Re: [c-nsp] Need advise on Cisco Switch/Fibre Connectivity

Hi Paul, Thanks for the advice! and yes, 3750's look like their a tad overkill. 2960's are just what i need. Need to ask somemore noob questions. Based on the product lit, i need to get a device with an SFP transceiver to plug in a fibre connector?. And SFP ports are included in switches

Re: [c-nsp] QoS VLAN trunk Port

Hi Guys, I found out that the parameter set cos is only available for atm and frame relay interfaces. Does anyone knows, how to change the Cos values on a trunk interface ? Is that not possible ? I can't believe that no one had a similar issue. Hints are appreciated. Regards, Ahmad Sitz der

Re: [c-nsp] REP (was: ME6524 alternative)

Hi, On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 06:14:46PM -0300, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote: I think such rings would be better served by using REP (Cisco) or EAPS(Extreme) You've made me curious, so I went and looked what REP is, hoping for great innovation - and I find myself somewhat disappointed, it seems to be

Re: [c-nsp] Need advise on Cisco Switch/Fibre Connectivity

Hi Nimal, On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 14:20 +0800, Nimal David Sirimanne wrote: Need to ask somemore noob questions. Based on the product lit, i need to get a device with an SFP transceiver to plug in a fibre connector?. And SFP ports are included in switches that have dual-purpose uplinks? So

[c-nsp] SVI or Subinterfaces?

Dear all We are ISP and have Catalyst 6513. And I want to terminate Trunks on it. Can someone tell me what is the better approach to achieve this. 1) using Subinterfaces on Trunk links. or 2) Using SVIs Which will provide more flexibility and scalability and what are the limitations

Re: [c-nsp] combining multiple dsl lines

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 5:18 AM, Ben Steele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Depends a lot on the adsl connections, are they ppp ? does the remote end support multilink? if so then multilink ppp is a good option providing all 4 lines are the same characteristics. Otherwise other options are cef load

Re: [c-nsp] SVI or Subinterfaces?

Hi Asad, On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 15:56 +0500, Asad Ul-Islam wrote: We are ISP and have Catalyst 6513. And I want to terminate Trunks on it. Can someone tell me what is the better approach to achieve this. 1) using Subinterfaces on Trunk links. or 2) Using SVIs Which will provide more

[c-nsp] Changes to show policy-map interface

I was just looking at a router running a recent version of IOS and I noticed that the output of show policy-map int has changed quite a bit. Here is the output: Router# sho policy-map interface Serial0/0/0 Service-policy output: voip Class-map: VoIP (match-any) 1354294 packets,

Re: [c-nsp] REP

I think such rings would be better served by using REP (Cisco) or EAPS(Extreme) You've made me curious, so I went and looked what REP is, hoping for great innovation - and I find myself somewhat disappointed, it seems to be something similar to RPVST or MST, just incompatible. Since

Re: [c-nsp] REP

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The fact that REP and EAPS are explicitly *not* compatible with regular IEEE spanning tree is one of the great attractions of these protocols. This means that a customer who sends STP traffic into your network can *not* influence your ring topology/failover. Honestly

Re: [c-nsp] Changes to show policy-map interface

What code is it? On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 07:20:25AM -0500, Peder @ NetworkOblivion wrote: I was just looking at a router running a recent version of IOS and I noticed that the output of show policy-map int has changed quite a bit. Here is the output: Router# sho policy-map interface

Re: [c-nsp] Changes to show policy-map interface

It is 12.4.3 from Nov 2007. I guess it isn't really recent, but it is a 12.4 revision. Rodney Dunn wrote: What code is it? On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 07:20:25AM -0500, Peder @ NetworkOblivion wrote: I was just looking at a router running a recent version of IOS and I noticed that the output of

Re: [c-nsp] REP

list of points why STP shouldn't interact ...the key thing being should not, rather than will not. Using an entirely different protocol protects to a degree against human or machine error e.g. forgetting the bpduguard config. I have never seen the point in more STP-like protocols when you

