delay command [7:14071]
I am trying to look for an router command to delay sending out the traffic through a serial interface. Hopefully, it would simulate the real life case when traffic passing through the WAN interface. By tuning the delay figure, we would find out how long the application at both end can take before timeout. I have tested the delay command. Here is the syntax and description: delay tens-of-microseconds tens-of-microseconds: Integer that specifies the delay in tens of microseconds for an interface or network segment. To see the default delay, use the show interfaces command. I have set the maximum value for the tens-of-microseconds on the serial interfaces and perform the ping test at the both end. There is no actual delay on the ping test reponse time. PC1 - (R1) S0 -- S0 (R2) -- PC 2 Delay max Delay max DTE DCE Thanks Francis Tsui Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14071&t=14071 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: T1 [7:14054]
Channelized or Non-Channelized: This means that the payload data can either be used in individual groupings of the whole or as just one large group containing the entire bandwidth. This is important in todays market as by having the versatility to be either the customer can customer fit a solution for him/her. Channelized T1 is especially helpful for sharing the cost of T1 with several different media(be it video, voice, data..) ""Michael Damkot"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > What was it, please post for our education as well... > > -- > Michael Damkot > Technical Trainer > Network Support Engineer II > > > > ""Santosh Koshy"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I found the answer > > > > Thanks, > > > > ""Santosh Koshy"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I keep hearing this all the time, but still have not found a definitive > > > answer... > > > can anyone explain the difference between chanellized / unchanellized > T1. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > -- > > > Santosh Koshy > > > WAN Administrator Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14070&t=14054 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OT - CCIE Written class - we are on [7:14062]
Not to seem ignorant -- but "geographically" where is this class to be held?? Hopefully (or is it "selfishly"), it will be in the D.C. area or is it Greg Macaulay Oldest CCNP/CCDP on Earth Lifetime Member of AARP Retired Attorney/Law Professor -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dennis Laganiere Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 3:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT - CCIE Written class - we are on [7:14062] It looks like we've got things pretty much figured out. The fine folks at CCBootcamp have offered to host the class in early September. We'll use a combination of their and my notes; and we'll plan on two days of intense lecture, a half-day mock exam and review period, and the afternoon of the third day everyone takes the actual test. They are planning to have six to ten seats, and the cost is still to be determined. I'm going to hang out the afternoon of the third day to either congratulate or mentor people as they exit the exam room. If everybody passes, the beers are on me (or Brad, if I can talk him into it). Keep an eye on CCBootcamps website for more details... --- Dennis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 11:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: OT - CCIE Written class [7:13666] Dennis, et. al. Appropriate for me now and sounds good to me - you have my vote. Ray CCNP/CCDP >Here's an idea I haven't seen floated about. How about a prep class for the >CCIE Written? I could put something together if enough people were >interested; it kind of sounds like fun... > >--- Dennis Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14064&t=14062 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: hey? [7:14048]
ACK Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14069&t=14048 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CISCO SECURITY BOOK LOOKING [7:14068]
Hello any one i am looking for CISCO security Electronic Book any one have them Please share to me Thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14068&t=14068 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those studying VoIP/CVoice! [7:14061]
Greg, Good post on a reference URL for VoIP. I will be taking Cisco IP Voice class next week and will refer to some of these links. TNX Note: However, you'll have to revise your signature as I think for the moment I am most likely the Oldest and Bald CCIE wannabe ;-) at age 59 3/4 Ray Oldest CCNP/CCDP on Earth FYI I discovered this page on CCO by accident. Hope it helps those who are preparing for CVoice http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/788/voip/voip.shtml Greg Macaulay Oldest CCNP/CCDP on Earth Lifetime Member of AARP Retired Attorney/Law Professor Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14067&t=14061 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: T1 [7:14054]
