What is the real address, I understand if your reticent to provide it
but is it part of a larger CIDR block from the other provider? If so
and the satellite provider is announcing a more specific /24 then all
traffic will come over the satellite link.
there is much info missing to really help
You have no way of influencing via BGP the inbound routes since your
using a private AS on one link and default on the other. You need to
work with your providers if you wish to have incoming traffic to your
network influenced one way or the other.
suaveguru wrote:
hi all
I have been
what do you mean by this?
--- Brian wrote:
Troll Alert
- Original Message -
From: Farhan Ahmed
To:
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 9:30 PM
Subject: RE: Load Balancing using BGP challenge
problem [7:19339]
then u should think abt running 2 static routes
and forget abt
do you think having them change private AS to public
AS number then do AS-PREPEND will be able to do some
kind of influencing?
regards,
suaveguru
--- MADMAN wrote:
You have no way of influencing via BGP the inbound
routes since your
using a private AS on one link and default on the
A prepend will surely influence the inbound traffic. Is most of your
traffic currently arriving via the provider your doing BGP with? What
exactly are you seeing?? Why are you even doing BGP with a private AS
that is incoming only?? With the info you provided it's hard to give a
good answer.
- Original Message -
From: Farhan Ahmed
To:
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 9:30 PM
Subject: RE: Load Balancing using BGP challenge
problem [7:19339]
then u should think abt running 2 static routes
and forget abt bgp cuz its really doesnt exsist
-Original
Most of the traffic is arriving via the provider your
doing BGP with and is via this one block of ip with a
/24 e.g 1.1.1.0/24
I am seeing almost 100% utilisation via the satellite
down-link (1st provider running BGP) and very minimum
traffic at the second provider( terrestrial) running
default
hi all
I have been cracking my head with this load-balancing
issue but still no answer .
It goes as such
Customer A has two providers to Internet
The first provider runs BGP with Customer A and is
only a Receive-Only Inbound link over Satellite
The second provider is a terrestrial link
then u should think abt running 2 static routes
and forget abt bgp cuz its really doesnt exsist
-Original Message-
From: suaveguru [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 4:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Load Balancing using BGP challenge problem [7:19339]
hi
Troll Alert
- Original Message -
From: Farhan Ahmed
To:
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 9:30 PM
Subject: RE: Load Balancing using BGP challenge problem [7:19339]
then u should think abt running 2 static routes
and forget abt bgp cuz its really doesnt exsist
-Original Message
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 4:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Load Balancing using BGP challenge problem
[7:19339]
hi all
I have been cracking my head with this
load-balancing
issue but still no answer .
It goes as such
Customer A has two providers
Guys,
The objective of the problem I m going to explain you is to encrypt ONLY
TELNET traffic b/w these two routers.
THe main problem I m facing is that IM not able to do this by implementing
specific host lists that permits only telnet traffic from one to another
host..Like
access-list
Challenge Problem [7:17844]
Guys,
The objective of the problem I m going to explain you is to encrypt ONLY
TELNET traffic b/w these two routers.
THe main problem I m facing is that IM not able to do this by implementing
specific host lists that permits only telnet traffic from one to another
host
Wonderfull!!! GREA
Kent U solved my problem..
Thanks a lot!!!
From: Kent Hundley
Reply-To: Kent Hundley
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: IPSEC Challenge Problem [7:17844]
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:03:25 -0400
The problem is most likely your access-lists. You need
to that
picture. :-
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Howard C. Berkowitz
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 6:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (now herrings and lemmings) [7:17112]
Brian, I just wanted to say publicly
]]On Behalf Of
Brian
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 7:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (was Re: For FR Grus [7:16635]) [7:16659]
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Cisco Lover wrote:
Hi Guys..
Come with some New Queston..
hmm, ok, so your looking for some challenging questions? Ok
: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (now herrings and lemmings) [7:17112]
Brian, I just wanted to say publicly that this was an outstanding test
question. outstanding because of all the red herrings it contained, as we
saw from the wild guess responses.
Sir, after several trips to Scandinavia, I find it hard to believe
are what make groupstudy
worthwhile to me at least.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Brian
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 7:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (was Re: For FR Grus [7:16635]) [7:16659]
On Tue, 21
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Cisco Lover wrote:
Hi Guys..
Come with some New Queston..
hmm, ok, so your looking for some challenging questions? Ok, I will post
one, its got FR in it. First I'll post the problem, followed by the
config:
THE PROBLEM
===
Users on DLCI's 200, 224, 201, 225
I don't think bridge will work on this network because of split horizon.
- Original Message -
From: Brian
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 7:51 AM
Subject: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (was Re: For FR Grus [7:16635]) [7:16659]
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Cisco Lover wrote:
Hi Guys
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Donald B Johnson jr wrote:
I don't think bridge will work on this network because of split horizon.
Can you be more clear about your answer?
Brian
- Original Message -
From: Brian
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 7:51 AM
Subject: CHALLENGE PROBLEM
being used to route ip?? This is
where the answer will lye
-Original Message-
From: Donald B Johnson jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 21 August 2001 17:06
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (was Re: For FR Grus [7:16635])
[7:16681]
I don't think bridge will work
yeah but he is using irb with a bvi and igrp it is probably a split h issue
it creating a loopa
- Original Message -
From: McCallum, Robert
To: 'Donald B Johnson jr' ;
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 9:26 AM
Subject: RE: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (was Re: For FR Grus [7:16635]) [7:16681
~~~
-Original Message-
From: Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 9:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (was Re: For FR Grus [7:16635]) [7:16659]
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Cisco Lover wrote:
Hi Guys..
Come with some New Queston..
hmm, ok, so your
]]
Sent: 21 August 2001 17:06
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (was Re: For FR Grus [7:16635])
[7:16681]
I don't think bridge will work on this network because of split horizon.
- Original Message -
From: Brian
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 7:51 AM
Subject
yeah you got irb and bvi and igrp on same interface you are creating loops
because SH is disabled
- Original Message -
From: Brian
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (was Re: For FR Grus [7:16635]) [7:16687]
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Donald B
:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (was Re: For FR Grus [7:16635])
[7:16702]
To me this looks very similar to bridging with DSL. Since you cannot
receive the ARP the router must proxy this.
At 09:52 AM 8/21/2001, McCallum, Robert wrote:
you can correct me here if I
the answer will lye
-Original Message-
From: Donald B Johnson jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 21 August 2001 17:06
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (was Re: For FR Grus [7:16635])
[7:16681]
I don't think bridge will work on this network because of split
://www.RouterChief.com
~~~
NEED A JOB ???
http://www.oledrews.com/job
~~~
-Original Message-
From: Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 9:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: CHALLENGE PROBLEM
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 7:51 AM
Subject: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (was Re: For FR Grus [7:16635])
[7:16659]
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Cisco Lover wrote:
Hi Guys..
Come with some New Queston..
hmm, ok, so your looking for some challenging questions? Ok, I
why it works when the DLCIs are on
different layer 3 networks though.
Rob
Brian @groupstudy.com on 08/21/2001 02:10:42 PM
Please respond to Brian
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: RE: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (was Re: For FR Grus [7:16635])
[7:16711
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Sasha wrote:
He is doing transparent bridging between pvc's, hence
routing issues are irrelevant.
The problem here is that a packet that comes into a physical
interface is not transmitted back through the same physical
interface (although on another pvc), and bridging
Brian @groupstudy.com on 08/21/2001 02:10:42 PM
Please respond to Brian
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: RE: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (was Re: For FR Grus [7:16635])
[7:16711]
No one has gotten this problem yet. Remeber, making it so
config that prevents them from communicating.
Darrin Gibson
-Original Message-
From: Wayne Wenthin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 12:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (was Re: For FR Grus [7:16635])
[7:16702]
To me
?? This is
where the answer will lye
-Original Message-
From: Donald B Johnson jr
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 21 August 2001 17:06
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (was Re: For FR
Grus [7:16635])
[7:16681]
I don't think bridge will work
!! Doesn't
compute! What is the routing protocol being used to route ip?? This is
where the answer will lye
-Original Message-
From: Donald B Johnson jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 21 August 2001 17:06
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (was Re: For FR
-Original Message-
From: Donald B Johnson jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 21 August 2001 17:06
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (was Re: For FR Grus [7:16635])
[7:16681]
I don't think bridge will work on this network because of split horizon
!! Doesn't
compute! What is the routing protocol being used
to route ip?? This is
where the answer will lye
-Original Message-
From: Donald B Johnson jr
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 21 August 2001 17:06
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CHALLENGE PROBLEM
-Original Message-
From: Donald B Johnson jr
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 21 August 2001 17:06
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (was Re: For FR
Grus [7:16635])
[7:16681]
I don't think bridge will work on this network
because of split horizon
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, suaveguru wrote:
is it something to do with using classless rather than
classful routing protocols?
no, it was answered already. It has to do with bridges blocking on ports
data is sourced from.
Brian
---
I'm buying /
this is the problem :)
Tony M
#6172
- Original Message -
From: suaveguru
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 7:55 PM
Subject: RE: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (was Re: For FR Grus [7:16635]) [7:16755]
is it something to do with using classless rather than
classful routing protocols?
regards
.
IGRP and split horizon have nothing to do with it.
At least I think this is the problem :)
Tony M
#6172
- Original Message -
From: suaveguru
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 7:55 PM
Subject: RE: CHALLENGE PROBLEM (was Re: For FR Grus [7:16635])
[7:16755]
is it something
Ok, I'll take a stab at it.
First a question. Have there been any BERT tests end to end (NID to frame
switch interface)? If so, was an all zero's test done?
Very simply, I suspect that one of the circuit's repeaters is misconfigured
ESF, AMI. Everything works fine until the 1's density isn't
very impressive Mr Rodgers!
-Original Message-
From: Rodgers Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 October 2000 07:31
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: challenge problem
Ok, I'll take a stab at it.
First a question. Have there been any BERT tests end to end (NID to frame
switch
Title: RE: challenge problem
One thing you might try is using extended ping and use different data patterns. Try 0x, 0x, 0x, 0x0810, 0x4040. I've discovered problems where certain data streams would cause problems even after the LEC says they tested. If you uncover something
Title: RE: challenge problem
Jim,
I'm sure you meant to use 0x for the all 1's
test. Just clarifying.
-Original Message-From: Rampley, Jim
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000
10:35 AMTo: 'Fred Flinstone';
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: challenge
Another thing to look at is how they are testing. If
you have a full T1 then you can have them run a 'round
robin with multi pattern' stress test. This will
break any marginal component. Some telco's will tell
you that you can't test that way on a frame circuit,
but that is only if you are not
ok here it goes
we have a customer we manage that is incurring CRC'c, input errors etc on
there serial interface.
1. stress tested the circuit many times from the frame cloud through the csu
as good
2. tries verious cables
3. there are no interface modules i believe its a 2500 something
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Fred Flinstone wrote:
ok here it goes
we have a customer we manage that is incurring CRC'c, input errors etc on
there serial interface.
new install or working install?
1. stress tested the circuit many times from the frame cloud through the csu
as good
What
, 2000 7:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: challenge problem
ok here it goes
we have a customer we manage that is incurring CRC'c, input errors etc on
there serial interface.
1. stress tested the circuit many times from the frame cloud through the csu
as good
2. tries verious cables
3
Have you checked for clocking issues between the Router and the DSU? (garbage-in
garbage-out) I have seen that issue many times. Check the DSU's config vs a
known good config.
Are the errors also being seen on the carrier's frame-switch interface? The guys
who test the circuit do not
51 matches
Mail list logo
