At 02:46 PM 11/15/2010, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Pavel Skovajsa wrote:
I have just received notification below.
[...]
To improve your experience with Cisco and protect your investment in
Cisco Products, we're pleased to announce the improvement of Software
download entitle
I have a very unusual network setup, ISP-A requires me to have
ebgp-multihop of 2 because we're not physically connected (we seem to
be 2 hops away)
Anyways, is there some kind of design implementation to use to make
dmzlink-bw work? neighbor disable-connected-check only works if
you're 1 hop
This might sound like a very strange question.
A 4948 has 52 physical ports, 48 copper and 4 sfp, however, in ios we
only see 48 ports. Is this normal? 122-31.SGA1
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/li
om/web/partners/tools/quickreference/index.html
-- Gary Stanley ([EMAIL PROTECTED] | [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/
t happens when I configure 9 or more SVIs?
8 routed interfaces are 8 layer3 (ie: no switchport etc) ports.
-- Gary Stanley ([EMAIL PROTECTED] | [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/
At 05:38 PM 11/1/2007, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>I went down this route myself (for no particular reason other than
>geekiness of being able to see interesting docsis details which are hidden
>in residential grade equipment) and was quickly beaten down into the kind
>of submission that makes o
At 10:53 PM 10/27/2007, matthew zeier wrote:
>I made need a (cost effective) bgp-capable router for a remote
>deployment which would only need to announce -1- route and take in a
>default route from -1- provider. Also needs to push > 100Mbps of traffic.
A 3550 or 3750 can do what you require just
At 11:58 PM 10/26/2007, jim bartus wrote:
>I don't claim to be an expert but I looked into this before and here's
>what I found:
>http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/presentations/fib-desilva.pdf
>
>check out page 8, page 10, and the first bullet point on page 15.
>
>Page 10 says the limit on a 3B is 192
on ciscopress.com, and look in
chapter 9 "Service Provider Architecture". It has some really good
example(s) on how to accomplish this.
-- Gary Stanley ([EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED])
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.ne
At 02:39 AM 10/20/2007, Adrian Minta wrote:
>3550 is XL ?
No. 3550 EMI.
-- Gary Stanley ([EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED])
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at h
Greetings.
I have a 3550 doing basic layer3 routing on a single port to a 6509,
but the 3550's port (fa0/1) to the 6509 reports a low amount of
"output buffer failures" and "underruns". I've seen these errors
before on another 3550 plugged up to the 6509, but I was unable to
find the cause. It
At 12:21 PM 7/25/2007, Nate Carlson wrote:
>The URL
>http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/765/tools/quickreference/routerperformance.pdf
>
>
>is no longer valid.. anyone happen to have a mirror of this page?
>
>-nc
Try here:
http://www.cisco.com/web/partners/downloads/765/tools/quickreference/router
At 03:23 AM 7/7/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hello,
>
>The time has come for us to upgrade the border router, currently not a Cisco.
>
>The traffic passing on GIGE is around 800 mbp/s
>Have need for 3 GIG ports currently with view to a fourth next quarter. It
>has 17 ACLs (not huge lists).
>
>Ne
At 05:23 AM 6/24/2007, Gert Doering wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 03:47:01PM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > I was mostly curious if someone had had issues with them, other than these
> > documented limitations.
>
>Some of the worst problems we experienced:
>
> - switch suddenly stopping to
At 11:23 AM 6/21/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hi, someone have idea on how a "clear ip bgp * soft in" and "clear
>ip bgp soft out" can smooth out CPU use ?
>Before the clear:
>CPU utilization for five seconds: 99%/0%; one minute: 69%; five minutes: 66%
> PID Runtime(ms) Invoked uSecs
At 02:03 PM 5/7/2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
>On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 05:58:02PM +0200, Brian Turnbow wrote:
> > Besides redesigning to avoid icmp redirects anyone have any ideas?
>
> Can you make sure that all your routers have the following
>on their "IP" (routed) interfaces:?
>
> no
At 07:04 PM 4/30/2007, Dan Armstrong wrote:
>As a rule of thumb, how many peers with full routing tables do you think
>you could put on a GRP-B with 512M or RAM?
>
>Would it be suicide to do 5 full feeds + some smaller peering?
Do you really need to take full tables? You could take partials/full
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.
At 04:29 AM 4/2/2007, Shaun wrote:
>The 2800's look to support a bunch of modules, ds1,ds3,gb,etc... I was
>wondering how well a 2811 or higher unit would work to use as a border
>router uplinked to a upstream at Gbit. If the 2800's cant handle it,
>how about the 3800's? Right now i'm using 3750'
19 matches
Mail list logo