What was it, please post for our education as well... -- Michael Damkot Technical Trainer Network Support Engineer II ""Santosh Koshy"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I found the answer > > Thanks, > > ""Santosh Koshy"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I keep hearing this all the time, but still have not found a definitive > > answer... > > can anyone explain the difference between chanellized / unchanellized T1. > > > > Thanks, > > -- > > Santosh Koshy > > WAN Administrator Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14066&t=14054 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Lab_configuration/automation_software_=28Lumenar [7:14065]
Does anyone have anything to say about Lumenare Networks lab infrastructure automation software or the company? Jason Kinney 925-961-0223 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14065&t=14065 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OT - CCIE Written class - we are on [7:14062]
It looks like we've got things pretty much figured out. The fine folks at CCBootcamp have offered to host the class in early September. We'll use a combination of their and my notes; and we'll plan on two days of intense lecture, a half-day mock exam and review period, and the afternoon of the third day everyone takes the actual test. They are planning to have six to ten seats, and the cost is still to be determined. I'm going to hang out the afternoon of the third day to either congratulate or mentor people as they exit the exam room. If everybody passes, the beers are on me (or Brad, if I can talk him into it). Keep an eye on CCBootcamps website for more details... --- Dennis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 11:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: OT - CCIE Written class [7:13666] Dennis, et. al. Appropriate for me now and sounds good to me - you have my vote. Ray CCNP/CCDP >Here's an idea I haven't seen floated about. How about a prep class for the >CCIE Written? I could put something together if enough people were >interested; it kind of sounds like fun... > >--- Dennis Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14062&t=14062 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: QUERY ON FRAME RELAY, Can't ping to it's own interface [7:14063]
You won't be able to ping your own IP address on multipoint framerelay interface. For the ping to be successful, ICMP echo packets must be sent and ICMP echo replies must be received. On a point-to-point subinterface, the router on the other side of the link sends ICMP echo replies and the ping succeeds. Whereas, on a multipoint subinterface, there is no remote ip-dlci mapping for every destination. Lack of mapping on a multipoint subinterface prevents the router from sending the echo packet out to the other side. The router does not have any layer-two to layer-three mapping for its own address either and does not know how to encapsulate the packet and the ping fails. Hope that helps! Cheers, Sundar Palaniappan "Grad Alfons Kanon" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hello, > > Can anybody explain why we I can't ping to local multipoint sub interface..? > > int s0 > encapsulation frame relay > frame-relay lmi-type ansi > int 0.1 multipoint > ip add 172.16.1.1 255.255.255.248 > frame-relay interface-dlci 200 > frame-relay interface-dlci 300 > > i can't ping to 172.16.1.1 locally, > > tx > > Grad > > _ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14063&t=14063 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OT - CCIE Written class - We're on!!! [7:14060]
It looks like we've got things pretty much figured out. The fine folks at CCBootcamp have offered to host the class in early September. We'll use a combination of their and my notes; and we'll plan on two days of intense lecture, a half-day mock exam and review period, and the afternoon of the third day everyone takes the actual test. They are planning to have six to ten seats, and the cost is still to be determined. I'm going to hang out the afternoon of the third day to either congratulate or mentor people as they exit the exam room. If everybody passes, the beers are on me (or Brad, if I can talk him into it). Keep an eye on CCBootcamps website for more details... --- Dennis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 11:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: OT - CCIE Written class [7:13666] Dennis, et. al. Appropriate for me now and sounds good to me - you have my vote. Ray CCNP/CCDP >Here's an idea I haven't seen floated about. How about a prep class for the >CCIE Written? I could put something together if enough people were >interested; it kind of sounds like fun... > >--- Dennis Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14060&t=14060 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For those studying VoIP/CVoice! [7:14061]
