Dear All,
We have a stubborn problem with one of our ASR9Ks.
A couple of upstream ports are limited to 8Gbps egress traffic, while
others are not affected.
It is a 9010 chassis with two RSP-4Gs, and eight A9K-8T-L cards.
Of every card the first three ports are used for upstream (egress traffic),
Hi Jason,
CSCuh05321 says it is fixed in the S1 release so would that not mean that it is
also in S1a?
Nick
On 19 Nov 2013, at 03:50, Jason Lixfeld
ja...@lixfeld.camailto:ja...@lixfeld.ca wrote:
Just be mindful of CSCuh05321 if you are going to try S1a. If you think you
might hit that,
Thanks Jared. I am planning deploy ntp source that will point to global NTP.
I am curious to know where service provider with mpls network position the
NTP? Any best practices ?
Regards
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
In this case you can sync to
We have servers in each location with NTP synced to local stratum 1 or 2
clocks. Customers are given an anycast ip that points to these for time
sources. We configure routers to point at these local sources.
Jared Mauch
On Nov 19, 2013, at 6:53 AM, Yham yhamee...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks
That's what I was about to ask as the CSCuh05321 is actually listed under
15.3(3)S caveats not under 15.3(3)S1a so I'd assume it is resolved in S1a
already right?
adam
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Nick
Ryce
Sent: Tuesday,
Hello,
I apologize for talk with myself but I found the reason of that hardware
TCAM label capacity issue was ipv6 multicast-routing:
Cat6500#sh tcam counts ipv6
Used Free Reserved
Labels:(in) 160 352
Labels:(eg) 5 507
Cat6500#conf t
Enter configuration commands, one per
Hi folks
Is the 901 that different form 903
As on 903 it is possible to accomplish the below config on 15.3(2)S1a
(03.09.01a.S)
adam
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Pshem
Kowalczyk
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 7:43 PM
To:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 06:36:00PM +0600, Vladimir Troitskiy wrote:
There is the following statement in the Implementing IPv6 Multicast for
IOS
15.0SYhttp://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios-xml/ios/ipv6/configuration/15-0sy/ip6-multicast.html
:
On Cisco Catalyst 6500 and Cisco 7600 series
Just found 1 switch on 15.3(2)S so may be worth a punt and upgrade
Nick
Is that device switch3 (veid 2)?
As that seems to be the only one with issues
adam
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Jeff,
We have been running 6.2(2) since the summer. In the last six months, I
had to return some third-party Cisco compatible twinax cables because
they were Invalid on our M2s. And, I just had to swap out some
official Cisco SFP-10G-LR because they were version 1 which also do
not work with
I dunno. All I know is that after upgrading to S1a, I saw some odd L2 issues.
The one I was able to track down was the ME3600 was unable to resolve ARP for
hosts on a VLAN behind a directly connected port-channel. The other one that I
didn't have time to track down was a host in a VFI was
On Friday, November 15, 2013 02:56:39 PM Tony Tauber wrote:
Depending on your OS, you may have to explicitly disable
v6 routes being sent over a v4 session.
That's possible to do but I don't know why one would want
to in a truly dual-stack deployment.
In v6 the only v4 artifact will be that
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 07:39:14 PM Jason Lixfeld
wrote:
The root cause was due to a fix implemented in 15.3(3)S1a
for CSCtl54835. Essentially, the CLNS mtu is now
properly calculated from the L3 interface MTU whereas
before, the CLNS MTU was always 1497 no matter what the
L3
So how do you keep IPv6 off of IPv4? if you are running dual stack
shouldn't it just go out it's native protocol?
Scott
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2013 02:56:39 PM Tony Tauber wrote:
Depending on your OS, you may have to
On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 02:02:43 PM Jared Mauch wrote:
We have servers in each location with NTP synced to local
stratum 1 or 2 clocks. Customers are given an anycast ip
that points to these for time sources. We configure
routers to point at these local sources.
Agree - better to put
On 19/11/2013 12:45, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
Is the 901 that different form 903
yes. asr901 == based on me3600 hardware and runs vanilla ios, asr903 ==
based on asr1k hardware and runs ios-xe, and can also act as an ASR9k nV
satellite.
Nick
___
On 19/11/2013 15:23, Scott Voll wrote:
So how do you keep IPv6 off of IPv4? if you are running dual stack
shouldn't it just go out it's native protocol?
unless you configured no bgp default ipv4-unicast on ios, older versions
of ios will default to exchanging ipv4 prefixes over ipv6. I don't
On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 05:48:56 PM Nick Hilliard
wrote:
unless you configured no bgp default ipv4-unicast on
ios, older versions of ios will default to exchanging
ipv4 prefixes over ipv6. I don't even know if this is
still the default because I've been using no bgp
default
On 19/11/2013 13:54, Christina Klam wrote:
We have been running 6.2(2) since the summer. In the last six months, I
had to return some third-party Cisco compatible twinax cables because
they were Invalid on our M2s. And, I just had to swap out some
official Cisco SFP-10G-LR because they were
You're right on the software part (901 = IOS classic, 903 = XE) but the
hardware part isn't correct.
