducive to the 5 9's uptime directive from On-High.
This was not a rant, or even a Cisco bitch- just wanted to let ya'll know there are some issues with the 6509's that may have played with your problems.
I have to disagree with you about needing a degree to get paid. I don't have even an associates degree. I'm 28, and I'll bring down around a 100K this year working as a network consultant, and writing for various publishers. Maybe the degree helps, but if you can sell yourself well, you can always get your foot in the door, and prove yourself to anyone. If a company is not open-minded enough to give you a chance, then you probably don't really want to work there... Joe
Slashdot Mirror
you actually don't need your own block of IP addresses, as long as you've got a good set of providers. You'll need to work with them to get the EBGP peering setup, and your filtering straight... you surely don't want ISP A using your paid for bandwidth to pass traffic to ISP B, right?
If your providers can't help you setup your BGP peering, then you probably need to find a different set of providers.
What you will need to do it correctly, though is your own Autonomous System Number... commonly known as an ASN. this is the number that actually identifies who your organization is to the world, and that BGP uses to define "paths".
My wife and I saw it last night... before the lights went down, we couldn't believe how many kids under 9 were in the theater. This was with a cop in uniform standing outside the room checking tickets, so obivously they had someone over 21 get them in.
Awesome idea.... demolition derby for satelites...
Got a couple of things to point out with the Cisco Switches-
1. There's a code problem with several versions of the IOS for the MSFC that causes funky problems, including locking up the MSFC, and preventing Fail-Over according to Cisco. I was in D.C. at a CCIE Lab prep class when we had this problem a couple of weeks ago, so I wasn't on the firing line, and don't know all the details. Just might be something you want to check out.
2. The 5.3(2) Supervisor image apparently doesn't support Gig E ports well. We found this out at the same time as the above problem with the guy at TAC said "Geez, you shouldn't even be working at all with that image and all those Gig ports." or words to that affect. Supposedly the 5.4 images fix this problem. Convient since we had 24 switches delivered in January with a minimum of 4 Gig ports configured, up to 24 Gig ports depending on the switch, and every one of them had the 5.3(2) image.
3. Lastly, I'm becoming concerned with Cisco's Quality control, especially with the Catalyst switches. Of 48 Supervisors delivery in January, I've had to RMA 8 already because of dead SAINTs or other dead ASICs. For the math challenged, that's a 20% failure rate in less than 4 months; definitely not conducive to the 5 9's uptime directive from On-High.
This was not a rant, or even a Cisco bitch- just wanted to let ya'll know there are some issues with the 6509's that may have played with your problems.
Hey- are those the new fangled scotch tape holographic drives in the background?
I have to disagree with you about needing a degree to get paid. I don't have even an associates degree. I'm 28, and I'll bring down around a 100K this year working as a network consultant, and writing for various publishers. Maybe the degree helps, but if you can sell yourself well, you can always get your foot in the door, and prove yourself to anyone. If a company is not open-minded enough to give you a chance, then you probably don't really want to work there... Joe