FYI I discovered this page on CCO by accident. Hope it helps those who are preparing for CVoice http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/788/voip/voip.shtml Greg Macaulay Oldest CCNP/CCDP on Earth Lifetime Member of AARP Retired Attorney/Law Professor Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14061&t=14061 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
YOU CAN BE A MILLIONAIRE! [7:14059]
AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TV: Making over half million dollars every 4 to 5 months from your home for an investment of only $25 U.S. Dollars expense one time THANK'S TO THE COMPUTER AGE AND THE INTERNET! == BE A MILLIONAIRE LIKE OTHERS WITHIN A YEAR!!! Before you say "Bull", please read the following. This is the letter you have been hearing about on the news lately. Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, a national weekly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of this program described below, to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved once and for all that there are "absolutely NO Laws prohibiting the participation in the program and if people can follow the simple instructions, they are bound to make some mega bucks with only $25 out of pocket cost". DUE TO THE RECENT INCREASE OF POPULARITY & RESPECT THIS PROGRAM HAS ATTAINED, IT IS CURRENTLY WORKING BETTER THAN EVER. This is what one had to say: "Thanks to this profitable opportunity. I was approached many times before but each time I passed on it. I am so glad I finally joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required. To my astonishment, I received a total of $610,470.00 in 21 weeks, with money still coming in." Pam Hedland, Fort Lee, New Jersey. === Here is another testimonial: "This program has been around for a long time but I never believed in it. But one day when I received this again in the mail I decided to gamble my $25 on it. I followed the simple instructions and walaa . 3 weeks later the money started to come in. First month I only made $240.00 but the next 2 months after that I made a total of $290,000.00. So far, in the past 8 months by re-entering the program, I have made over $710,000.00 and I am playing it again. The key to success in this program is to follow the simple steps and NOT change anything." More testimonials later but first, = PRINT THIS NOW FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE == $ If you would like to make at least $500,000 every 4 to 5 months easily and comfortably, please read the following...THEN READ IT AGAIN and AGAIN!!! $ FOLLOW THE SIMPLE INSTRUCTION BELOW AND YOUR FINANCIAL DREAMS WILL COME TRUE, GUARANTEED! INSTRUCTIONS: =Order all 5 reports shown on the list below = For each report, send $5 CASH, THE NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING and YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS to the person whose name appears ON THAT LIST next to the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE TOP LEFT CORNER in case of any mail problems. === When you place your order, make sure you order each of the 5 reports. You will need all 5 reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them. YOUR TOTAL COST $5 X 5=$25.00. Within a few days you will receive, vie e-mail, each of the 5 reports from these 5 different individuals. Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you. Also make a floppy of these reports and keep it on your desk in case something happen to your computer. IMPORTANT - DO NOT alter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list, in any way other than what is instructed below in step " 1 through 6 " or you will loose out on majority of your profits. Once you understand the way this works, you will also see how it does not work if you change it. Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter, it will NOT work !!! People have tried to put their friends/relatives names on all five thinking they could get all the money. But it does not work this way. Believe us, we all have tried to be greedy and then nothing happened. So Do Not try to change anything other than what is instructed. Because if you do, it will not work for you. Remember, honesty reaps the reward!!! 1 After you have ordered all 5 reports, take this advertisement and REMOVE the name & address of the person in REPORT # 5. This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting their fortune. 2 Move the name & address in REPORT # 4 down TO REPORT # 5. 3 Move the name & address in REPORT # 3 down TO REPORT # 4. 4 Move the name & address in REPORT # 2 down TO REPORT # 3. 5 Move the name & address in REPORT # 1 down TO REPORT # 2 6 Insert YOUR name & address in the REPORT # 1 Position. PLEASE MAKE SURE you copy every name & address ACCURATELY! == Take this entire letter, with the modified list of names, and save it on your computer. DO NOT MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES. Save this on a disk as wel
RE: OT - CCIE Written class [7:13666]
Dennis, et. al. Appropriate for me now and sounds good to me - you have my vote. Ray CCNP/CCDP >Here's an idea I haven't seen floated about. How about a prep class for the >CCIE Written? I could put something together if enough people were >interested; it kind of sounds like fun... > >--- Dennis Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14058&t=13666 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hey? [7:14048]