Re: [c-nsp] ME6524 alternative

Not to push this thread off topic, But we *hate* the Cisco model of the 'valueless' reseller. We deal with a Cisco rep, we deal with a Cisco SE, our discount is set by Cisco, we deal with Cisco's TAC - but when it's time to buy something, we get shuffled off to some twit that does

Re: [c-nsp] ME6524 alternative

I don't have a problem with a reseller getting a piece of the action if it's a vendor choice to do so. I always tell vendors that we will compare the product by the price we can get it, no matter how many hands it come across... on a competitive market like selling networking gear to service

Re: [c-nsp] Changes to show policy-map interface

I suspect that is packets classified vs. the queueing engine acutally kicking in for the packets (ie: there was congestion and we had to queue those 5717) briefly. On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 09:13:29AM -0500, Peder @ NetworkOblivion wrote: It is 12.4.3 from Nov 2007. I guess it isn't really

Re: [c-nsp] REP

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Phil Mayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: list of points why STP shouldn't interact ...the key thing being should not, rather than will not. Using an entirely different protocol protects to a degree against human or machine error e.g. forgetting the bpduguard

[c-nsp] Port-Channel Setup Issues

Hi All I am trying to setup a 4 port port-channel between a Cisco 7609 and a Cisco ME3400, despite various attempts to complete this I keep running into the same issue, although the physical ports come up the Port-channel wont at all, looking at the port channel itself it remains in a

Re: [c-nsp] Port-Channel Setup Issues

What does int po1 look like on the ME3400. What do the physical interfaces look like on the 7600. The physical on the ME3400 is configured as an etherchannel without any negotation, if the otherside is configured any other method it won't come up. David -- http://dcp.dcptech.com

Re: [c-nsp] REP

Rubens, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote: Also in the market, Allied Telesis has EPSR or something like that. It would be a Good Thing if all those Ethernet ring protocols were replaced by a standard one, Fortunately, there is hope in this regard. Take a look at ITU G.8032.

[c-nsp] Renaming interfaces on a PIX 525

We have a pair of PIX 525s (active/standby), and the 2900 switch they're attached to is going to be replaced very shortly. The outside interface, which is currently Ethernet0, will then be moved to GigabitEthernet1. What's the best way to do this? Can I just rename the Ethernet0 interface to

Re: [c-nsp] Cisco 6500 Chassis PDU

Relying on a breaker in another room, that someone else might flip without your knowledge, seems like a recipe for getting hurt. Does anyone actually do this? We do this in our telco room, but it's only a few hundred sf and the BDFB is under 40' away from any direct connected equipment (and

Re: [c-nsp] Renaming interfaces on a PIX 525

Hello Steve, when I remember correctly - when you rename the interface, then also the related config parts, where the interface name is used, are changed. Regards, Mathias From: Steven Pfister [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Date: 23.07.2008 20:39 Subject: [c-nsp] Renaming

Re: [c-nsp] Renaming interfaces on a PIX 525

Mathias Spoerr wrote: Hello Steve, when I remember correctly - when you rename the interface, then also the related config parts, where the interface name is used, are changed. Keep a good backup of the config just in case, especially if you're talking about trying this with PDM/ASDM. They

Re: [c-nsp] Renaming interfaces on a PIX 525

I think I'm probably going to do this from the command line. Would I be able to have two interfaces marked as outside? Do something like: int gig1 nameif outside security-level 0 int eth0 nameif old.outside security-level 6 no ip address int gig1 ip address address from eth0 standby

Re: [c-nsp] Renaming interfaces on a PIX 525

Hello Steven: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Pfister Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] Renaming interfaces on a PIX 525 We have a pair of PIX 525s

Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS: Ignore Attached Bit

r(config)#router isis r(config-router)#ignore-attached-bit r(config-router)# When/why would you want to do that? -A ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at

Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS: Ignore Attached Bit

Asbjorn - This is useful in the case of L2--L1 Route-Leaking where you *may* not want L1-Router to use its default to point to L1L2 router and L1L2 end up in dropping the traffic. With Route-Leaking, L1-Router does get the specific routes. This way, for any traffic that L1 doesn't know, it will

Re: [c-nsp] combining multiple dsl lines

The adsl connections are PPPoE and they do not support multilink. I am using nat on the router as well. I guess I will stick with route-map's for now as I know how to configure it and it works well in this configuration. Thanks for the info! Dan. On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 11:18 PM, Ben Steele

[c-nsp] uRPF and IPSec SPA compatibility issues?

