15 Jun
2007
15 Jun
'07
10:20 p.m.
nearly same story as sdsl before,
VTX used 2 IP out of the customer /29 range for the wan link.
Traceroute looked funny, not to mention how that "improved" icmp Trouble
Cheers ...
Am 8 Jun 2007 um 1:09 hat Daniel Roethlisberger geschrieben:
Date sent: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 01:09:56 +0200
From: Daniel Roethlisberger <daniel(a)roe.ch>
To: swinog(a)swinog.ch
Subject: Re: [swinog] vtx ADSL /30 subnet practice
Send reply to: swinog(a)swinog.ch
<mailto:swinog-
request(a)lists.swinog.ch?subject=unsubscribe>
<mailto:swinog-
request(a)lists.swinog.ch?subject=subscribe>
Pascal Gloor <pascal.gloor(a)spale.com>
2007-06-07:
[snip]
csdatabrasil Ltda.
Roger Schmid
Rua Arquiteto Luiz Nunes 186
Imbiribeira
CEP: 51170-430
Recife/ PE
BR +55 81 3422 1714
US: +1 360 515 33 80
CH: +41 32 5110858
UK: +44 8444845331
VOIP: 3011(a)sip.ip-tel.ch
This is the normal routed case. I think this is
what Daniel was
looking for.
Not quite, but oh never mind. The point I was trying to make is the
fact that vtx engineers explained to a customer that he would not be
able to assign *any* address of his /30 subnet to a server behind his
ADSL router because all of the subnet would be consumed by the link from
the LNS to the ADSL router (I guess this hasn't come across too well
from my message).
It seems nobody can imagine how this is supposed to be the case, so I
guess that confirms that it's probably bogus information. Thanks anyway
for all responses!
Cheers
Dan
--
Daniel Roethlisberger <daniel(a)roe.ch>
_______________________________________________
swinog mailing list
swinog(a)lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog 