[c-nsp] sh Queue output ?
Hi, I have a 2Mb serial link with the main provider. However when i issue the following command, it says 'Available Bandwidth 1536 kilobits/sec'. Can some one plz explain why it is this behavior? Regards -Azher Amin gw#sh queue serial 0/0/0:0 Input queue: 0/75/0/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 18488 Queueing strategy: weighted fair Output queue: 0/1000/64/17894 (size/max total/threshold/drops) Conversations 0/93/256 (active/max active/max total) Reserved Conversations 0/0 (allocated/max allocated) Available Bandwidth 1536 kilobits/sec gw#sh controllers E1 0/0/0 E1 0/0/0 is up. Applique type is Channelized E1 - balanced Description: 2Mbps IPL No alarms detected. alarm-trigger is not set Version info Firmware: 20041023, FPGA: 16, spm_count = 0 Framing is UNFRAMED, Line Code is HDB3, Clock Source is Line. CRC Threshold is 320. Reported from firmware is 320. Data in current interval (3 seconds elapsed): 0 Line Code Violations, 0 Path Code Violations 0 Slip Secs, 0 Fr Loss Secs, 0 Line Err Secs, 0 Degraded Mins 0 Errored Secs, 0 Bursty Err Secs, 0 Severely Err Secs, 0 Unavail Secs Configurations: --- controller E1 0/0/0 channel-group 0 unframed description 2Mbps IPL interface Serial0/0/0:0 bandwidth 2048 ip address 203.99.50.33 255.255.255.252 ip nat outside ip virtual-reassembly -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP?
Welcome the miracle of tacacs. On 4/21/07, Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 07:50:32PM +0200, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote: > > omar parihuana <> wrote on Saturday, April 21, 2007 7:32 PM: > > > > > Hi list, > > > > > > We're redesigning a small MPLS Network (about 30 PE Routers and 2 P > > > Routers -Link between P-PE: Ethernet-), so far the IGP is OSPF, > > > however ISIS was proposed too. What is the best? IS-IS or OSPF? and > > > Why? regarding the small network. > > > > check the archives, this has been discussed before.. it boils down to > > "use what you're most comfortable and familiar with", and as you're > > using OSPF already, the choice should be clear. > > Possibly the single most annoying difference is that Cisco uses the > command "ip router isis " to activate isis on an interface, vs just > "ip ospf" with no "router". Now imagine you're tired and trying to take > isis off an interface, and instead of typing "no ip router isis" you > accidentally type "no router isis", and guess what happens. :) > > -- > Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras > GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) > ___ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP?
On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 07:50:32PM +0200, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote: > omar parihuana <> wrote on Saturday, April 21, 2007 7:32 PM: > > > Hi list, > > > > We're redesigning a small MPLS Network (about 30 PE Routers and 2 P > > Routers -Link between P-PE: Ethernet-), so far the IGP is OSPF, > > however ISIS was proposed too. What is the best? IS-IS or OSPF? and > > Why? regarding the small network. > > check the archives, this has been discussed before.. it boils down to > "use what you're most comfortable and familiar with", and as you're > using OSPF already, the choice should be clear. Possibly the single most annoying difference is that Cisco uses the command "ip router isis " to activate isis on an interface, vs just "ip ospf" with no "router". Now imagine you're tired and trying to take isis off an interface, and instead of typing "no ip router isis" you accidentally type "no router isis", and guess what happens. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP?
How about just to read this: :) http://www.amazon.com/OSPF-Choosing-Large-Scale-Networks/dp/0321168798/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-8633462-4102568?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177196013&sr=8-2 On 22/04/07, Gary Stanley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 01:50 PM 4/21/2007, Oliver Boehmer \(oboehmer\) wrote: > >check the archives, this has been discussed before.. it boils down to > >"use what you're most comfortable and familiar with", and as you're > >using OSPF already, the choice should be clear. > > Indeed. Stick with OSPF. > > > ___ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP?
At 01:50 PM 4/21/2007, Oliver Boehmer \(oboehmer\) wrote: >check the archives, this has been discussed before.. it boils down to >"use what you're most comfortable and familiar with", and as you're >using OSPF already, the choice should be clear. Indeed. Stick with OSPF. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP?
omar parihuana <> wrote on Saturday, April 21, 2007 7:32 PM: > Hi list, > > We're redesigning a small MPLS Network (about 30 PE Routers and 2 P > Routers -Link between P-PE: Ethernet-), so far the IGP is OSPF, > however ISIS was proposed too. What is the best? IS-IS or OSPF? and > Why? regarding the small network. check the archives, this has been discussed before.. it boils down to "use what you're most comfortable and familiar with", and as you're using OSPF already, the choice should be clear. oli ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] IS-IS or OSPF as IGP?
