Hi , thanks and sorry for the late replyI am facing some issues with the script
, when the IP SLA is down , the router did not wait for the 5 minutes , it
reloaded directly
From: oboeh...@cisco.com
To: gunner_...@live.com; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Event Manager Script
In IP SLA you can set the reaction-configuration thresholds. Try that.
Jey S.
Network Engineer
CCIE #41608
Sent from my iPhone
On 5 Mar 2014, at 08:32, M K gunner_...@live.com wrote:
Hi , thanks and sorry for the late replyI am facing some issues with the
script , when the IP SLA is down
can you just remove the action 2.0 reload from the script for the test so the
router just spits out the syslog and then send the logs?
I noticed that the maximum delay down value accepted by the parser is 180 (3
minutes), maybe it didn't accept the command when you pasted it? I just tested
this
Hi
Try with 120 seconds delay. Also use environment variable to depicting to get
email whensoever event triggers.
Ami
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:01 AM, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer)
oboeh...@cisco.com wrote:
can you just remove the action 2.0 reload from the script for the test so the
Hi
A small question please, on Cisco ME3400/3800
With this config:
interface GigabitEthernet0/15
switchport trunk allowed vlan none
switchport mode trunk
speed 100
duplex full
no cdp enable
service instance 11 ethernet
encapsulation dot1q 1-4094
bridge-domain 909
!
The cisco
Has anyone experienced the recently announced mem issue?
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/memory.html
affected parts: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/memory_pu.html
Proposed fix-on-fail solution seems risky.
--
Tassos
Hi Oliver
Not by default,
You'd have to enable l2protocol forward/peer under the service instance
adam
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Olivier
CALVANO
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 11:41 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
On 05/03/2014 12:32, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
Has anyone experienced the recently announced mem issue?
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/memory.html
affected parts: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/memory_pu.html
Proposed fix-on-fail solution seems risky.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Multiple Vulnerabilities in Cisco Wireless LAN Controllers
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20140305-wlc
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2014 March 5 16:00 UTC (GMT)
Summary
===
The Cisco Wireless LAN Controller (WLC) product family is affected
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco Small Business Router Password Disclosure
Vulnerability
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20140305-rpd
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2014 March 5 16:00 UTC (GMT
Dell - Internal Use - Confidential
I wasn't aware of this announcement, but we did experience this on a software
upgrade of a 6506-E almost a year ago where a perfectly working WS-X6724-SFP
wouldn't boot after a reload of the switch last summer. We just replaced it and
considered it a one off
Hi,
I've been working on a basic configuration for E-OAM starting with one
domain. I have CFM working between the PEs (IOS-XR) devices tied to an
EoMPLS instance, but have a few questions below:
1) I think I should be seeing MIPs in my traceroute when there is a P
router in between the two PEs,
After a deployment of EIGRP with the intent of providing link
utilization based load-sharing as opposed to round robin, I get the
rude awakening that the default k-values for EIGRP do NOT include link
utilization.
Any shortcuts / workarounds / etc to resetting k-values site-wide
without breaking
Nope. And to top it off DUAL only runs on link state events - so if one
link suddenly gets saturated the router won't recalculate the metric and
split traffic up - unless something else in the network happens (cycle an
interface, add a route, soft-reset EIGRP).
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:22 PM,
You could create a second EIGRP process with a value for K2
router eigrp 2
metric weights 0 1 1 1 0 0
Any identical routes in this second new instance of EIGRP will have a
higher metric than the original EIGRP process. And thusly will NOT be
installed in the routing table - provided they are
something like pfr[0] may be useful in this instance, assuming the kit can run
it.
on newer kit, pfr-v2 is much less sucky than the pfr of old.
q.
[0]
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/PfR:Solutions:BasicLoadBalancing#PfR_Features_that_Enable_Load_Balancing
-= sent via ipad. please excuse
16 matches
Mail list logo