From rayw at rayw.net Fri May 10 11:57:28 2013 From: rayw at rayw.net (Ray Wong) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 11:57:28 -0700 Subject: [Baylisa] DSR load balancer oddities with Ubuntu? Message-ID: Hey, I know the list has been quiet on tech discussions lately, but I'm hoping someone can help as my google-fu is not strong on this, it seems. We've been trying to migrate some of our old Fedora Core machines to Ubuntu (12.04LTS), and have run into an annoying difference in network behavior, which I'm hoping someone else has encountered and figured out a fix. We split our CIDR allocation, and backhaul our office bandwidth through the colo a couple blocks away. The load balanced network and the office are routed and separate blocks/masks/vlans, but for some reason office traffic can't seem to talk to Ubuntu servers using DSR behind an F5 BigIP. The FC machines work fine, it's only Ubuntu that doesn't seem able to do this, and it works from anywhere outside. I'm using the dummy interface for the VIPs with the arp_ignore set to 1 and arp_announce set to 2, which seems to have everything working except for this one strange issue. Anyone else doing this successfully? From ulf at alameda.net Fri May 10 12:08:48 2013 From: ulf at alameda.net (Ulf Zimmermann) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 12:08:48 -0700 Subject: [Baylisa] DSR load balancer oddities with Ubuntu? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Check if you are running into return path issue. I.e. traffic comes in one path tries to leave another. Ulf Zimmermann | OPENLANE, Inc. 2200 Bridge Parkway, Suite 202 Redwood City, CA 94065, USA Tel +1-650-412-4042 | ulf at Openlane.com On May 10, 2013, at 11:57, Ray Wong wrote: > Hey, I know the list has been quiet on tech discussions lately, but I'm > hoping someone can help as my google-fu is not strong on this, it seems. > > We've been trying to migrate some of our old Fedora Core machines to Ubuntu > (12.04LTS), and have run into an annoying difference in network behavior, > which I'm hoping someone else has encountered and figured out a fix. > > We split our CIDR allocation, and backhaul our office bandwidth through the > colo a couple blocks away. The load balanced network and the office are > routed and separate blocks/masks/vlans, but for some reason office traffic > can't seem to talk to Ubuntu servers using DSR behind an F5 BigIP. The FC > machines work fine, it's only Ubuntu that doesn't seem able to do this, and > it works from anywhere outside. I'm using the dummy interface for the VIPs > with the arp_ignore set to 1 and arp_announce set to 2, which seems to have > everything working except for this one strange issue. > > Anyone else doing this successfully? > _______________________________________________ > Baylisa mailing list > Baylisa at baylisa.org > http://www.baylisa.org/mailman/listinfo/baylisa > From rayw at rayw.net Fri May 10 12:12:00 2013 From: rayw at rayw.net (Ray Wong) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 12:12:00 -0700 Subject: [Baylisa] DSR load balancer oddities with Ubuntu? In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Well, it sort of has to with DSR, right? :) the traffic hits the BigIP, forwards to the server, and the server replies directly out the router. I'm probably being thickheaded from a long week, do you mean some other sort of pathing? On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Ulf Zimmermann wrote: > Check if you are running into return path issue. I.e. traffic comes in one > path tries to leave another. > > Ulf Zimmermann | OPENLANE, Inc. > 2200 Bridge Parkway, Suite 202 > Redwood City, CA 94065, USA > Tel +1-650-412-4042 | ulf at Openlane.com > > > On May 10, 2013, at 11:57, Ray Wong wrote: > > > Hey, I know the list has been quiet on tech discussions lately, but I'm > > hoping someone can help as my google-fu is not strong on this, it seems. > > > > We've been trying to migrate some of our old Fedora Core machines to > Ubuntu > > (12.04LTS), and have run into an annoying difference in network behavior, > > which I'm hoping someone else has encountered and figured out a fix. > > > > We split our CIDR allocation, and backhaul our office bandwidth through > the > > colo a couple blocks away. The load balanced network and the office are > > routed and separate blocks/masks/vlans, but for some reason office > traffic > > can't seem to talk to Ubuntu servers using DSR behind an F5 BigIP. The FC > > machines work fine, it's only Ubuntu that doesn't seem able to do this, > and > > it works from anywhere outside. I'm using the dummy interface for the > VIPs > > with the arp_ignore set to 1 and arp_announce set to 2, which seems to > have > > everything working except for this one strange issue. > > > > Anyone else doing this successfully? > > _______________________________________________ > > Baylisa mailing list > > Baylisa at baylisa.org > > http://www.baylisa.org/mailman/listinfo/baylisa > > > From ulf at alameda.net Fri May 10 12:24:09 2013 From: ulf at alameda.net (Ulf Zimmermann) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 12:24:09 -0700 Subject: [Baylisa] DSR load balancer oddities with Ubuntu? In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Newer Linux kernel have a setting to disallow that. I am not at a computer to look up the sysctl variable but look for something starting with rt or rp. Ulf Zimmermann | OPENLANE, Inc. 2200 Bridge Parkway, Suite 202 Redwood City, CA 94065, USA Tel +1-650-412-4042 | ulf at Openlane.com On May 10, 2013, at 12:12, Ray Wong wrote: > Well, it sort of has to with DSR, right? :) the traffic hits the BigIP, forwards to the server, and the server replies directly out the router. I'm probably being thickheaded from a long week, do you mean some other sort of pathing? > > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Ulf Zimmermann wrote: >> Check if you are running into return path issue. I.e. traffic comes in one path tries to leave another. >> >> Ulf Zimmermann | OPENLANE, Inc. >> 2200 Bridge Parkway, Suite 202 >> Redwood City, CA 94065, USA >> Tel +1-650-412-4042 | ulf at Openlane.com >> >> >> On May 10, 2013, at 11:57, Ray Wong wrote: >> >> > Hey, I know the list has been quiet on tech discussions lately, but I'm >> > hoping someone can help as my google-fu is not strong on this, it seems. >> > >> > We've been trying to migrate some of our old Fedora Core machines to Ubuntu >> > (12.04LTS), and have run into an annoying difference in network behavior, >> > which I'm hoping someone else has encountered and figured out a fix. >> > >> > We split our CIDR allocation, and backhaul our office bandwidth through the >> > colo a couple blocks away. The load balanced network and the office are >> > routed and separate blocks/masks/vlans, but for some reason office traffic >> > can't seem to talk to Ubuntu servers using DSR behind an F5 BigIP. The FC >> > machines work fine, it's only Ubuntu that doesn't seem able to do this, and >> > it works from anywhere outside. I'm using the dummy interface for the VIPs >> > with the arp_ignore set to 1 and arp_announce set to 2, which seems to have >> > everything working except for this one strange issue. >> > >> > Anyone else doing this successfully? >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Baylisa mailing list >> > Baylisa at baylisa.org >> > http://www.baylisa.org/mailman/listinfo/baylisa >> > > From anton at antoncohen.com Fri May 10 12:53:54 2013 From: anton at antoncohen.com (Anton Cohen) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 12:53:54 -0700 Subject: [Baylisa] DSR load balancer oddities with Ubuntu? In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Ulf Zimmermann wrote: > Newer Linux kernel have a setting to disallow that. I am not at a computer > to look up the sysctl variable but look for something starting with rt or > rp. > > On May 10, 2013, at 12:12, Ray Wong wrote: > > > Well, it sort of has to with DSR, right? :) the traffic hits the BigIP, > forwards to the server, and the server replies directly out the router. I'm > probably being thickheaded from a long week, do you mean some other sort of > pathing? > I think Ulf is right, expect the other way around. You need different return paths and Ubuntu disables them by default [1]. Try disabling return path filtering [2]. [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/procps/+bug/201952 [2] http://serverfault.com/a/35769/148146 From ulf at alameda.net Fri May 10 13:07:21 2013 From: ulf at alameda.net (Ulf Zimmermann) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 13:07:21 -0700 Subject: [Baylisa] DSR load balancer oddities with Ubuntu? In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <26ec01ce4db9$fafb3a20$f0f1ae60$@alameda.net> # Controls source route verification net.ipv4.conf.default.rp_filter = 0 That is the one was talking about. From: Anton Cohen [mailto:anton at antoncohen.com] Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 12:54 To: Ulf Zimmermann Cc: Ray Wong; baylisa at baylisa.org Subject: Re: [Baylisa] DSR load balancer oddities with Ubuntu? On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Ulf Zimmermann wrote: Newer Linux kernel have a setting to disallow that. I am not at a computer to look up the sysctl variable but look for something starting with rt or rp. On May 10, 2013, at 12:12, Ray Wong wrote: > Well, it sort of has to with DSR, right? :) the traffic hits the BigIP, forwards to the server, and the server replies directly out the router. I'm probably being thickheaded from a long week, do you mean some other sort of pathing? I think Ulf is right, expect the other way around. You need different return paths and Ubuntu disables them by default [1]. Try disabling return path filtering [2]. [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/procps/+bug/201952 [2] http://serverfault.com/a/35769/148146 From rayw at rayw.net Fri May 10 13:11:56 2013 From: rayw at rayw.net (Ray Wong) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 13:11:56 -0700 Subject: [Baylisa] DSR load balancer oddities with Ubuntu? In-Reply-To: <26ec01ce4db9$fafb3a20$f0f1ae60$@alameda.net> References:

<26ec01ce4db9$fafb3a20$f0f1ae60$@alameda.net> Message-ID: Yep, just found it myself, thanks for the nudge in the right direction. Unfortunately I seem to have busted it some other way now, so DSR is broken entirely. very odd... On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Ulf Zimmermann wrote: > # Controls source route verification**** > > net.ipv4.conf.default.rp_filter = 0**** > > ** ** > > That is the one was talking about.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Anton Cohen [mailto:anton at antoncohen.com] > *Sent:* Friday, May 10, 2013 12:54 > *To:* Ulf Zimmermann > *Cc:* Ray Wong; baylisa at baylisa.org > *Subject:* Re: [Baylisa] DSR load balancer oddities with Ubuntu?**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Ulf Zimmermann wrote:* > *** > > Newer Linux kernel have a setting to disallow that. I am not at a computer > to look up the sysctl variable but look for something starting with rt or > rp. > > On May 10, 2013, at 12:12, Ray Wong wrote: > > > Well, it sort of has to with DSR, right? :) the traffic hits the BigIP, > forwards to the server, and the server replies directly out the router. I'm > probably being thickheaded from a long week, do you mean some other sort of > pathing?**** > > > I think Ulf is right, expect the other way around. You need different > return paths and Ubuntu disables them by default [1]. Try disabling return > path filtering [2].**** > > ** ** > > [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/procps/+bug/201952**** > > [2] http://serverfault.com/a/35769/148146**** > From rayw at rayw.net Fri May 10 14:42:56 2013 From: rayw at rayw.net (Ray Wong) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 14:42:56 -0700 Subject: [Baylisa] DSR load balancer oddities with Ubuntu? In-Reply-To: References:

<26ec01ce4db9$fafb3a20$f0f1ae60$@alameda.net> Message-ID: Huh. looks like something is unhappy(cksum incorrect?) from what tcpdump is showing me on the ACK packet back: Flags [S.], cksum 0x0b22 (incorrect -> 0x2a9b), seq 3623362406, ack 2678610709, win 14480, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 352288 ecr 394642277,nop,wscale 7], length 0 Must have missed some other setting? On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Ray Wong wrote: > Yep, just found it myself, thanks for the nudge in the right direction. > Unfortunately I seem to have busted it some other way now, so DSR is broken > entirely. very odd... > > > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Ulf Zimmermann wrote: > >> # Controls source route verification**** >> >> net.ipv4.conf.default.rp_filter = 0**** >> >> ** ** >> >> That is the one was talking about.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Anton Cohen [mailto:anton at antoncohen.com] >> *Sent:* Friday, May 10, 2013 12:54 >> *To:* Ulf Zimmermann >> *Cc:* Ray Wong; baylisa at baylisa.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Baylisa] DSR load balancer oddities with Ubuntu?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Ulf Zimmermann wrote: >> **** >> >> Newer Linux kernel have a setting to disallow that. I am not at a >> computer to look up the sysctl variable but look for something starting >> with rt or rp. >> >> On May 10, 2013, at 12:12, Ray Wong wrote: >> >> > Well, it sort of has to with DSR, right? :) the traffic hits the BigIP, >> forwards to the server, and the server replies directly out the router. I'm >> probably being thickheaded from a long week, do you mean some other sort of >> pathing?**** >> >> >> I think Ulf is right, expect the other way around. You need different >> return paths and Ubuntu disables them by default [1]. Try disabling return >> path filtering [2].**** >> >> ** ** >> >> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/procps/+bug/201952**** >> >> [2] http://serverfault.com/a/35769/148146**** >> > > From rayw at rayw.net Fri May 10 14:45:25 2013 From: rayw at rayw.net (Ray Wong) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 14:45:25 -0700 Subject: [Baylisa] DSR load balancer oddities with Ubuntu? In-Reply-To: References:

<26ec01ce4db9$fafb3a20$f0f1ae60$@alameda.net> Message-ID: oh derp. that's just checksum offloading. shouldn't be the problem. On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Ray Wong wrote: > Huh. looks like something is unhappy(cksum incorrect?) from what tcpdump > is showing me on the ACK packet back: > > Flags [S.], cksum 0x0b22 (incorrect -> 0x2a9b), seq 3623362406, ack > 2678610709, win 14480, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 352288 ecr > 394642277,nop,wscale 7], length 0 > > Must have missed some other setting? > > > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Ray Wong wrote: > >> Yep, just found it myself, thanks for the nudge in the right direction. >> Unfortunately I seem to have busted it some other way now, so DSR is broken >> entirely. very odd... >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Ulf Zimmermann wrote: >> >>> # Controls source route verification**** >>> >>> net.ipv4.conf.default.rp_filter = 0**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> That is the one was talking about.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> *From:* Anton Cohen [mailto:anton at antoncohen.com] >>> *Sent:* Friday, May 10, 2013 12:54 >>> *To:* Ulf Zimmermann >>> *Cc:* Ray Wong; baylisa at baylisa.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [Baylisa] DSR load balancer oddities with Ubuntu?**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Ulf Zimmermann >>> wrote:**** >>> >>> Newer Linux kernel have a setting to disallow that. I am not at a >>> computer to look up the sysctl variable but look for something starting >>> with rt or rp. >>> >>> On May 10, 2013, at 12:12, Ray Wong wrote: >>> >>> > Well, it sort of has to with DSR, right? :) the traffic hits the >>> BigIP, forwards to the server, and the server replies directly out the >>> router. I'm probably being thickheaded from a long week, do you mean some >>> other sort of pathing?**** >>> >>> >>> I think Ulf is right, expect the other way around. You need different >>> return paths and Ubuntu disables them by default [1]. Try disabling return >>> path filtering [2].**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/procps/+bug/201952**** >>> >>> [2] http://serverfault.com/a/35769/148146**** >>> >> >> > From rnovak at indyramp.com Fri May 10 21:53:17 2013 From: rnovak at indyramp.com (Robert Novak) Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 21:53:17 -0700 Subject: [Baylisa] Hadoop at BayLISA this coming Thursday, May 16, at Yahoo! Message-ID: Hi folks, tl;dr: http://www.meetup.com/BayLISA/events/74452112/ BayLISA welcomes Alan Gates of Hortonworks, and Eric Sammer of Cloudera, to Thursday's BayLISA meeting at Yahoo! in Sunnyvale. Details/RSVP at http://www.meetup.com/BayLISA/events/74452112/ ... Currently we have the beginnings of a waiting list for the 100 seats, but some people will probably change their plans closer to the date, so please join the waitlist if you are interested in coming. If your plans change and you can no longer join us, please come back to the site to update your status, so someone else can attend. Thanks, Robert Novak BayLISA President From rayw at rayw.net Tue May 14 15:45:12 2013 From: rayw at rayw.net (Ray Wong) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 15:45:12 -0700 Subject: [Baylisa] any preferred F5 resellers? Message-ID: Am guessing resellers can offer somewhat improved pricing (and probably better customer service) than going F5 direct for a smaller shop... I'm looking to improve from an old pair of 6400s to something a little more capable with greater simplicity than rolling my own HAproxy solution... I'm also open to bringing in an F5 consultant for a quick evaluation of if our current hardware is even working right, if our configs look reasonable, and make recommendations on what we really need, if anyone has recs on that. -R> From alexei.rodriguez at gmail.com Tue May 14 16:02:38 2013 From: alexei.rodriguez at gmail.com (Alexei Rodriguez) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 19:02:38 -0400 Subject: [Baylisa] any preferred F5 resellers? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74780877-6712-4FDC-B99D-3C0A0B7A47BE@gmail.com> I have had good luck with Intervision for F5 gear in the past; Ben Escobar is great. If you want some used gear, NHR is a good source. Good luck! Alexei On May 14, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Ray Wong wrote: > Am guessing resellers can offer somewhat improved pricing (and probably > better customer service) than going F5 direct for a smaller shop... I'm > looking to improve from an old pair of 6400s to something a little more > capable with greater simplicity than rolling my own HAproxy solution... > > I'm also open to bringing in an F5 consultant for a quick evaluation of if > our current hardware is even working right, if our configs look reasonable, > and make recommendations on what we really need, if anyone has recs on that. > > -R> > _______________________________________________ > Baylisa mailing list > Baylisa at baylisa.org > http://www.baylisa.org/mailman/listinfo/baylisa From rnovak at indyramp.com Tue May 14 16:18:19 2013 From: rnovak at indyramp.com (Robert Novak) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 16:18:19 -0700 Subject: [Baylisa] any preferred F5 resellers? In-Reply-To: <74780877-6712-4FDC-B99D-3C0A0B7A47BE@gmail.com> References: <74780877-6712-4FDC-B99D-3C0A0B7A47BE@gmail.com> Message-ID: I second NHR for budget/used gear... Redapt was good when I was in the buying side for aftermarket but they may have gone more toward new authorized reseller stuff. I'd suggest ACS in Sunnyvale as well (http://www.acsacs.com/). I can give you a contact there if you want, I worked with them for a few years as well. On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Alexei Rodriguez < alexei.rodriguez at gmail.com> wrote: > I have had good luck with Intervision for F5 gear in the past; Ben Escobar > is great. > > If you want some used gear, NHR is a good source. > > Good luck! > > Alexei > > On May 14, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Ray Wong wrote: > > > Am guessing resellers can offer somewhat improved pricing (and probably > > better customer service) than going F5 direct for a smaller shop... I'm > > looking to improve from an old pair of 6400s to something a little more > > capable with greater simplicity than rolling my own HAproxy solution... > > > > I'm also open to bringing in an F5 consultant for a quick evaluation of > if > > our current hardware is even working right, if our configs look > reasonable, > > and make recommendations on what we really need, if anyone has recs on > that. > > > > -R> > > _______________________________________________ > > Baylisa mailing list > > Baylisa at baylisa.org > > http://www.baylisa.org/mailman/listinfo/baylisa > _______________________________________________ > Baylisa mailing list > Baylisa at baylisa.org > http://www.baylisa.org/mailman/listinfo/baylisa > > From victorpchang at gmail.com Tue May 14 16:40:03 2013 From: victorpchang at gmail.com (Victor Chang) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 16:40:03 -0700 Subject: [Baylisa] any preferred F5 resellers? In-Reply-To: References: <74780877-6712-4FDC-B99D-3C0A0B7A47BE@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5192CB53.7080102@gmail.com> I've purchased used F5 from NHR for lab use, but be careful with F5's policy on lapsed maintenance contracts and stiff 'recertification fee'. See http://www.f5.com/pdf/customer-support/customer-support-service-fees.pdf NHR and WDPI are both great vendors for used networking gear. -Victor On 5/14/13 4:18 PM, Robert Novak wrote: > I second NHR for budget/used gear... Redapt was good when I was in the > buying side for aftermarket but they may have gone more toward new > authorized reseller stuff. > > I'd suggest ACS in Sunnyvale as well (http://www.acsacs.com/). I can give > you a contact there if you want, I worked with them for a few years as > well. > > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Alexei Rodriguez < > alexei.rodriguez at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have had good luck with Intervision for F5 gear in the past; Ben Escobar >> is great. >> >> If you want some used gear, NHR is a good source. >> >> Good luck! >> >> Alexei >> >> On May 14, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Ray Wong wrote: >> >>> Am guessing resellers