The asr903 is based on the same forwarding asic as the me3600 and me3800
The asr901 is based on a different forwarding asic than the 903/3600/3800
The asr1k is based on the Cisco QFP network
Before XE 3.11 (15.3.4S) the behavior is:
1) On EVC-BD, if no L2CP configuration is done, then tagged BPDUs are
dropped and untagged BPDUs are peered
2) On EVC-Xconnect, by default, the tagged BPDUs are dropped and
untagged BPDUs are forwarded
3) On Port-Xconnect, the tagged
ASR901 is Broadcom inside.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Pete Lumbis alum...@gmail.com wrote:
You're right on the software part (901 = IOS classic, 903 = XE) but the
hardware part isn't correct.
The asr903 is based on the same forwarding asic as the me3600 and me3800
The asr901 is based
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 03:59:06PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
I would love to condemn the product managers who make this sort of
rage-inducing decision to an eternity of dealing with 02:00 maintenance
windows where you're stuck in a data centre with severe time constraints,
the network
Christina, are you running on sup-2E ? We are running many non-CISCO
transceivers on nexus 7k running 6.1.3 but when I did the upgrade to 6.2.2a NO
GOOD.
We also ran across issue with 6.2.2a on sup-2E that you cannot overwrite slot0:
file. Delete but no overwrite. TAC case open.
Jeff
I don’t see the “service unsupported-transceiver” command nor does it run (in
case its hidden). That would imply its not there on 7k 6.1.3 or 6.2.2a.
Can you imagine us doing an upgrade on one of our core 7k and having all the
transceivers fail.
Jeff
On Nov 19, 2013, at 12:25 PM, Gert
Jeff,
They are plain ole N7K-SUP2 with N7K-M224XP-23L line cards. I just
accepted the fact that we will have to pay the Cisco tax.
Regards,
Christina
On 11/19/2013 02:45 PM, Jeffrey G. Fitzwater wrote:
Christina, are you running on sup-2E ? We are running many non-CISCO
transceivers on
Did you happen to try to overwrite a slot0:file , even though this is
unrelated to the transceiver issue. In my case its just another bug with
6.2.2a on sup-2E.
Jeff
On Nov 19, 2013, at 2:59 PM, Christina Klam ck...@ias.edu wrote:
Jeff,
They are plain ole N7K-SUP2 with N7K-M224XP-23L
service unsupported-transceiver works for us on 6.2.2a.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Jeffrey G. Fitzwater
jf...@princeton.eduwrote:
I don’t see the “service unsupported-transceiver” command nor does it run
(in case its hidden). That would imply its not there on 7k 6.1.3 or
6.2.2a.
What sup and what EPLD ver.
Interesting !
Jeff
On Nov 19, 2013, at 3:10 PM, Tim Durack
tdur...@gmail.commailto:tdur...@gmail.com wrote:
service unsupported-transceiver works for us on 6.2.2a.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Jeffrey G. Fitzwater
My error. Yes it does exist. Not sure what I did wrong.
i am going back and try new code with command.
Thanks
Jeff
On Nov 19, 2013, at 3:10 PM, Tim Durack
tdur...@gmail.commailto:tdur...@gmail.com wrote:
service unsupported-transceiver works for us on 6.2.2a.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at
Just talked to my SE. He reports that, in previous versions, some 3rd party
transceivers (mine included, apparently) work without service
unsupported-transceiver. This was 'fixed' in 6.2(2)...
Thanks for reporting this, Jeff. We'll be upgrading soon and this saved me
from a big headache.
In 6.1.3 I never had to add the command; but now with 6.2.2a I have to.
Are we having fun yet..
Jeff
On Nov 19, 2013, at 3:46 PM, James Slepicka (c-nsp) cisco-...@slepicka.net
wrote:
Just talked to my SE. He reports that, in previous versions, some 3rd party
transceivers (mine
Does the command exist in 6.1(3)? I don't have a box that I can test with.
-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey G. Fitzwater [mailto:jf...@princeton.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 3:19 PM
To: James Slepicka (c-nsp)
Cc: Jeffrey G. Fitzwater; Tim Durack; Gert Doering; Christina Klam;
It does accept the command in 6.1.3, but non CISCO transceivers still work
without running it, and its NOT in the config even with the command “show run
all”
if I run the command “no service unsupported-transceiver” and do an interface
SHUT NO SHUT the non CISCO still work.