hello packet recieved... ;-) alejandro pelaez wrote: > hello??? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14057&t=14048 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cisco GSR12416 Vs Juniper M160 [7:14056]
> -Original Message- > From: Patriawan Carlos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 12:10 PM > Subject: Cisco GSR 12416 vs Juniper M160 > > > Cisco kick out Juniper again > > http://www.mier.com/reports/cisco/Cisco12400JuniperM160.pdf > > http://www.mier.com > >Any comment about thislet's share with us Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14056&t=14056 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: access lists [7:13928]
If CBAC is available, use it along with access-list ip inspect name tcp ip inspect name ucp It will give you a stateful firewall. -Michael "Joe Morabito" wrote in message ... >How can you apply an access list to a serial interface to block all internet >traffic without disabling the inside people from getting out? > >I have a 1720 with the serial deny ip any any and the ethernet uses an >inside >addressing scheme with nat to get to the outside. > >But when I apply the deny ip any any and access-group xxx in to the serial >interface, people can no longer get outside. Any ideas? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14043&t=13928 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ISDN,multy channels bundle [7:13943]
Does your ISP support Multilink? As it seems it does not allow you to form a Multilink bundle. Winway wrote: > Hi,all > > cisco 2610, 3 BRIs, I use it to connect to Internet. > I configure the interfaces like this, > > Interface BRI1/0 > no ip address > ip nat outside > encapsulation ppp > dialer rotary-group 0 > > Interface BRI1/1 > no ip address > ip nat outside > encapsulation ppp > dialer rotary-group 0 > > Interface BRI1/2 > no ip address > ip nat outside > encapsulation ppp > dialer rotary-group 0 > > Interface Dialer0 > ip address negotiated > ip nat outside > encapsulation ppp > dialer in-band > dialer idle-timeout 180 > dialer string xxx > dialer load-threshold 1 either > dialer-group 1 > ppp authentication pap callin > ppp pap sent-username xxx password xxx > > It will bring up all 6 B-channels,and I can connect to Internet via it. > But it seems only 1 channel is used because I found that the speed of the > ftp task cannot exceed 64K bits/second. > > Thinking the B-channels should be bundled up, I use "ppp multilink" for > Interface Dialer0 (right?). The B-channels can still be brought up, but > the PCs inside the E0/0 cannot connect to outside then. > > Anyone can help me? > Thanks in advance. > > Winway > > > _ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14050&t=13943 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: T1 [7:14054]
I found the answer Thanks, ""Santosh Koshy"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I keep hearing this all the time, but still have not found a definitive > answer... > can anyone explain the difference between chanellized / unchanellized T1. > > Thanks, > -- > Santosh Koshy > WAN Administrator Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14055&t=14054 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T1 [7:14054]
I keep hearing this all the time, but still have not found a definitive answer... can anyone explain the difference between chanellized / unchanellized T1. Thanks, -- Santosh Koshy WAN Administrator Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14054&t=14054 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A message from the CCIE Program [7:13789]
What a good idea. Maybe Cisco should search the archives for the negative posts and allow them a free go at the new lab. Bravo to the existing CCIE's who would have a pop at it, for nothing other than the good and benefit of the CCIE program. Is there any truth in the rumour that re-certification may be the new one day lab, or have I just made it up? :-) Gaz ""Anand Ghody"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > below is what I believe the source of this thread is about. It looks like > some else had > also e-mailed Lorne, except Lorne sent him two reports instead of just the > one from > Caslow as was done for me. Below is Mr. Remakers remarks. > > > Mr. Phil Remaker is one of the first people to achieve CCIE certification > and in 1995 > Mr. Remaker was > featured in a Wall Street Journal article focusing on > > the technical genius behind the exploding Internet. Mr. > Remaker is > > employed > > by Cisco Systems as a technical advisor. His reaction to > the improved > > CCIE > > lab exam were: > > > > > > "Well, first of all, to end the suspense, I failed the lab > with a score > of 34/100. This is not > unexpected, since I didn't study and have never worked much > with the > Catalyst switches. And taking a few > years off the day-to-day hands-on work really rusts your > skills. So > the good news is that the test is not > easy. > > > > It is also not impossibly hard. It is full of nuance and > interdependency, and has some very good > exercises in interfacing to external networks (IPX, BGP, > frame-relay) > and administrative issues > (filtering, redistribution, port security). Stuff you do > in one > section affects others, yet it is not so > interwoven that you cannot skip around and focus on ones > strengths. > Also, by dropping the mundane basic > config stuff, more time is focused on the things that > really test your > skills, not your ability to type in > tedoius information (people that fail to type in the > tedious info will > probably also fail the lab). > I had the luxury of reviewing the exam question by question with feedback > from Jeff and > Howard, and I gave > some feedback on how the questions might be clearer of how > the > scenarios might be tweaked. But on the > whole, the exam as it stands was very good, testing time > management, > documentation reading, and network > configuration skills. > > > > I did miss having the wiring just a little, but I think > that modern > networks are much more virtualized and > that wiring is less relevant in complex networks as > everything gets > VLANned. The ability to find a wiring > problem is still a serious skill, and I suggested that > maybe one of the > prewired networks be wired on the > wrong port and force people to find it 8-). > > > > The lack of partial credit killed me, too. I got SO CLOSE > on so many > of the questions! But I agree with > the policy, since subjectivity could kill the exam > credibility. You > might want to emphasize to candidates > (maybe you already do) that there is no partial credit. > > > > Another measure of a good exam is "Did I learn something > from taking > the exam?" The answer here is YES! I > learned about ISL and ATM (which I had never used before, > only read > about) and a little about > route-tagging and distribution lists that I had not > previously known. I > even learned about some Cisco > capabilities that I didn't know existed (port security). > > > > I am a believer in the one-day lab. Anyone CCIE that > thinks it > cheapens the CCIE should come in and try > to pass it. We should invite the anti-one-day activists to > come in and > take the test for free ONCE so > they can give us feedback. I think the test hits the mark. > > > > Thanks for inviting me in to try the exam. And thanks to > Jeff and > > Howard for their overtime to accommodate my San Jose > schedule. Kudos > to the exam authors." > > Enid Sorkowitz wrote: > > > I am posting this per Lorne Braddock's request. Please don't directly > > respond back to me or Lorne because we simply can't reply to everyone > > and don't want to appear disrespectful. > > > > Regards, > > > > Enid Sorkowitz > > Manager, Customer Service > > CCIE Program > > > > > -- -- > > > > The CCIE program team at Cisco Systems, Inc. recently announ
Re: Catalyst 6509 vs BlackDiamond [7:13837]
>Note carefully that this was a Layer 2 test! If this >was a layer 3 test the 6509's throughput would be even >lower. Compare this to Nortel's Passport 8600 switch >which will pass 96 million packets/sec in L2 or L3. I >would think that the throughput of the switches in the >core of most companies networks would be considered >under the heading of technical needs. At this price >point it is important to get what you're paying for in >terms of performance. Many vendors have their own definitions of performance -- under which -- surprise! -- they look best. The IETF's Benchmarking Technology Working Group (BMWG) http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/bmwg-charter.html tries to publish objective test definitions and methodologies for different kinds of products. For most forwarding, RFC2544 is the main reference, although there are assorted standards for specific technologies, such as firewalls, ATM, etc. Part of my current work for Nortel is on terminology and test methodology for BGP convergence, which is being done jointly with technical collaborators from Cisco, Juniper, and Nexthop. We are getting and considering comments from other router and test equipment vendors. See http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-00.txt and http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-bgpbas-00.txt I'd strongly urge people evaluating products to ask for the results of tests done using BMWG definitions, and use them as the primary means of comparison. True, there won't always be a relevant independent test, but it gives you a good starting point when there is one. > >Meanwhile Cisco has the gall to claim 256 GB/sec >throughput for the 6509 which is actually the sum >total of the aggregate I/O of all the blades in a >fully populated box multiplied by a factor of two >(on ingress and egress). > >Somehow people still don't seem to get it. I would be >ashamed to sell Catalysts to a customer knowing that >when they got it all in and the network performance >still s*cked it could mean his job. > >Caveat Emptor...let the buyer beware ! > >--- John Hardman wrote: >> Hi >> >> It's true. It's also true that in similar tests with >> a Foundry will also out >> perform a Cat. But keep in mind that a lot of this >> works out to be FUD. >> Sales people from each company will have various >> reasons why you should >> choose their product over the other. The bottom line >> is that you have to >> choose which is right for your company based on it's >> business and technical >> needs. >> >> Both Extreme and Foundry are making a strong push >> into Cisco's enterprise >> switch market share. Their products are very >> competitive, especially at the >> price point. If I could get switches with Foundry's >> architecture, Extreme's >> network management software and CLI, and Cisco's end >> to end solutions, I >> would be a very happy engineer! >> >> $0.02 >> -- >> John Hardman CCNP MCSE >> >> >> ""mishaal"" wrote in message >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> > How true is this? >> > Can anyone throw some light on this report from >> www.zdlabs.com, 70-80% >> > packet loss is rather substantial..hope it's not >> true! >> > thanks >> > >> > From ZDLAbs : >> > >> > " In Layer 2 mode, the Black Diamond and Alpine >> switches forwarded 100% >> > of the traffic offered during the test >> > without dropping a single packet. This resulted in >> a throughput of 57.1 >> > million packets/second for the Black >> > Diamond and over 38 million packets/second for the >> Alpine using 64-byte >> > packets. These results represent >> > the maximum throughput possible, given the port >> configurations of the >> > switches. >> > The Cisco Catalyst 6509 lost over 78% of the >> packets offered during the >> > Layer 2 full mesh test at the 64-byte >> > packet size. According to the Catalyst 6509 >> documentation, the 6509 >> > switch fabric is capable of forwarding >> > 15 million packets/second. This rate is >> substantially less than the 57.1 >> > million packets/second offered during > > > our test, which explains the large packet loss." >> > >> > 'The Black Diamond and Alpine switches >> successfully routed 100% of the >> > packets offered (over 5.7 billion >> > 64-byte packets) during the test without dropping >> a single packet. This >> > results in a Layer 3 throughput of >> > over 95.2 million packets/second for the Black >> Diamond and over 47.6 >> > million packets/second for the >> > Alpine with 64-byte packets. >> > The Layer 3 full mesh results for the Cisco >> Catalyst 6509 were very >> > similar to the Layer 2 results. The >> > switch dropped a large number of packets at all >> block sizes (86.86% with >> > 64-byte packets). As in the >> > previous tests with Catalyst 6509 we verified that >> the internal switch >> > counters matched the results from >> > the SmartFlow application and that there were no >> packet e
Re: Catalyst 6509 vs BlackDiamond [7:13837]
Note carefully that this was a Layer 2 test! If this was a layer 3 test the 6509's throughput would be even lower. Compare this to Nortel's Passport 8600 switch which will pass 96 million packets/sec in L2 or L3. I would think that the throughput of the switches in the core of most companies networks would be considered under the heading of technical needs. At this price point it is important to get what you're paying for in terms of performance. Meanwhile Cisco has the gall to claim 256 GB/sec throughput for the 6509 which is actually the sum total of the aggregate I/O of all the blades in a fully populated box multiplied by a factor of two (on ingress and egress). Somehow people still don't seem to get it. I would be ashamed to sell Catalysts to a customer knowing that when they got it all in and the network performance still s*cked it could mean his job. Caveat Emptor...let the buyer beware ! --- John Hardman wrote: > Hi > > It's true. It's also true that in similar tests with > a Foundry will also out > perform a Cat. But keep in mind that a lot of this > works out to be FUD. > Sales people from each company will have various > reasons why you should > choose their product over the other. The bottom line > is that you have to > choose which is right for your company based on it's > business and technical > needs. > > Both Extreme and Foundry are making a strong push > into Cisco's enterprise > switch market share. Their products are very > competitive, especially at the > price point. If I could get switches with Foundry's > architecture, Extreme's > network management software and CLI, and Cisco's end > to end solutions, I > would be a very happy engineer! > > $0.02 > -- > John Hardman CCNP MCSE > > > ""mishaal"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > How true is this? > > Can anyone throw some light on this report from > www.zdlabs.com, 70-80% > > packet loss is rather substantial..hope it's not > true! > > thanks > > > > From ZDLAbs : > > > > " In Layer 2 mode, the Black Diamond and Alpine > switches forwarded 100% > > of the traffic offered during the test > > without dropping a single packet. This resulted in > a throughput of 57.1 > > million packets/second for the Black > > Diamond and over 