Hi list, We're redesigning a small MPLS Network (about 30 PE Routers and 2 P Routers -Link between P-PE: Ethernet-), so far the IGP is OSPF, however ISIS was proposed too. What is the best? IS-IS or OSPF? and Why? regarding the small network. Thank you for your suggestions... Rgds. -- Omar E.P.T - Certified Networking Professionals make better Connections! ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Traffic generator
hello, pktgen module included in the Linux kernel. ... Network Testing ---> Packet Generator -- liviu. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 11:31 PM Subject: [c-nsp] Traffic generator Hi, I´d like to stress some our links. Does anyone know a free traffic generator? At. LUIZ PAULO MAIA Gerência de Redes e Telecomun / ATOS ORIGIN SERVIÇOS DE TECNOLOGIAINFORM LIGHT S.E.S.A. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 55-21-8119-5683 >O conteúdo desta mensagem e seus anexos constitui informação confidencial. >O seu uso, > divulgação, reprodução e/ou cópia são proibidos. Caso não seja o > destinatário da mesma, > favor devolvê-la para o remetente e apagá-la em seguida. > > This message is intended only for the individual organization to which it > is addressed and > contains confidential or privileged information. Any retransmission, > dissemination or other > use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is > prohibited. If you are > not the intended recipient please reply to or forward a copy of this > message to the sender > and delete the message. > > ___ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] GRE router recommendations
On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 02:32:22PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > > 7600/Sup720 will do "whatever you need", provided you use a different local > address for each "tunnel source" (if you have multiple tunnels on the > same local IP address, the hardware can't do the tunneling, and the CPU > is much slower). But it won't verify the source address on GRE packets it receives, which makes it feasible to forge GRE packets without forging the source address, which in some configurations makes some attacks easier. That relevant in some situations and not in others ... -- Brett ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Traffic generator
Use WANkiller from solarwinds... there is a freeware demo out there... Jonathan On 4/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I´d like to stress some our links. Does anyone know a free traffic > generator? > > At. > > LUIZ PAULO MAIA > Gerência de Redes e Telecomun / ATOS ORIGIN SERVIÇOS DE TECNOLOGIAINFORM > LIGHT S.E.S.A. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 55-21-8119-5683 > O conteúdo desta mensagem e seus anexos constitui informação confidencial. > O seu uso, > divulgação, reprodução e/ou cópia são proibidos. Caso não seja o > destinatário da mesma, > favor devolvê-la para o remetente e apagá-la em seguida. > > > This message is intended only for the individual organization to which it > is addressed and > contains confidential or privileged information. Any retransmission, > dissemination or other > use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is > prohibited. If you are > not the intended recipient please reply to or forward a copy of this > message to the sender > and delete the message. > > ___ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] GRE router recommendations
Hi, On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 09:14:43PM +0100, Simon Lockhart wrote: > At the sites where I need to tunnel from are currently 3550 switches (and > a few 3750's). What sort of GRE performance should I see from those? GRE is *not* supported on 3550/3750s (see the archives for more details). > Assuming I use something other than the 3550 for GRE, what device would give > me GRE at 100Mbps? 300Mbps? 500Mbps? 1Gbps? 5Gbps? 7200/NPE-G1 should do up to maybe 100-200 Mbit/s, but I'm doubtful whether it could do 500 Mbit/s. 7600/Sup720 will do "whatever you need", provided you use a different local address for each "tunnel source" (if you have multiple tunnels on the same local IP address, the hardware can't do the tunneling, and the CPU is much slower). gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED] fax: +49-89-35655025[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] New hardware choose help needed
> WS-SUP720 Catalyst 6500 / Cisco 7600 Supervisor 720 Fabric MSFC3 PFC3A 1 PFC-3A is End-of-line, buggy and the same price as a -3B Do NOT buy a -3A ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] GRE router recommendations
On Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 11:14:16PM +0200, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote: > > At the sites where I need to tunnel from are currently 3550 > > switches (and a few 3750's). What sort of GRE performance > > should I see from those? > > GRE is not supported on the small Catalyst switches. It does > work (in some versions?) but only at low performance and with > high CPU utilization... And, again, it's not supported. Yeah - I've since found that on the Cisco website. But, what about GRE performance on true routers? Simon -- Simon Lockhart | * Sun Server Colocation * ADSL * Domain Registration * Director|* Domain & Web Hosting * Internet Consultancy * Bogons Ltd | * http://www.bogons.net/ * Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