Hmmm….
So CISCO
On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 19/11/2013 13:54, Christina Klam wrote:
We have been running 6.2(2) since the summer. In the last six months, I
had to return some third-party Cisco compatible twinax cables because
they were Invalid on our M2s. And, I
Second that. The more people buy 3rd party (coded if you want) the better.
Vendors only listen to sales.
On Tuesday, November 19, 2013, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.orgjavascript:;
wrote:
On 19/11/2013 13:54, Christina Klam wrote:
We have
On 11/19/2013 5:51 PM, Tim Durack wrote:
Second that. The more people buy 3rd party (coded if you want) the better.
Vendors only listen to sales.
+1 to that. We recently ran across some 3rd-party CODED DOM-supporting
optics that have worked (thus far) in both Ciscos and Brocades. When
you can
Hi Mark, Jared,
Do you really think enabling NTP service on routers can burdening them. I
mean in hierarchical way where RR and directly connected with ntp sources
and then all PEs use RR as ntp master and CEs further down use PEs as NTP
master?
Jared,
Quick question, why you think anycast IP
What framing mode are you running and what is the underlying transmission?
I have seen this before on 10G circuits running in wanphy mode and the
only fix was to get better transmission (ie. not an STM-64c) and run
lanphy :)
McDonald
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:07 PM, bas kilo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
We've been having an issue recently where we have routes on PE routers that
look to be ok, but are not forwarding any traffic. Usually this can be resolved
by doing clear ip route vrf vrf_name ip_prefix which causes the PE to
re-learn the route and everything works again.
This problem
On Nov 19, 2013, at 6:01 PM, Yham yhamee...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Mark, Jared,
Do you really think enabling NTP service on routers can burdening them. I
mean in hierarchical way where RR and directly connected with ntp sources and
then all PEs use RR as ntp master and CEs further down use
Does anyone have a current URL for the Cisco bug toolkit that works the
right way around?
The link on their website now only allows you to enter a bug ID. I am
looking for the original bug tool that is actually useful, where you
specify the IOS version, platform, and nature of the bug, and it
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Jay Hennigan wrote:
Does anyone have a current URL for the Cisco bug toolkit that works the
right way around?
The link on their website now only allows you to enter a bug ID. I am
looking for the original bug tool that is actually useful, where you
specify the IOS
On 11/19/2013 9:40 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
So complain to your account team and give feedback on their website.
Only by customers complaining will we see improvement.
Don't hold your breath. I've been bitching since they started the whole
Web 2.0 / HTML5 / Java nonsense migration, and
I can't comment on the state of the new bug toolkit (vomit) but to Mikaels
point:
Yes, there are crappy bugs. I see them every day. They are written by
humans with the information available at the time. TAC needs to do a better
job of following up on bugs after they are resolved to ensure the
Finisar and Avago here
in some cases we need more than a -25 dB sensitivity and 3rd party are the
only way to go.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at
Generally these kinds of problems are triggered by routing changes. The
software that owns the routing table (show ip route/ show ip cef) needs to
update the hardware TCAM (show mls cef). This is true of both IP prefixes
and MPLS labels.
When you issue clear ip route you for the software to
I can confirm that CSCuh05321 is 100% fixed in 15.3.3S1a. If you are seeing
problems similar to this it is a different issue.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Adam Vitkovsky adam.vitkov...@swan.skwrote:
That's what I was about to ask as the CSCuh05321 is actually listed under
15.3(3)S caveats
Any idea why Switch 3 has remote label 28 instead of 48?
Do you know if the issue is unidirectional or bidirectional? That is, can
Sw2 send to Sw3 but Sw3 can't send back?
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Nick Ryce n...@fluency.net.uk wrote:
Hi,
I’m tearing my hair out with this one and
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Pete Lumbis wrote:
Yes, there are crappy bugs. I see them every day. They are written by
humans with the information available at the time. TAC needs to do a better
That is not the problem. If I read a crappy bug description and then
contact someone with access to
Hi Everyone,
I'm curious: Does anyone use one or more raspberry pis in their network
(for networking related stuff)? What kinds of things are they used for?
Thanks,
Preston Chilcote
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
NTP servers out in a wireless network ;-)
--
Chris
On 20 Nov 2013 08:24, Preston Chilcote (pchilcot) pchil...@cisco.com
wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I'm curious: Does anyone use one or more raspberry pis in their network
(for networking related stuff)? What kinds of things are they used for?
My previous e-mail had a wrong subject, so it wasn't displayed in the web
version of this thread in various mailing-list archives (e.g. gossamer).
Sorry for dup but let me repeat the message. Hope it will be useful for
someone who will face the same problem.
The reason of that hardware TCAM
53 matches
Mail list logo