38 million packets/second for the > Alpine using 64-byte > > packets. These results represent > > the maximum throughput possible, given the port > configurations of the > > switches. > > The Cisco Catalyst 6509 lost over 78% of the > packets offered during the > > Layer 2 full mesh test at the 64-byte > > packet size. According to the Catalyst 6509 > documentation, the 6509 > > switch fabric is capable of forwarding > > 15 million packets/second. This rate is > substantially less than the 57.1 > > million packets/second offered during > > our test, which explains the large packet loss." > > > > 'The Black Diamond and Alpine switches > successfully routed 100% of the > > packets offered (over 5.7 billion > > 64-byte packets) during the test without dropping > a single packet. This > > results in a Layer 3 throughput of > > over 95.2 million packets/second for the Black > Diamond and over 47.6 > > million packets/second for the > > Alpine with 64-byte packets. > > The Layer 3 full mesh results for the Cisco > Catalyst 6509 were very > > similar to the Layer 2 results. The > > switch dropped a large number of packets at all > block sizes (86.86% with > > 64-byte packets). As in the > > previous tests with Catalyst 6509 we verified that > the internal switch > > counters matched the results from > > the SmartFlow application and that there were no > packet errors during > > the test." [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14051&t=13837 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hey [7:14047]
hello? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14047&t=14047 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hey? [7:14048]
hello??? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14048&t=14048 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
QUERY ON MOBILE IP [7:14046]
Hello all, I did one mobile ip scenario, but I'm not sure either my config is wrong or I tested wrongly. I have two routers, A and B, A as the HA, and B as the FA. How I tested is lik this: I configure my laptop ip address with 130.4.9.2 and gateway is 130.4.9.1, and then I moved my laptop to segment 130.4.14.0/24. (All the routing is OK), But when I try to ping 130.4.9.1 (,y home gateway) can't be successfull. I can only ping to 130.4.14.1 which is the gateway in FA. any comments are very appreciated, Grad HOME AGENT (HA) router mobile interface Ethernet0/1 ip address 130.4.9.1 255.255.255.0 no ip directed-broadcast ip mobile home-agent broadcast roam-access 5 access-list 5 permit any ip mobile host 130.4.9.2 130.4.9.10 interface Ethernet0/1 FOREIGN AGENT (FA) router mobile ip mobile foreign-agent care-of Ethernet0/1 interface Ethernet0/1 ip address 130.4.14.1 255.255.255.0 no ip directed-broadcast ip irdp ip irdp maxadvertinterval 10 ip irdp minadvertinterval 7 ip mobile foreign-service ip mobile registration-lifetime 3600 FA#sh debug IP routing: IP mobility events debugging is on IP mobility for mobile node debugging is on IP mobility agent advertisements debugging is on MobileIP: Ethernet0/1 add 130.4.9.2 rejected MobileIP: Ethernet0/1 add 130.4.9.2 rejected _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14046&t=14046 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: QUERY ON FRAME RELAY, Can't ping to it's own i [7:13875]
this make sense, thanks.. Grad >From: "Arthur Simplina" >Reply-To: "Arthur Simplina" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: QUERY ON FRAME RELAY, Can't ping to it's own i [7:13875] >Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 00:28:01 -0400 > >I am not an expert in frame relay but let me share my experience in the >classroom lab where we did this exercise on frame relay. > >I have the same situation where from the local router I can't ping the >interface that is connected to the frame relay. I also cannot ping the >ethernet ip address of another router in the other frame relay connection. > >I was asked that question why I can't ping the local interface with the >frame relay connection. I can't seem to find an answer but managed to say >that since the "ping command" is on the layer 3 and the serial interface in >encapsulated in frame relay (which is layer 2), so the ping command fails >as >it cannot locate the layer 3 ip address of the serial interface that is >mapped to the dlci which is layer 2. I hope that it makes sense and you got >my point. > >As to why I cannot ping the ethernet ip address of the other router, the >reason is that the ping source ip address carries the serial interface ip >address that is inversed mapped to the frame relay connection which it >cannot locate and that is why it fails. But if I do an extended ping >specifying the source ip address of the ethernet of the local router, the >ping is successful which means that I have a full connectivity across the >frame relay cloud to the other LAN segments of the other routers. > >Perhaps, a frame relay expert could clarify this further. > >Cheers, > >Art S. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14045&t=13875 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