can offer somewhat improved pricing (and probably >>> better customer service) than going F5 direct for a smaller shop... I'm >>> looking to improve from an old pair of 6400s to something a little more >>> capable with greater simplicity than rolling my own HAproxy solution... >>> >>> I'm also open to bringing in an F5 consultant for a quick evaluation of >> if >>> our current hardware is even working right, if our configs look >> reasonable, >>> and make recommendations on what we really need, if anyone has recs on >> that. >>> -R> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Baylisa mailing list >>> Baylisa at baylisa.org >>> http://www.baylisa.org/mailman/listinfo/baylisa >> _______________________________________________ >> Baylisa mailing list >> Baylisa at baylisa.org >> http://www.baylisa.org/mailman/listinfo/baylisa >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Baylisa mailing list > Baylisa at baylisa.org > http://www.baylisa.org/mailman/listinfo/baylisa From ulf at alameda.net Tue May 14 19:47:43 2013 From: ulf at alameda.net (Ulf Zimmermann) Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 19:47:43 -0700 Subject: [Baylisa] any preferred F5 resellers? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My reseller for F5 is HPM Networks in Fremont/Pleasanton. They have provided good pre and after support sale on a number of vendors. > -----Original Message----- > From: Baylisa [mailto:baylisa-bounces at baylisa.org] On Behalf Of Ray Wong > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 15:45 > To: baylisa at baylisa.org > Subject: [Baylisa] any preferred F5 resellers? > > Am guessing resellers can offer somewhat improved pricing (and probably > better customer service) than going F5 direct for a smaller shop... I'm > looking to improve from an old pair of 6400s to something a little more > capable with greater simplicity than rolling my own HAproxy solution... > > I'm also open to bringing in an F5 consultant for a quick evaluation of if > our current hardware is even working right, if our configs look reasonable, > and make recommendations on what we really need, if anyone has recs on > that. > > -R> > _______________________________________________ > Baylisa mailing list > Baylisa at baylisa.org > http://www.baylisa.org/mailman/listinfo/baylisa From rayw at rayw.net Fri May 17 16:51:59 2013 From: rayw at rayw.net (Ray Wong) Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 16:51:59 -0700 Subject: [Baylisa] any preferred F5 resellers? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: thanks guys. talking to a few folks now about gear options. No one suggested any consultants, though I've asked some of the gear vendors if they also have consultants to recommend. Guess the economy really is in better shape since no one offered their own services. ;) Seriously. This place I've landed at is running 9.4, which is EOL and I think coming up on EOSL. I'd love to upgrade but for now I need some help figuring out why the things have started misbehaving. having someone able to show a root cause (esp if it's simply the hardware going bad, though it's happening to the same pattern on both in the pair, so thinking it's something else that just isn't showing up as an error in the obvious places). Anyone know LTM v9.4 better than I do want to take a look? :) On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Ulf Zimmermann wrote: > My reseller for F5 is HPM Networks in Fremont/Pleasanton. They have > provided good pre and after support sale on a number of vendors. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Baylisa [mailto:baylisa-bounces at baylisa.org] On Behalf Of Ray Wong > > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 15:45 > > To: baylisa at baylisa.org > > Subject: [Baylisa] any preferred F5 resellers? > > > > Am guessing resellers can offer somewhat improved pricing (and probably > > better customer service) than going F5 direct for a smaller shop... I'm > > looking to improve from an old pair of 6400s to something a little more > > capable with greater simplicity than rolling my own HAproxy solution... > > > > I'm also open to bringing in an F5 consultant for a quick evaluation of > if > > our current hardware is even working right, if our configs look > reasonable, > > and make recommendations on what we really need, if anyone has recs on > > that. > > > > -R> > > _______________________________________________ > > Baylisa mailing list > > Baylisa at baylisa.org > > http://www.baylisa.org/mailman/listinfo/baylisa >