I enabled uRPF on a couple SVIs on our 7600s last week remotely while in training. I was trying to track down some RFC 1918 traffic leaking into our network between lectures. I was going to use an ACL with an explicit deny w/ log-input to locate it. One of the SVIs was for one of our SP

[c-nsp] uRPF and IPSec SPA compatibility issues? part 2

Whoops. I somehow told Thunderbird to send the message (ctrl-enter I think) and couldn't find a way to stop it. Here's the uRPF config: ip verify unicast source reachable-via rx 150 ACL 150 has a permit for DHCP traffic and a deny any w/ log-input for everything else. So I was

Re: [c-nsp] combining multiple dsl lines

If you really want to use route-maps to force your traffic down a certain interface at least use it with verify-availability incase your hop goes down so you have a back up path, no point forcing traffic down a dsl line that has died.

Re: [c-nsp] Renaming interfaces on a PIX 525

Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: You will have to rename the Ethernet interface first, which will break a lot of stuff, then name the Gigabit Ethernet interface, which will *not* un-break anything. After you change the name you will have to do the following: 1) Reenter your statics (they

Re: [c-nsp] combining multiple dsl lines

Yes, I have done that before and it works well. Thanks Dan. On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Ben Steele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you really want to use route-maps to force your traffic down a certain interface at least use it with verify-availability incase your hop goes down so you have a

Re: [c-nsp] combining multiple dsl lines

You're still going to need something on the CPE side to detect a failed route unless you plan on running a routing protocol to your customers, I won't bother going into the Linux side of things seeing as this is a Cisco list but in my experience per-packet is only good if the lines are really

Re: [c-nsp] combining multiple dsl lines

We use per-packet all the time, in our experience the lines tend to all degrade together since the degradation seems to be in the building trunk or off somewhere in the ATM cloud on the provider (qwest in this case)...We do also run eBGP with private ASNs to all customers who have multiple

Re: [c-nsp] combining multiple dsl lines

www.cisco.com/go/oer ios performance routing as it's known now might work for you -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Letkeman Sent: Wednesday, 23 July 2008 12:10 PM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] combining multiple dsl

Re: [c-nsp] Renaming interfaces on a PIX 525

Justin Shore wrote: You might be thinking that you can simply download a copy of the startup-config to a tftp server, modify it and upload it back over top of the startup-config (or running-config). First off I can't remember where the startup-config is located on the PIX/ASAs or if it can be

Re: [c-nsp] unable to ping from some source IP

Hi guys, I have a very strange issue encountered. I am not able to ping to one of customer's WAN IP (203.192.163.162) from some source IP. I am 100% sure that is nothing filtering it from our side. Anything wrong prohibiting it from below customer router's config? Cheers, Jimmy

[c-nsp] Cisco WLC 4404 Snmp problems

Hi list, Anyone encountered not able to get SNMP data from a Cisco WLC 4404? I got a no response when I do: [10:18:31 [EMAIL PROTECTED]~]# snmpwalk -v 2c 192.168.1.2 -c public Timeout: No Response from 192.168.1.2 all snmp settings are activated via web config, all versions are enabled. When I

[c-nsp] 6509e upgrades to native ios

I have been reading and following the following document for upgrading from cat os to native ios http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps708/products_tech_note 09186a008015bfa6.shtml#conv_32 I am stuck at reloading the router, I get this error ( I am consoled into the console

Re: [c-nsp] unable to ping from some source IP

Hi! Hi guys, I have a very strange issue encountered. I am not able to ping to one of customer's WAN IP (203.192.163.162) from some source IP. I am 100% sure that is nothing filtering it from our side. Anything wrong prohibiting it from below customer router's config?